User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 12

Italics

There was extensive discussion when this was introduced, consensus was that it was OK for species names but not for other normally italicised items such as titles. It is however being used more widely. One for Village Pump I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Actually there is guidance on this. [1] says "Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles, but is used only in special cases. An example of such an exception is to produce italics for taxonomic names of genera and species." and further down that the only currently agreed use is for flora and fauna. Rich Farmbrough, 05:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Indeed it would, and also on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Someone did that) and.. well I have a list somewhere, although it's doubtless out of date. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

C-o-i edits

They may well be the same person. I've made a edit to remove the external link in the opening and correct the order of the sections. Looking at what they added it's not too bad. They seem to have stayed away from the usual promotional material that gives the usual COI away. They have obviously looked at Wikipedia a bit before they started editing as they not only added references (not the best) but also to use {{reflist}}. I would suggest asking them if they have a COI and keep a watch on them if they do. It's easier to work with them than end fighting and who knows they may like it here enough to stay and edit other things. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just thought. You may want to get them to reply either at their own talk page or at the articles talk page as they can't edit here. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake

Dear RepublicanJacobite,

I am not User:Contributor777, but I did just finish a Master's Thesis on William Blake and I can assure you Blake most certainly was an influence on Phillip Pullman and C.S.Lewis (the latter more by reacting against him). Since this other fellow is editing the box rather than the text, would one put a footnote directly in the box? Would one explain it on the talk page? Normally, boxes don't have footnotes in them. Perhaps influences could be a textual section of the article. --WickerGuy (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Phillip Pullman is actually mentioned in the WP article William Blake in popular culture, but not in the main article on Blake. The influence of Blake on Pullman is far more substantial & significant than that for C.S. Lewis which is marginal. Many themes from Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell are found in Pullman's trilogy of His Dark Materials, and Pullman has cited Blake as one of his key influences.

Of course, the influence of Blake on pop culture from the 1960s to the present is considerable (such as The Doors, Patti Smith and many others), and one may not want to clutter the box with too many pop artists. However, Pullman is very well-known and Blake's influence on him is fairly pivotal to the core concepts of the Dark Materials trilogy. Ergo, I would consider inclusion of Pullman justified, though not the inclusion of C.S. Lewis.
Regards, --WickerGuy (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Waits/Dr Parnassus

You're not seriously going to keep on removing this are you? It's released today and there is no debate about the size of his part. Alan16 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that logic is wrong for many reasons. For one a film doesn't need to have been released in the US for it to be included - it has been released here in the UK and in a couple of other European countries. Also, Waits has arguably been more successful in Europe than he has been in the US. Second, he is very well-known for his role in the film. What with the fact that Ledger died half way through shooting, this film garnered huge media coverage, and as the actor with the second or third biggest part he was talked about a lot during it. The film is his biggest role and his most well-known role (considering all the coverage/size of part and hence included in the trailer which you see numerous times a day on British TV). Alan16 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Empyria

Hi RepublicanJacobite, I am a single editor User:empyria adding the page for Empyria, I am not part of the band although I know the founding member personally. I copied the page from Thor (band) as a similar example and modified the relevant text and references. In fact the founding member of Empyria plays in Thor (band) and so I have amended Thor (band) page to cross ref Empyria. The page simply mentions facts and discography about the band as opposed to subjective ramblings about being the best prog group on the planet. It also has external refs (AMG) and Rockdetector and therefore meets WP:BAND requirements which I believe was the initial issue. Empyria (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Of matters red and green

Interested on your take on the Irish–Spanish Civil War articles; discussion here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cash

Hi. I had understood that the Wiki way is to delete subsequent references to his first name, other than in quotes. Do you have a different understanding? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have never heard of that. Can you tell me what the source is for your understanding? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you go ... [2]. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've seen that approach in the guideline, but its not a major point w/me. Just thought perhaps you had seen I guideline I had not. Not a problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Malia Obama

Yeah, I just saw that on AN a few minutes ago. I'll keep an eye on it; Unitanode dropped a final warning on the user's talk page, so I'll block if they edit disruptively again. Thanks for the heads up, though! Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets 04:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we can clear things up. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets 04:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Angola

Bugger. Now you've gone and made me log in. I hate logging in.

I said -- and meant -- only that, if you reverted my edit again, I would not contest it, which might have led you to break 3RR. The religious demography of Angola is not worth having an edit war over, even if the section is one of the worst-written sections I've ever seen on the Project. (Frankly, it's not worth the amount of time I've put into it, and I certainly won't be doing any more after this note.) As it is, someone else reverted it instead, so meh. 3RR is safe.

I believed initially that there was a good chance that your revert of my edits had been accidental, or even automated, so I made them again and posted the note I did. Had your revert been intentional, I reasoned, it would have been bizarrely inexplicable. Turns out it was, in fact, bizarrely inexplicable. Let's go through the problems with the bits I edited:

1. Numbers from something called the "World Christian Database" -- a source not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article of its own, whose original datasets aren't even accessible to the public (they come to us via a secondary source which claims to have accurately transcribed them), and whose numbers differ in the extreme from all other credible sources -- are listed first, above statistics from the CIA World Factbook, one of the most recognized and reliable demographic sources on Earth. That's insane.

2. Some of the "sources" are, literally, empty broken links! Removing a broken link does not require discussion! It's an embarrassment to the encylopedia to leave them up more than ten minutes after they've been noticed!

3. Other sources that are "cited" make absolutely none of the claims claimed in the section -- particularly the last paragraph, which is, as far as I can tell, completely fabricated by someone who doesn't like Catholics!

4. Still other sources simply don't do anything to establish the claim they supposedly support -- a list of Presbyterian grant programs establishes neither that Protestant sects in general are active in missionary work, nor that the Catholics are inactive!

There are about a half-dozen other problems -- the unsourced third paragraph, the poor writing, the deliberate grouping of all "Christian" sects together rather than breaking them out by denomination as everyone else in demography does, and more -- that call for the immediate rewrite of the entire section, but I took the bare minimum steps in my five minutes between classes to fix the most critical problems and make the section reflect actual true facts instead of the fantastic, unsupported, incredible claims you have insisted on keeping.

I do care about the encyclopedia, which is why I do that sort of work. I do not care for the encylopedia enough to expend energy pushing against pigheaded editors so married to process they won't allow the wikignomes to do basic maintenance without stuffing it through a consensus meeting on the Talk page. I know you've done good work here; people don't get barnstars on WP for nothing, and I thank you for that work. But this is stupid. So do what you will; I've said my piece. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Familyconspiracy

Given the "check out our website" link at the end, I deleted the userpage as advertising. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism assist

Hey there. I wanted to say thanks for your help in dealing with the vandal that hit my user page earlier. I never even saw it happen, but I'm glad that you and Marek69 took care of things. The user has been blocked for 31 hours, so we'll see what happens after that. Your assistance was much appreciated. If I may ask, how did you know it was going on? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm very glad you did catch it. The editor's first edits seem to suggest a vandalism-only account, and I'm one of the first to assume good faith, where possible. I'll be keeping an eye on this editor, and if something "interesting" happens, I'll keep ya posted. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it!

Thanks for alerting me to that talk page...don't know how I missed it!  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for (very nicely) pointing out important things about editing that should have been obvious to me. I will be more punctual. Really. --Avidmosh (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sarcastic, just n00bishly careful with my manners and grammar ;) --Avidmosh 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidmosh (talk • contribs)

Troll

See the comments I made here if you haven't noticed already. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When he used the word, that was when I stopped giving a damn. Seriously, what is it with me lately? I seem to have some sort of cyber-pheromone that says "sockpuppets and vandals, come here and I'll waste my time helping you get started on Wikipedia only to watch you be blocked two days later". It's annoying when that happens. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I do that too, don't worry. :P I was thinking of signing up to be an adopter to help the new recruits make their beds with hospital corners, but this garbage along with another user (and possibly a third too) has made me start to think otherwise about wasting my time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but my life has forged a very cynical person out of me. I mean, the first thing that ran through my mind when I read your barnstar was "yeah, how often does that happen?" I'll reconsider becoming an adopter, but I'm still not sure about it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Yield (band)

I left the talk page on purpose while there was, IMO, constructive discussion going on. Once it ceased to be constructive, and once the conversation had slowed down, I went ahead and deleted it. Don't worry about the tone. I don't think I took it harsher than you meant it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Inga Newson

Hi there! Just wanted to give you the heads up that I removed the CSD tag from Inga Newson because both the article's content and related Google hits would move this past the A7 standard (i.e. credible claim of importance or significance). I would suggest another deletion method such as AfD to determine consensus on notability (on which I'm still on the fence about). Singularity42 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

This kind of comment was not helpful to the discussion on the article talkpage.[3] Remember, it's important to discuss content, not contributors. This becomes even more crucial when participating in an article about a controversial topic. Would you be willing to consider refactoring your comment, to help keep the discussion focused on article content? Thanks, --Elonka 05:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Elonka 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu Mythos references

You seem to have assumed ownership of this article, and constantly revert every addition or attempt to add to it. I've noticed many valid additions be reverted because they don't meet your standards. Gpia7r (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you consider to be "ok" to add to the article. References that are clearly inspired by the Cthulhu series should be fine... and there are many... but you revert every one of them. What is it you're looking for in your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpia7r (talk • contribs) (13:57, 30 November 2009)

The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) request

I wanted to let you know I moved your request to move The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) from the uncontroversial section of Wikipedia:Requested moves to the controversial section since it is "clearly" not a uncontroversial move and there is a reasonable possibility it could be opposed. Aspects (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello RepublicanJacobite. See WP:AN3#User:RepublicanJacobite reported by User:Jimsteele9999 (Result: ). I see an experienced editor and a newcomer slugging it out on a small article, with apparently no intention to stop. Please post at the noticeboard your willingness to stop the war, since blocking both parties would be an attractive solution for admins. I do see some personal attacks from the other guy, and if you stop and he chooses not to, there will be repercussions. Incidentally, in my personal opinion the fish *is* important. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

RepublicanJacobite, I see that you have been going through several articles and reverting an established editor.[4][5] I have no opinion on whether the reverts are appropriate or not, but I really must insist that when making reverts of this nature, especially in a controversial topic area, that you also engage in discussion at the article's talkpage. It doesn't need to be an extensive post, but really, some attempt must be made. Thanks, --Elonka 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus wept, this place is going totally to the dogs these days. I originally removed the addition that Irvine made with an informative edit summary. This was then reverted by Irvine with no edit summary. RJ then reverted per me, which is obviously giving a reason for the revert. So to sum up:

1. One editor reverted an established editor (that's me, for the record) with no explanation at all.
2. One editor reverted Irvine (who's hardly an established editor) using a previous reason as an explanation.

So which editor do you choose to harangue? Yes, obviously the second one not the first, that makes as much sense as a fireguard made of chocolate. Seeing as it's obviously the season for insisting, I insist you investigate things properly before shooting your mouth off, and I also insist you read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Editing policy - specifically the parts about edit summaries and how if there's not enough space to use the talk page. Some editors are required to specifically discuss reversions on the talk page as a result of ArbCom cases, for example the Lapsed Pacifist case, however there's no comparable restriction available for admins to impose as a result of The Troubles case or any community imposed sanctions. There is no policy based reason as to why anyone should obey your dictats, as in fact policy says the exact opposite. If you want to change policy you know where to go, but until then you're not making up your own rules so stop haranguing people for the heinous crime of reverting someone with an edit summary while simultaneously ignoring the editor who reverts without an edit summary.

While I'll happily admit that discussions about edits shouldn't take place in edit summaries, policy fully allows a reversion to be made with an edit summary and no discussion on the talk page. Should further discussion need to take place, there's always the talk page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this comment. This user/editor has habit of deleting large parts of articles without discussions (by himself but calls others to his defense) but based on their perceived experience at wiki editing not the will of the readers or contributors. See the large text removal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Simple_living#Major_Article_Trimming Please accept this a criticism as multiple people are starting to notice. Frankk74 (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, what you are talking about, and what Elonka is talking about, are two very different things. As for your link, as you can very well see, another editor agreed with my edits, and did not need any prompting from me. So, in future, get your facts straight. Furthermore, mind your own business. Please do not comment further on this talk page, on this, or any other, topic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, the purpose of talkpages is to allow communication, such as to discuss changes to the encyclopedia, and bring up concerns. You can't just order someone to stop posting, as long as they are posting in a relevant and civil way. --Elonka 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and have seen numerous examples of people requesting that other people not leave messages on their talk pages. Given that he had nothing positive to say, that the link provided did not back up his comments, that he is essentially mistaken in what he says, etc., I feel I am justified in saying I have no interest in any further communication. Any messages he leaves will be removed without comment. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I too have seen people requesting that others not leave messages on their talkpages. But that doesn't mean they have any authority to do so. In any case, you are correct, that if you do not wish to have messages from someone on your talkpage, you are welcome to remove them without comment. You are under no obligation to reply. --Elonka 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like more drastic measures may be needed if this carries on. Apparently deciding to follow policy instead of kowtowing to the demands of an admin cum judge/jury/executioner whose methods seems to be "do as I say, or else" is grounds for sanctions these days. Time for me to impart some knowledge for reasons which won't be immediately apparent, but stick around as you might learn something:

• Boxing used to be in booths in fairgrounds. Usually the resident rather skilled boxer would take on challenges from all comers, usually locals will next to no chance but willing to pay for the chance. Now the resident boxer could despatch 90% of his opponents inside the first 30 seconds if he really chose to do so, but he didn't because he understood the nature of the hustle. If he just knocked them out straight away one after another his action would dry up, when he really wants to encourage action. People involved in any sport where gambling is involved understand the nature of the hustle. Make sure your opponent thinks he has a chance of beating you, as then they'll be willing to have a rematch ideally for bigger stakes so in the end you achieve greater returns by feigning weakness.

• I assume you're familiar with chess, and have heard of a sacrifice? The best sort of sacrifice is one that doesn't actually look like a sacrifice, but looks more like you've made a mistake. Your opponent seizes upon your mistake, then shortly after realises your move was actually a ploy which gave you the tactical advantage. Whether it be a disguised one or an obvious one it can be an incredibly effective strategy, as The Game of the Century demonstrates.

• Now for one of my all time favourites. A cop who's been catching criminals for years pulls someone in for an interrogation. The cop is a veteran, and although he's got no real hard evidence he's plenty of circumstantial evidence and he's confident that adding that to his interrogation technique will be enough to induce a confession. The cop starts trying to break the suspect down, and he judges that by his increasingly uncomfortable body language that he's beginning to crack. So the cop keeps the pressure on, and builds up to his big crescendo with what he knows is the crucial piece of circumstantial evidence - the eyewitness who saw the suspect leaving the scene of the crime. And how does the suspect react to this? He smirks and says, "I was there yeah, so what?" Suddenly the cop realises he's overplayed his hand. The suspect feigned weakness all the way through in order to induce the cop to reveal the evidence he had, then right at the crucial time realises the cop had nothing.

Spot the common denominator? The skilled tactician feigned weakness using plenty of background noise to confuse his opponent in order to make his opponent over-commit. The so-called incivil comment was there for a specific reason, to distract. If I just stick to the key points you may be able to work out my strategy, but throw in some background noise to distract and you miss what's actually going on here. And what is going on here then exactly?

You allege that a single administrator can employ any sanctions they want against any editor, article or topic they see fit. I'm glad you said that as I really hoped you would, since you said the exact opposite here. In case you're struggling to find the relevant part of that post, how about "This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems"? So you admit there in black and white that administrators cannot issue discretionary sanctions unless they are authorised by ArbCom (and the community I'll grant you too, for the sake of thoroughness). So isn't it strange that if, as you allege, you can employ any sanction you want already, that you would feel the need to have to waste ArbCom's time by making them deal with an amendment that gives you certain powers in one specific topic area when you later allege you've got God-like powers across the entire project?

Maybe you think the community gives you those powers already based on the rather ambiguous one-liner over at Wikipedia:General sanctions? It doesn't say "any uninvolved administrator" it says "administrators" as in plural, but that's maybe just my interpretation. I wonder what the community's interpretation of that line would be, and whether they would agree with a single admin having powers to issue any sanction they feel like? Do you think we should ask them? Oh wait, silly me, the community have already been asked that exact question as you know full well isn't that correct? Doesn't Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions ring any bells, seeing as you contributed to the page after all? It's quite remarkable that despite the community rejecting the proposal that gives a single admin power to issue any sanction they feel like that you seem to think the opposite is true, how can this be explained? Obviously while explaining that you would also need to explain why you saw the need to waste ArbCom's time with a frivolous amendment that gives you no extra powers compared to the ones you already claim to have? Or you could just admit that you were in fact rather mistaken? In case you've not worked out from what's been said already, I plan ahead and there is actually a third path you could try and walk along. However my planned response to that attempt will in fact reveal that path is a dead end, so rather than even wasting valuable time going in that direction let's just stick to the options I've covered already.

And just as a footnote you would have a hard time making those sanctions stick when they are appealed. Unless the article in question is in the middle of an edit war which you happen to join in then reverting once, with an edit summary and not ignoring any open discussion on the talk page, cannot in any definition of the term be classed as disruptive and requiring an editor to be sanctioned. Thousands upon thosuands of edits are reverted once with an edit summary each and every day, if that isn't Wikipedia running smoothly then I'm a banana! If you're so confident you're right put it up for community discussion rather than taking unilateral action, I'd enjoy seeing you get laughed off a noticeboard for suggesting sanctioning an editor for reverting an article once with an edit summary. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack's evidence above is damning and indicates to me that you don't have the power to order editors to do whatever you say. If you wish to try and impose sanctions on me, I recommend going to AN or ANI, and explaining that you want to impose sanctions on an editor for reverting an article once, with an explanation in the edit summary, and let's see what the community has to say. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)