User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 19

Hi there, Just saw the pic you posted in the motorcycle leathers article of your motorbike jacket. I've been looking for a jacket of this style for ages. Where did you get it. If you get a chance, please drop me a line at RyanAB@GMail.com.

Thanks!

Help

I and others feel bamboozled on the Israel page, our sumbissions are quickly reverted, vandalism tags are posted on our talk pages and now when I added a {{fact}} tag to certain sections they were removed WITHOUT any citations or reasons and I was labeled a vandal. I'm pretty new to wikipedia and do not know much power to use the rules to make things right. I just do notr think asking for citations is vandalism. I hope someone can help inject a NPOV stance in this article as right now it suffers from a serious one sided perspective and is controled by POV driven admins who "own" the article. Thanks in advance, --Oiboy77 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) See: [[1]] [[2]]

Odd Irish peerages...

I stumbled across this earlier today: Irish Earls of Dublin. It looks a bit odd to me; the deletion discussion here has suggested it feels like "smoke and mirrors to support a pretender to a title", which may well be the case. Unfortunately, beyond the fact that there was one, I know nothing about the old Irish peerage - but it occured to me that you probably do. Any chance you could have a look at the article and see if it's got a basis in reality? Shimgray | talk | 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_21#Category:Articles_lacking_sources. —Viriditas | Talk 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag

Hi, I've had to unblock Guy Montag due to being involved in the discussion on the page, could you review the ban and reapply it if you think it appropriate? - FrancisTyers · 12:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have dug out copyvio's by the dozen, see here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc It only covers the first three sections, the remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag (inserted by others), although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have filled it as a ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier_Yassin, for violation of his probation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish Recognition.

I can see what you're saying but I think it's the difference between 'courtesy' and law. In the same way many french peers are known as marquis etc when they usually only hold a barony or peers are often called by their titles abroad without having to prove their titles. Even various American documents use peers titles but that use doesn't make such titles legal there.

The Irish Constitution bans creation of or acceptance (without permission) of titles but doesn't mention the status of any existing British titles at all. Nor does it say anything about the preservation of any believed ancient Irish titles. So you can say that they are not abolished but equally that they are not legally stated to exist either.

You are perfectly correct to say that several members of the Seanad were peers (Earl of Granard and the Countess of Desart come to mind) and called as such but that's not legal recognition but courtesy again.

The Altamont case is not different from the above courtesy - other countries have certainly mentioned titles of foreigners in their legislation but thats not confirming it validity. The Act gets his title somewhat wrong anyway "Honourable Jeremy Ulick Browne, commonly called Lord Altamont" The Hon is just as much courtesy as the Lord Altamont. It should be the same as 'Edward William Fitzalan Howard Esquire commonly called Earl of Arundel and Surrey'

If you can cite an Irish court awarding a peerage to anyone (which was what the afd was about and the context of my reply) I'd certainly be interested.

The Chief herald is interesting but valid only to a point. My understanding is that the Chief Herald from the first was quite clear that this was a courtesy and that he had no legal right or power behind him to legally make such rulings - unlike his position wrt granting of arms. Such 'recognitions' of Irish Chief's have anyway stopped after the embarrassment over Mac Carthy Mór hoax. I believe that the Attorney General has also stated as I have above that he doesn't believe such recognitions could be valid in Irish law. Alci12 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CoA

OK if you say so but German, French, Italian, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Hebrew and many more Wikipedias all use the version I have put in here as well. Irish WP uses some third version which is IMO the worst of all three. --Avala 20:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:4courtsbomb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:4courtsbomb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Benedikte, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

Hi Jtdirl;

Can you move Benedikte, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg back to Princess Benedikte of Denmark? There was no request move made for the page and the most common title for the Princess is the Danish one. A similar issue is occurring at Princess Birgitta of Sweden. Charles 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One more move request, you must be the move master... Would it be possible for you to move Talk:Benedikte, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg back to Talk:Princess Benedikte of Denmark. For some reason, it didn't make the move with the main page. Thanks again for all of your help. Prsgoddess187 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aidan

OK. I can see that he rather does fancy that expresson "Lake of Fire". You must understand that I too did not like some of Kiand's tactics. When contributing to the Ian Paisley article, I did feel that Kiand was rather biased on the topic, and did try to "paint myself and others into a corner". Wallie 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess that handling personal attacks is a skill you learn on WP. Aidan probably went "overboard" on some of his remarks. I guess I have come to a point that nothing much upsets me any more. It is very difficult to shift bias though, especially when the majority believe this. You win some. You lose some.Wallie 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Excuse me? What the hell do you mean that you have given me my last warning? Where was the first one? I have moved TWO pages, as per wiki protocols. I have always respected you as a user, seeing your edits on many pages I have edited, but this is ridiculous. Are you familiar with Assume Good Faith? I did something to conform with the Wikipedia naming protocols and I reveieve an angry rant about vandalism and blocking on my talk page? I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia trying to better the place, and being accused such and called a vandal is deeply hurtful. I have never been warned before, let alone a "final warning", and I did fix all the redirects initially. For a block to be threatened....I thought better of you and Wikipedia as a whole... Yanksta x 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will admit I have moved a number of pages, but the ONLY other objection I can think of was about a redirect mistake I made a long time ago. No-one has ever objected and I have usually commented on why I have done something If I have, and dealt with the situation if there were any problems. I have so far seen very few objections, and I therefore apologize for not going through the entire procedure when it seemed that my move was entirely correct not objected to. Nonetheless, if this was such an issue, I would have preferred to have been told about any major chaos it was causing before, so that I could stop and help rectify it, rather than being suddenly attacked. Yanksta x 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I geddit now. Anyway, I'm sorry for any chaos and I hope I can help fix it. Btw, is it permissible to add modifiers duch as "of Denmark" or :of France" where they are not included but are correct?

Áras image

Sorry about that. I was only going through Category:Fair use image replacement request. If you want to get mad at anyone, talk to User:Dbenbenn who tagged the image. howcheng {chat} 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to say your fears are unwarranted, but as I deal primarily with images these days, that worries me too. However, like I said on the TFD page, maybe we can let this run for a few weeks and see what happens. Maybe you're right and we'll just get a bunch of images uploaded that we can't use, but maybe we won't (and maybe nothing much will happen either). howcheng {chat} 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

The Freddie Mercury Article has been suffering from severe edit war for a few days now. I have tried to reason with user Craptacular however he keeps pushing his own POV and agenda. I was wondering if you could come and review the case and perhaps try to convince him to join the discussion instead of editing and taking out referenced facts. This is the first time I am actually going to an admin regarding this matter and I am not sure how to deal with this situation. Thank you.

IONA

I suggest we bag it for awhile on the isles talk page, there's plenty of reading material there for other editors comment on. I'll leave the article alone for a week or so and see what happens. By the way that "cop out" crack was for making me search fo "cop-on" (i'm still trying to figure out "plump stick".)EricR 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment Templates

I note your move against Assesment Templates at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Project_Catholicism_101 and I agree with it. A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Let_me_ask_one_question. I understand what the issue is and I am glad others are fighting to get this sorted out. --WikiCats 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on fantasy royalty

As of this note, User:82.54.226.55 has made edits to three articles (whihc I have reverted) pushing the "claim" of "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza" and "Rosario of Braganza". Charles 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You can add User:82.54.247.80 to that list as well. Charles 15:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reinsert in Duarte Pio page the exclusion of the Miguel descendants from the succession and the esxclusion of Duarte also because he is born Swiss. So you consider Maria Pia no rights to succession because illegittimate but you remember also Duarte Pio has no rights to succession for these TWO reasons, and not only one as Maria Pia. Please became impartial also if you want hide the hystorical truth of the Royal House of Portugal.

Not only one as Maria Pia? The one being, even if she was a daughter of a king, she is an adulterine bastard? Jtdirl, add User:82.54.227.160 to the list. Charles 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional sockpuppets

I am quite sure that all of the following are all sockpuppets of banned user M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 82.48.233.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.52.183.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.226.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.227.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.228.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

With edits to the following pages:

• Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza
• Hilda Toledano (protected as of this posting)
• Prince of Beira

Charles 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Can me explain why a user continue to delete the paragraph "opposition to Duarte Pio claims" in Duarte Pio of Braganza page? Duarte Pio is a descendant of the king Miguel that is perpetually excluded with all his descendants from the last monarchic constitution. Duarte Pio is also a swiss so also for this excluded from the last constitution. Duarte Pio served and swore fidelty to Repubblic when he become an Air Force Lieutenant in Angola from 1968 to 1971 and so also for this is excluded from the succession. For all these facts he is not considered the legitimare head of the Royal house of Portugal or duke of Braganza from the only Monarchic Party in Portugal, the P.P.M. - Popular Monarchic Party. So please explain me why these users( 2 or 3 that are only miguelist declared supporters ) want delete or hide this reality in Duarte Pio page only because is not convenient for their pretender while at the contrary continue to defame Maria Pia page. They want hide Maria Pia as pretender also in "Duke of Braganza" page so they continue to delete in this page the name of Maria Pia. She was the daughter of the king Charles,this is declared with the sentence of the Tribunal of Sacra Romana Rota in 1982, she is portuguese, there was a document (and this was confirmed from the impartial tribunal of Romana Rota ) that declared the king Charles attributed, to his beloved daughter Maria Pia, all the honours, privileges, and rights of the Infants of Portugal.She is a pretender so please delete to her page the categorie "impostor pretenders" and also in pretender page in the "fake pretenders" the name of Maria Pia and her heir because they are considered from many and many portuguese royalists the only rightfull heir to Portuguese Crown. Only the miguelist supporters logically considered Maria Pia as fake pretender because they want hide Maria Pia claims only to defende the pretender Duarte Pio. M. 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

your recent revert

You just reverted Rainier III, Prince of Monaco. Are you aware that SuperJumbo is going around changing date styles? I would have thought that as someone who was around for the great date wars you would not encourage that sort of behavior, even when it results in a style you'd prefer. - Nunh-huh 18:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Images from years gone by

Check out your contributions to the image space from around 2003 or so. I'd love it if you could tag some sources on some of them. Like, Image:It-liffy-bg.jpg, for example. It just says "image of the Four Courts - no copyright" and someone tagged it as {{PD}}. If you remember anything about those old images where you didn't specify where they were from, and could go back and provide that information, that'd be great. Thanks. Kevin_b_er 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's try something else here. Anywhere you've uploaded a picture and stated "no c/r" or "no copyright" along with "my picture" or "my photo", is a photograph you've released to the public domain, correct? Kevin_b_er 03:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Cleaning up old photos is exactly what I'm trying to do. Currently, trying to (slowly) empty out the outdated {{PD}} template, plus add sources to images if possible, before someone goes and does something silly like tag them all with no source templates or something. Also, ah hah!, you are 'FearÉIREANN'! Never looked at your username till now. Anyways, thanks for the info on the status of your photos. Kevin_b_er 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Maria Teresa

Morning Jtdirl,

Do you think you could find out what happened to this article? I tried to figure it out, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Somehow Maria Teresa, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and all usual redirects, Maria Teresa Mestre and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg, have been deleted, and the above article created. And the new article is in much worse shape than the "lost" version.

Thanks again for all your help, and have a great day.

Prsgoddess187 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will see what information I can find, rework it to avoid such copyright violations, and add it back in. I would rather have no article than the crap that is there now.

Thanks again, Prsgoddess187 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please be more careful with copyvios

First of all, I would like to express my regret that this incident took place; doubtlessly, I will take more care in the future. However, at the time the article was deleted it was like this; there was very little material that was not from here (there were no categories and there was no template at the time). That being said, it looks like there was a small amount (I was able to find 2 sentences) of non-copyvio material, and this is unfortunate. I must have saw that the vast majority of the article was a copyright violation and incorrectly assumed that the rest of it was also.

I am confused by your remark "you don't delete pages with copyvios," as Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins seemed to say otherwise. Perhaps the page should be amended? I will not do any more work on WP:CP until we can reach an understanding on the appropriate way to deal with copyvios.

Thank you so much for telling me about this, and in such a polite way too! I really really appreciate it. -- Where 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected factual errors about Brian Farrell's wife.

Hi there

I fixed some errors about Brian Farrell's wife on his page. She's my Mum, so I know what I put in is correct!

Bernard

Image talk:Nigel havers203 203x152.jpg

I'm not sure what this was really all about, but I notice that we edit-conflicted when you changed what you wanted to say. I remain unclear on where you stand on this -- are we in agreement that the image is not okay? Jkelly 02:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Jt,

Their is an ongoing discussion and disageement regarding Cities in Ireland. Their is even a vote been taken on it and it seems on editor is insistant that consensus should overide verifibility. Any comments are welcome at talk:Cities in Ireland.

Djegan 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Duisburg Dude identical with Elvis fan Ted Wilkes?

There is something going on that looks very suspicious to me. A new user named Duisburg Dude has now appeared on the scene and most of his contributions to the Elvis Presley article are mass deletions. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. It seems as if this is another user account only created to harass me. Significantly, this new user calls Elvis an American icon (see [13]) and emphasizes that Elvis's funeral was a national media event. See [14]. One of his contributions to the article is that, according to the "Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation" the photo of President Nixon meeting Elvis Presley in the Oval Office is the most requested image in the history of the U.S. Government. See [15]. All this suggests that Elvis is the personal icon of this user and that he is pushing an agenda. Significantly, most parts of the relationships section and all references to Elvis's male friendships which were well sourced have now been removed. Nonsensical fan stuff such as the section on "Elvis lives" is still in the article. What the hell is going on there? Could it be that this is another sockpuppet of multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, who frequently harassed me in the past and has been blocked by you for one year? Interestingly, new user Duisburg Dude is also contributing to the Suzanne Finstad, the Elvis and Me, the Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley and the Priscilla Presley articles, as Ted Wilkes did before he was blocked. See [16], [17], [18], [19]. I think it is not acceptable what is going on there. Perhaps you can help? Onefortyone 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a few additional words about User:Lochdale who has also contributed under the IPs 83.71.77.27 and 63.85.72.242. To my mind, this user identity also seems to have been created in order to remove my contributions (see [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] etc. etc.) or to attack and debase me and my edits on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]). If you look at the contribution history of this user (see [74]), he is frequently "dropping in" and either involved in deleting my contributions or constantly repeating the same accusations over and over again, namely, claiming that my sources are not reliable, that my quotations are out of context, that over 2000 books on Elvis do not mention what I have written (how should he know this, as he has not yet quoted from a single book on Elvis), etc. etc., though I have cited dozens of independent books and articles, among them publications by reputable Elvis biographers and university studies, in order to support my edits. This is also very similar to the strategies my old opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes used in the past. It should be noted that some months ago User:Ted Wilkes created different sockpuppets in order to push his agenda and to delete my contributions (see [75] and [76])? It should further be noted that another alias of Ted Wilkes, user DW, created many more sockpuppets in the past, reappearing time and again after being blocked (see [77]). Interestingly, one of these sockpuppets was Nightcrawler, a name borrowed from an obscure Marvel comic book superhero (see [78]). Significantly, user Lochdale is also interested in the same comics, as, apart from deleting material from the Elvis Presley article, he also contributing to Thor (Marvel Comics) (and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)) which deals with another fictional superhero published by Marvel Comics. What a coincidence! I recommend that some administrators should keep a watchful eye on the activities of these two users. Onefortyone 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for blocking User:Duisburg Dude, the new sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes. Just an additional question: Is there a way to reinstate all the paragraphs of the Elvis Presley article this user has deleted on 5 August? See [79] or [80]. The removed passages are not yet restored, as some other users have contributed to the page after these mass deletions. Thank you for your help. Onefortyone 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Edwardsig.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Edwardsig.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 21:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Hilda_Toledano

I have reverted your vandalism on this page. The Wikipedia:Vandalism official policy specifically includes "Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism." I believe that you are an administrator; if that is the case, then you should know this. Noel S McFerran 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing contributions placed through sockpuppets by banned users is WP policy and has long been policy. Their edits of articles are also reverted on sight and any articles they create are deleted on sight, unread. If you had bothered to check the facts you would know that the user in question is not allowed to edit this site. Your owe me an apology for your slur. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)}

On a related note, would you consider changing Rosario Poidimani into a (protected) redirect to Hilda Toledano? That seems slightly more useful to me than the present situation, and not inappropriate (since he's only notable as her supposed successor). Choess 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

?? Why didn't you just say you were the first major contributor? That would have solved it unambiguously! Are you just looking for a fight? Isn't there enough of that in the world?

In any event, I humbly submit my apology. If you were the first contributor, you most likely would have used some version of British English (what you incorrectly refer to as "International English"). And that's the spelling the article should have now, and in the future. For the record, Germans (I'm German, so I know!) do not always use British English. Most Germans in academia use American English, or some hybrid of Oxford and American English --[User:Samuel Webster|Samuel Webster]] 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lott

I see that you deleted an article on Eric Lott based on who created it. The article looks to me to have been entirely correct; Lott certainly deserves an article. Is there any rule against my restoring the material? Is there some particular way I should proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (on my user talk page). - Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude are identical with user Lochdale

IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:Ted Wilkes and somehow related to the "copyrighted trademark owned by EPE" (i.e. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.), as this edit proves: [81]

IP 66.61.69.65 deleted comments by other users from talk pages (see [82], [83]) and seems to be a gay basher. See [84].

IP 24.165.212.202 seems to be related both to IP 66.61.69.65 and to hardbanned user DW, as IP 24.165.212.202 deleted these passages from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, which, among other things, mentioned that User:NightCrawler is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], etc. IP 66.61.69.65 repeatedly removed exactly the same passages from the same talk page: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], etc. This certainly shows that IPs 24.165.212.202 and 66.61.69.65 must be identical.

IP 66.61.69.65 also removed other critical contributions from the Elvis Presley talk page (see [106], [107]) and this IP confirms to know a lot about Bill E. Burk and what he has written on Elvis, as IP 66.61.69.65 says, "Perhaps you need to contact Elvis historian and former Memphis entertainment reporter Bill E Burk. He has several highly accliamed Elvis books in print. and he was a personal friend as well..." See [108]

To sum up: IP 66.61.69.65 admits to be in close contact with many of Elvis's friends, former employees and family, and claims that Elvis, while married, slept with hundreds of other women, that his step-mother Dee is mentally unstable, etc. (see [109]). IP 24.165.212.202 similarly admits to be "someone who knew Elvis all of his life" and says, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [110]. IP 66.61.69.65 also says that "there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and they most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM." See [111]. Significantly, User:Lochdale is also constantly talking of "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" and his chief witness is Bill E. Burk, an author IP 66.61.69.65 seems to prefer.

It should again be noted that the identity of User:Lochdale, who has also contributed under the IPs 83.71.77.27 and 63.85.72.242, seems to have only been created in order to remove my contributions (see [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139] etc. etc.) or to attack and debase me and my edits on the Talk:Elvis Presley page (see [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]). If you look at the contribution history of this user (see [166]), he is frequently "dropping in" and either involved in deleting my contributions or constantly repeating the same accusations over and over again, namely, claiming that my sources are not reliable, that my quotations are out of context, that over 2000 books on Elvis do not mention what I have written (how should he know this, as he has not yet quoted from a single book on Elvis), etc. etc., though I have cited dozens of independent books and articles, among them publications by reputable Elvis biographers and university studies, in order to support my edits. This is very similar to the strategies my old opponent, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes used in the past. Significantly, Lochdale is only removing content from the Elvis article which is not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. Here is what this user primarily wishes to read: fan stuff like this. On the other hand, non-encyclopedic fan stuff such as the section Elvis lives remains untouched.

It is certainly no coincidence that User:NightCrawler alias DW borrowed his user name from an obscure Marvel comic book superhero (see [167]) and that User:Lochdale is also interested in the same kind of comics, as, apart from deleting material from the Elvis Presley article, he is also contributing to Thor (Marvel Comics) (and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)) which deals with another fictional superhero published by Marvel Comics.

To my mind, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and Lochdale are identical. Further, there is much evidence that IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 and Lochdale are also identical with multiple hardbanned user NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes (and perhaps with devoted Elvis fan Bill E. Burk). It should also be noted that shortly after the last contributions of IPs 66.61.69.65 and 24.165.212.202 to the Elvis talk page on 25 April 2005, User:Ted Wilkes and his pal User:Wyss appeared on the scene in June and July 2005 (see [168], [169]) being constantly involved in edit wars with me, which is certainly no coincidence. Significantly, IP 66.61.69.65 has removed the following critical comment from the talk page: [170], and IP 66.61.69.65 added the following commentary to the same page: [171]. The latter edit strongly suggests that this IP is identical with User:Duisburg Dude, who was recently hardbanned for being a sockpuppet of User:Ted Wilkes. To my mind, there is also the suspicion that Ted Wilkes has created lots of new sockpuppets in order to circumvent his one-year block and to push his agendas. Onefortyone 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I've reviewed the evidence and it does strongly support your suggestions. I have imposed an indefinite ban on User:Lochdale and reverted all changes made by him. Clearly DW/Ted Wilkes is in one of his more annoying sockpuppet phases. Anything he adds will be shot down instantly and articles created deleted on sight, as per policy. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you vou very much for your activities in behalf of Wikipedia. There is just one addition I'd like to make. If you look at the contribution history of new User:BookMind, this user may also be a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes. BookMind has only contributed to the Patricia Bosworth article, which I started some weeks ago, and to Elvis Presley. Significantly, apart from adding the date of birth, the very first edit by this user was falsely accusing me of having included wrong information in the Boswerth article (see [172] and my reply on the talk page). He then went on to remove well-sourced passages I have written from the Elvis article (see [173]) and to rewrite the racism section. The latter contribution was very much applauded by Lochdale (see [174]). In my opionion, this is not mere coincidence, especially since the Patricia Bosworth and the Elvis Presley articles are totally unconnected, except the fact that I have contributed to both articles. Onefortyone 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - constituent country

You might be interested that the old constituent country issue keeps reappearing every so often. As usual no sources, just theories and original research. Djegan 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mal/Setanta747 has offered a whole feast of citations for the article, could you investigate? I have reported him for 3RR. Djegan 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale has requested an unblock

Hi Jtdirl,

Just wanted you to know that Lochdale (talk • contribs • count) sent an unblock review to the Unblock mailing list. Please take a look at his comments and respond there, my talk page, or the unblock mailing list. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Block on User Lochdale

G'day Jtdirl,

User:Lochdale has been banned on allegations that he is a sockpuppet. He has sent an e-mail to the Unblocking list which states.

"I've just noticed that I have been banned from Wikipedia entirely due to allegations that I am a 'sockpuppet'. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Lochdale

I am at a loss to explain how this has happened. I have no connection in any way, shape or form to Ted Wilkes or any of the other 'sockpuppets' mentioned by the ban."

He has stated that you were the relevant admin that imposed the ban. Could you please advise of the process that you performed before imposing this ban so we can respond appropriately.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Some aditions. One of the most striking arguments for Lochdale being identical with NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes is his constant claim that there are "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" that do not support the quotes from the several independent sources Onefortyone has provided. See [175], [176]. The only editors who used exactly the same phrase in order to support their biased opinions were the IPs 24.165.212.202 and 66.61.69.65. See [177] and [178]. I have shown elsewhere that these are the IPs of one and the same person. It may be added that they were used in order to circumvent violating the Three-revert rule in edit wars with me. This edit undoubtedly proves that IP 24.165.212.202 is identical with User:NightCrawler. Thus, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, namely, that Lochdale is identical with NightCrawler alias DW alias Ted Wilkes, etc.

I think it's very easy for Ted Wilkes to get an Irish email address, isn't it? Wilkes may also have an Irish friend who is sending some emails for him. However, it could also be that there is a small circle of Elvis fans who know each other and, alternately, are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and accusing me of pushing an agenda, simply because my edits are not in line with their all too positive view of their megastar, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, among them reputed Elvis biographies and critical university studies. If this Elvis fan group really does exist, then it's a case of Meatpuppetry. The Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page says that this

issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts ...

These accounts ... are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

See [179]. So it doesn't matter if Ted Wilkes himself or one of his friends is editing as Lochdale and harassing me. Be that as it may, Ted Wilkes is certainly the driving force in removing my contributions, as I am his archfiend. This is no wonder, because we were edit warring since 2005 and I was responsible for getting Ted Wilkes banned from Wikipedia. This would explain why his sockpuppets are constantly using me as a whipping boy.

One of these sockpuppets of Ted Wilkes was undoubtedly user Duisburg Dude. Perhaps he was aware of the risk that this new user identity may be disclosed. Therefore, Duisburg Dude edited in a very short time as many Elvis-related articles as possible which had been disrupted by Wilkes in the past, thereby removing many of my contributions. Unfortunately, several paragraphs Duisburg Dude has removed from the Elvis Presley article are still not restored.

There were also some other editors harassing me for some time. These may also be sockpuppets of Ted Wilkes. Among them was User:Count Chocula, who contributed primarily to the Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson articles and talk pages, and, as a relatively new user, repeatedly posted unjustified accusations (which were very similar to those by Ted Wilkes) against me on the administrator's noticeboard and on administrators' talk pages, but without success, as administrator Stifle says, "I don't think he's disrupting the article, inserting poorly-sourced information, or being aggressive." See [180], [181], [182], [183] [184]. Count Chocula also removed paragraphs I have written from Elvis-related articles. See [185]. This looks rather suspicious to me. And I am quite sure there are several other sockpuppets of Wilkes. Onefortyone 12:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser request has been completed [WP:RFCU#Ted Wilkes again] and per Mackensen, Lochdale is unrelated to the other accounts. Please review the CU results and the block on Lochdale. Thank you! Georgewilliamherbert 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking up Lochdale's user account. So Checkuser says that Lochdale is not identical with Ted Wilkes, as his IPs are not identical with the IPs Wilkes used in the past. Is that right? I must confess that I would have expected this result, since Lochdale himself asked for Checkuser. However, I am not yet convinced that there is really no connection between Lochdale and Wilkes. You have admitted, Jtdirl, that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". To my mind, there are far too many coincidences in this case that still suggest a link between Lochdale and Wilkes. What about these? Just some questions:

• After being banned, relatively new and inexperienced user Lochdale immediately forwarded a message to the unblock list. See [186]. I must admit that I didn't know that such a list exists. Where can I find this list? It is interesting that Lochdale had no problems to find it, as if he had much experience with this list.
• Lochdale himself asked if it would be possible to have a Checkuser search run. See [187]. Who told him that there is such a possibility? I didn't know that Checkuser exists until I was told by an administrator last year.
• During the edit war with me, both Lochdale and NightCrawler used exactly the same phrase on talk pages claiming that there are "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" that allegedly support their view. In my opinion, this cannot be mere coincidence, especially in view of the fact that NightCrawler's claim was posted several months before Lochdale appeared on the scene.
• From the beginning, Lochdale more than once removed gay-related paragraphs from Wikipedia articles, as Wilkes repeatedly did in the past.
• Both Lochdale and NightCrawler are fans of some obscure Marvel comic superheroes.
• Both Lochdale and Nightcrawler are connected to Peter E. Burk, an author of fan books about Elvis and part of the world-wide Elvis industry, which has a tendency towards supporting only a favourable view of the megastar.
• As a relatively new user, Lochdale said, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." How should he know such details if he was not deeply involved in these discussions?
• Is there another Wikipedia user whose edits are frequently removed and who is constantly attacked by Lochdale on talk pages? I don't think so.
• etc. etc.

I think there are still many open questions. What can actually be proved by Checkuser? Could it be that Ted Wilkes changed his domicile and his IPs during the last few months? If someone intends to create many new sockpuppets he could easily change his online service providers and use different PCs, couldn't he? And what about the possibility of meatpuppetry? That Lochdale may be a friend of Wilkes or a fan group member has not yet been sufficiently discussed or disproved. What looks very suspicious to me is that very few newly created user accounts are frequently deleting well-sourced passages I have written, and particularly such paragraphs which are very similar to those Ted Wilkes repeatedly removed in the past. This is certainly not a coincidence. Onefortyone 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With the intent of responding as briefly as possible to your comment I'll note that when you are blocked there are links that lead you directly to a description of the block. Once there, you can then click on another link which leads you to the unblock email list (well, it appears you can unblock yourself but the link sends you to the unblock emailing list). Also, two seperate admins mentioned the Checkuser to me in seperate emails.

• Your claim that Thor is an obscure Marvel comic character is just wrong. He has over 500 issues of his own comic, a new series coming out and a movie coming out. Obscure is not the right word to describe Thor.
• I am not connected with Burk I just ran a google search on Earl Greenwood and read Burk's critique of Greenwood's book. Given your propensity to cite to any source I felt it was reasonable to point out another source that raised issues about Greenwood's credibility. So no, I have no "connection" with Burk and it's deceptive to suggest that I do. And no, I've not had to correct other users work because most other users don't have a fringe agenda the way you have. Many other editors have also corrected your edits to the Presley page and you have been banned from the page for a reason.
• My comment that we had that discussion before relates specifically to the discussion we did have regarding the alleged blackmail attempt on Presley. Specifically, I noted how it was a fairly small amount (about the price of a mid-level car) to blackmail someone over. So again, your selective comments either leave out the actual facts or are taken out of context. You and I actually had that discussion about the alleged blackmail. Check the archives.
• The reason many of your edits are deleted are because they are of questionable veracity. What you consider to be "well sourced" may either be taken out of context or are from poor secondary sources. This is, after all, a celebrity we are dealing with.
• Lastly, I am not a sock or a meat puppet. I have no connection with Wilkes or any Presley fan club. I am who I say I am and that is independent of any of the above. I'm getting a little tired of your harassment of me. Wikipedia isn't your personal forum to push your own agenda. I've had to defend myself from your accusations and I will continue to do so. There is no connection. I am just another user who balks at your edits which appear to be based on an obssession with Presley. Lochdale 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Lochdale, the dispute concerning the blackmailer took place in March 2006. See your first edit relating to this matter here. As early as on December 19, 2005, you said, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [188]. So it is clear that you, as a relatively new user, were, at that time, talking about the disputes I had with Ted Wilkes. Very interesting indeed. During the dispute concerning the blackmailer some months later you said, "Clearly the most incompetant blackmailer, ever. None of these alleged pictures have ever been revealed ..." This is also very typical of Ted Wilkes who had a predilection for using the expression "ever". Another example for this predilection is on your talk page: "... I do think the Presley article looks better than it ever has ..." And you are still attacking me as you did from the beginning, calling my well-sourced edits "mean-spirited" and "definitely on the fringe". See [189]. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that you may be Ted Wilkes. There are too many coincidences that I don't believe in them. Onefortyone 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't believe in much of anything that contradicts your very rigid view of the world. You and I had a specific debate in March of this year regarding the alleged blackmail attempt by Griessel-Landau. I [noted] how he settled for a mere $515 which wasn't that much even back in 1960. I further noted that you were editoralizing and expanding on something that wasn't covered in the FBI files. My quote regarding the consensus was in relation to your constantly adding text that Presley was homosexual. Two different debates. Again though, I'm tired of defending my identity. I have no connection to Ted Wilkes. I am not Ted Wilkes. I've never communicated with Ted Wilkes. Like other editors I find your edits (and obsession) with Presley to be wrong. Be that as it may, I'm not Wilkes and there is no connection and just because I have also user the word ever (think I might have used it because, you know, it was an accurate and appropriate word to use?) doesn't make it so. Regardless, this isn't the place to have this discussion. Lochdale 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dorney Court

Thank you Jtdirl for restoring the article, I was just about to go to deletion review when your message appeared. If Redvers had listed it for AfD, that would have been fair enough, but to just speedy delete it seemed bizarre. --RMHED 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies - I let the stress of the day (it was a day of nothing but personal attacks and sick emails from deranged users culminating in accusations of vandalism against me for tagging articles for clean-up) get to me and didn't follow my own rule of disengaging when too stressed to continue. I shall apologise to RMHED forthwith. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it - you were 100% in the right, after all! I've got a solution to stress for today, though: I've bought some nice Irish cider to have over ice whilst I wikiwork this evening! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Defence of Anglo-Celtic Isles article required

Hi Jtdirl, we need to defend the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' article again...some users of the term 'British Isles' are trying to get a 'redirect' set up. I'm 100% against this, naturally. Best regards, Pconlon 15:11, 12 August 2006

Thanks for your back-up and support there Jtdirl. Let's keep on the ball eh?! Best regards, Pconlon 19:06, 14 August 2006

Feature article review

I came across your name in the revision history of Victoria of the United Kingdom. You may be interested in its review as a feature article at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Victoria of the United Kingdom. Specifically, there is a request for inline citations so if you have access to some relevant books, adding cites would help. Also, since Trivia sections are discouraged, especially in featured articles, the points listed will have to be either integrated into the text or just removed, depending on whether they are actually relevant to the specific topic.

You may also be interested in helping Economy of the Republic of Ireland which is also being reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of the Republic of Ireland. Maintain 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good morning.

For the past year or more, I've seen your edits and comments on articles I read, particularly relating to Irish politics, but on other sorts of things too. Just wanted to say, I think you're intelligent, you contribute well to wikipedia, and you seem an overall good man. That's it. - Pauric 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New templates

Very interesting templates you got going there, especially IrishR. I've added Irish republican legitimatism to the strategy section. I wrote this article as the term abstentionism doesn't really cover what it was (and for some still is) all about. I was unsure of how to name it, but historian Brian Hanley for example has referred to "republican legitimatists" (i.e. Ó Brádaigh). I'd like to add in more about the activities of Dev and the rump Second Dáil, but don't have the relevant sources to hand at the moment. --Damac 10:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Resurection of Hungary

Don't understand this one in IrishM? --Red King 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Boxtops

Hi. Was playing around with boxtops trying to brighten up my page. Was trying to use templates as it is a lot easier for me. Any worth or issues in trying to develop an Irish football support template like the ones [here]? Thanks.Lochdale 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Capital A

Yes it does. I've already thought that, but I fear I tend to adapt things or styles. Very sinewy. Thanks and Greetings to Eire Phoe

Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen

Hi Jtdirl;

Stefanp (talk · contribs) is re-inserting "info" about the legal name of the subject, totally ignoring the more numerous sources that give his name as Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen. I have a feeling that he will try to incite an edit war. Could you take a look at it and possibly step in? I would like to assume that his edits are in good faith, but they tend to be rather scathing. Charles 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes

This guy has been banned too. He did a lot of good work in the horse racing articles. There must be some way of handling people who have been OK, and get annoyed about something. I know he did some strange things to some of my articles, but I wasn't too fussed. I thought at the time, he might know something I didn't. It is a pity, though, that people get so upset over so little. Wallie 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) OK. Thanks for the explanation. I cannot understand what makes people act like he did. Some of the contributors can be irritating at times. I'm sure some get irritated with me at times too. However, that is no reason to try to attack Wikipedia itself because someone has upset you. Wallie 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism template

Thank you for your message on my talk page. However, I disagree with the idea that that much information is necessary in every article relating in any way to Irish Republicanism. I have now put a post on Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board asking for other peoples' views (before I got your message, I hasten to add). My own view is that the thing is too big and unwieldy and takes away from the articles rather than add to them. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Scolaire 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PS re:songs about the Rising (we need some articles about them), as a direct result of your template I have created an article on Down by the Glenside (The Bold Fenian Men). Scolaire 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Ogra

Ok, sure that makes sense (for if one youth wing was added, all would have to be). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic Isles

Hi Jtdirl, You've just reverted the above to a version that includes exaggeration, misinformation and a lack of verified information, and your edit is stated as reverting to a 'NPOV' version. The previous version (my own) which you reverted actually:

• adds back in the 'not verified' tag;
• changes in use for at least a century to less than a century - which is clearly correct given that the reference is to ballad written in 1914, and there is no other verification for the claim;
• removed "The term is used in particular in academia and has begun to be used, alongside, or as an alternative to, 'British Isles' in some library/bookstore referencing systems. Its usage however is relatively small to date." because the 'academia' part is unsourced and the 'library/bookstore referencing systems' seems to be one home-made wiki.

Please see the talk page of the article and the AFD talk page. I'm reverting back to my own version as all I've done is remove unsourced/unverified information and made factual corrections. There was nothing POV about my edits. This is quite relevant as people may possibly comment/vote on the AfD based on a cursory glance at the article, see that it's apparently sourced, and decide accordingly. Bastun 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's so ridiculous with BI. These guys have talked on the talk page, and then suddenly for no apparent reason go ballistic from time to time. Makes me wonder about their raison d'etre! User Bastun puzzles me. He calls the Irish language by the name Gaelic, and refers to the Ireland (the state) by the term, "the Irish republic".MelForbes 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for causing you confusion. I'm just an Irishman who doesn't have a huge chip on my shoulder about Britain. Um, if I've called Irish Gaelic (which was the name for the language when I was in school, in Dublin) or described Ireland as the Irish Republic, I don't especially see it as a problem... hard to know without context, in any case. Bastun 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Jtdirl. Yep, it makes sense (and "Éire" is one of my pet hates!) though, as I said, without knowing the context of where I used it, it's hard to comment. As regards Gaelic/Gaeilge/Irish, I went to a CBS, and "Gaeilge" would have been used - I can only assume I used Gaelic on WP as the term most likely to be understood as meaning "the Irish language" by someone I assumed to be a non-Irish speaker - again, context :-) Anyway, thanks for the reply. Bastun 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty

Jtdirl/Archive 19, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

DBD 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Date format changes in British monarchs

I discovered that the articles on British monarchs have a variety of date styles, and I've been diligently working my way through them. However, I seem to attracted the attention of someone who prefers a mish-mash, and I'd like your comments on this diff, please. --Jumbo 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:RoyGrec.png

Greetings! Image:RoyGrec.png is tagged with {{coatofarms}}. Under this template, the image there must be used under terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Specifically in this case, item #9 proscribes the use of the image in templates, such as {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}}. A coat of arms is actually a textual description, not the image on which the description is based. So for example, a coat of arms might be hundreds of years old (and often are). However, the graphical presentation of that description might have been created yesterday. Without a positive affirmation of source and copyright status of the image, the image must be treated as a fair use image. Even that is arguably improper, since another representation can be readily made without infringing on the copyrights of the person who created the image. The person who created the image has rights to that particular incarnation, but no rights to the coat of arms. Thus, other depictions of the coat of arms are not derivative works of the artist's interpretation of the image, but based on (though in this case not derivative of) the coat of arms. I've re-removed the image from the template noted above. Please do not re-add the image unless it is re-tagged with an appropriate free license tag and a source for the image to verify its copyright status. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, please work with Durin to remedy the questions about this image. Discussion is needed instead of reverting the image back into the template. --FloNight ^talk 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• responding to Jtdirl Respectfully, I did read the file. There is nothing on the file in any respect that indicates what you are stating. There's nothing about the user creating the image himself, nothing about the source...all absent. The only thing on it, and in indeed in the edit summary is {{coatofarms}}. But, perhaps I am mistaken and I am, as you say, "nuts".
• I have reviewed User:Craigy144's talk page and archives, and it appears he has frequently uploaded images of questionable source and tagging. See [190], [191], [192]. Those are all recent. There's many, many more scattered through his archives. Most telling is [193]. He did not create this image himself. Once this warning was put on his talk page, he added the source to this image as [194]. Scroll down and you can see it. So, at least in this case he did not create the image himself. I think it's safe to presume this applies to Image:RoyGrec.png until he positively affirms it is his own creation, and he licenses it under a free-license.
• I fully intend to continue removing images tagged with fair use tags; if the affected users feel strongly about this, as you do, it perhaps provides some motivation to clarify the status of an image. The murky status of an image is not sufficient reason to not remove it from places where it violates Wikipedia policy. Nothing operative about the template or the pages the template resides on was in anyway affected by the removal of the image. Your assertions that this created a massive amount of damage I think are improper. Respectfully, --Durin 16:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that some of the images he uploaded come from http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/; see my talk. That's almost certainly the case for the particular image in question here; the full achievement with 3D shadowing on the trappings is characteristic of Maître d'Armes, a no-longer-available piece of heraldry software used to create the extensive gallery of images at that site. Choess 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, it looks very much like Image:RoyGrec.png came from that site. See [195]. Per the discussion on your (Choess) page that you noted, it seems Craigy wants those images deleted. Therefore, it seems User:Jtdirl's assertion that they were created by Craigy144 is, at least for this image, incorrect. Arnaud Bunel states on his website that all rights are reserved (tous droits réservés). Since we do not have a release from him for these images, one should be sought and if not forthcoming the images uploaded from his site need to be deleted, as these are coats of arms. Reproductions based on the descriptions of the coats of arms can be made without violating his copyright. Jtdirl, since you seem to feel very strongly about this, that my behavior is patently nuts, and that I am clueless about copyright law, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the matter. Your thoughts? --Durin 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

I am indebted to you for the experience and knowledge you have brought to the dating debate. The summaries of the history of what must have been an interesting time are helpful. But there's a lot of work still to be done; I was appalled to see so many biographical articles on British and Irish people using AD or a higgledy-piggledy mess. I took a look at some U.S. Presidents for contrast and found (as I expected) the overwhelming format was wikilinked AD. --Jumbo 04:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My Challenge to You

You might have missed my challenge. Repeating it here. --Samuel Webster 11:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

International English is a form of English based on predominant international isage. It is based on British English/Hibern-English/Indian English/Australian English, etc. It is not based and does not use American English. The fact that you wrote "that Germany is a part of the British Empire" shows a laughable ignorance of language. It is nothing to do with the British Empire. It is the form of English people chose to use. Most of the planet sees American English as substandard and semi-literate and choses not to use it. That is their choice. It has nothing to do with the British Empire. The fact you no so little about language usage that you think it might be simply reflects your lack of understanding. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)}

Please provide proof that "International English" means what you say it does. For the record, most people in Asia, esp. China and Japan, think British English is substandard (these days, the Brits can't even distinguish betwen the -ise of suprise and the -ise of organiSe).

A challenge: want to debate me publicly about any of the contentions in your above post, and put money on it? In any event, you still haven't proved the third of my claims. How old are you? Seriously. Curious. --Samuel Webster 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that if he wants to be a humourless little dictator Samuel Webster should go to German Wikipedia and argue about his native tongue. NJW494 12:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Dude, I don't care whether you think Northern Ireland is a country, a part, or an entity. Nor do I care how many Protestants or Catholics are in Northern Ireland. What I am interested in, as you should be, is that facts should match their references. Kindly reserve rollback for vandals, and kindly also assume good faith. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vblock

Please read WP:VAND before rolling my edits back. This page states that this behaviour is not defined as vandalism. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith action on Anglo-Celtic Isles article!

Hi Jtdirl, unbelievably, some *** has gone and put a redirect on the Anglo-Celtic Isles article, completely ignoring the continuing discussion! Do you know how to undo this? Best regards, Pconlon 15:04, 21 August 2006

Thanks for your prompt reply...I agree with your thoughts entirely. Incidentally, I'm in the midst of selling my house and moving, so I'm not keeping up with all this as much as I'd like to...if you want back up on anything - send me a message. Best regards, Pconlon 15:22, 21 August 2006

Can you/we undo this redirection? Best regards, Pconlon 15:26, 21 August 2006

Request for you to stop uncivil behavior

• responding to comments left on my talk page Again Jtdirl, the law isn't the question. I know very well that policy changes all the time. In fact, I even did a study on this one time [196]. This particular policy with respect to templates has remained unchanged for 9 months. You're concerned about a "little moran" heaping assault upon somebody, yet accuse me of being a self-proclaimed expert (which I never did), arrogant, and pompous. I have been nothing but civil and patient with you. Frankly, I'm tired of the verbal assault you are launching at me. I have been a contributor to this project for 18 months now, and have made considerable contributions. I do not appreciate your belittling of my efforts with your attack upon me. I have noticed rather uncivil behavior of yours in regards to other users as well ("not your babysitter" for example). I strongly request you stop this behavior and start treating people in a more civil manner. If this is not enough, then I formally request you cease and desist. Budgiekiller is spot on. Your behavior is improper. You are creating considerably more heat than light. --Durin 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Apology whole-heartedly accepted. I've been doing a considerable number of these fair use violation removals. To date, somewhere around 2,000 of them. I'm aware of a number of other people doing similar work, and I am equally aware that a not-insignificant-sub-set of them have been the target of some very derisive comments and their response has ended up with things in very hot water. With that in mind, I've tried very hard to be even handed, patient, and cool under the pressure this sort of work usually engenders. I thank you for your apology, and I hope you feel better.
• In this particular case the coat of arms of Australia may, by international law, in fact be in the public domain. As yet, there's been no absolute answer to that. It's my understanding that Wikipedia operates conservatively when faced with situations like this. User:J Di made a change to the template that solved the problem; the image is called when the template is invoked. This satisfies our fair use policy and plays the issue on the conservative side. I think it's a good solution, at least until we figure out what the status is of national coats of arms with respect to international law. --Durin 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'British Isles'(again) redirect vote: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:British_Isles_%28terminology%29#Requested_move

Requested move on the terminology page needs your vote, JD. El Gringo 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, is that guy on something, it struck me before? -MelForbes 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

seems to me to imply normative negative implications

Templates, and so forth

The picture thing, I have to say, is incredibly annoying. The intense dislike of fair use exhibited by some on wikipedia (apparently on the basis that we want to make it easy for other people to legally make money off iwkipedia?) is quite annoying, especially in cases like coats of arms, which, so far as I can tell, are not copyrighted anyway. These issues irritate me so much that I tend to avoid them altogether so as not to get annoyed. The general deletion issue seems more debatable to me - dynastic templates do strike me as a bit awkward. I don't know that I'd go to the point of deleting them, but it is worth arguing about somewhere else, perhaps. john k 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"really stupid nomination"

And it's users like you who create a friendly and inviting atmosphere on Wikipedia? I have decided not to waste my time on small and petty men like you who respond to rational argument with incoherent personal attacks and childish tantrums. As I'm sure you're aware, a nomination does not equal a deletion, it simply raises a question, so why don't we just let the poll run its course? Eixo 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Papal Tiara

Papal Tiara is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish American

I'm not asking you to get involved, but could you have a look at Irish American. To me the article is one of the greatest loads of povish bullshit on WP pushed into it. If you get a chance, maybe you could have a peep. I would like an intelligent opinion on it, without going into detail. The S-I or U-S parts are very laboured and overdone in the opening, I think.MelForbes 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signature Award

You have a great Signature! STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signature Award FearÉIREANN\(caint)

constituent country - again

Its seams that Mal/Setanta will do anything at this stage. See Talk:Constituent_country#Requested_move_2.

Djegan 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this. Do you think Mal/Setanta is now signing up to a compromise or a win-win? I see you alleged bad faith in the move discussion, and wonder what kind of end result from the move we might have to worry about. What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see. He voted against his own move request. Oh well. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jtdirl

Would you be able to help us a little in ascertaining notability? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín. Many thanks. -- Samir धर्म 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic names for Scottish kings!

I'm surprised you haven't got involved in the controversy at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland! Deb 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl: If you'd like to help with the moves, I'll help with fixing the redirects. :) --Elonka 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you've gone down this road, you might wanna close the polls. The votes can't be considered valid if the vote is different, and besides any admin monitoring the RM page in a few days may find himself confused when he arrives to close the vote. I didn't, btw, actually open the poll and actually I assumed John Kenney when he first objected would just move them all back without bringing up a vote. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, thanks for the help. Could you also please move the associated talk pages on three that I did? They didn't get moved, even though I had the checkbox ticked. --Elonka 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Máel Coluim I of Scotland to Talk:Malcolm I of Scotland
• Talk:Máel Coluim II of Scotland to Talk:Malcolm II of Scotland
• Talk:Máel Coluim III of Scotland to Talk:Malcolm III of Scotland

Beat me too it. PS, when Elonka moved the Máel Coluims earlier, she appears to have been unable to move the talk pages also. Having just tried to move them and failed, I'm assuming this is needs to be done by an admin. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lemme add Talk:Domnall II of Scotland. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All done, guys. Though I goofed up one and had to do it again and delete my goof up. I guess that is a sign I should go to bed!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got the redirects covered... But could you please move the talk pages on Kenneth II and Kenneth III? Looks like they got left behind as well.  :/ --Elonka 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are still problems with some of the talk pages; I think these are all:

• Talk:Kenneth II of Scotland
• Talk:Kenneth III of Scotland
• Talk:Donald I of Scotland
• Talk:Donald III of Scotland
• Talk:Duncan I of Scotland
• Talk:Duncan II of Scotland

Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal <first name> <surname>.

Encyclopedia Britannica, one that Jimbo Wales has touted on numerous occasions, uses "Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal" meaning "Cardinal Thomas Wolsey".

Do we ignore Britannica, too?--Patchouli 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the Britannica article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9077367. It has both "Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal" as in my own Britannica installed on my computer, but it also has "Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey" that doesn't appear on my installed software.

The citations are:

MLA style: "Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 30 Aug. 2006 .

APA style: Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD .

Britannica style: "Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal."Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD .[Accessed August 30, 2006].

I will leave the article alone notwithstanding my desire for a naming reformation.--Patchouli 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pius XII

Hi, please note the newly initiated discussion about the Hershberger - image (showing a cardinal together with a nazi steping on a jew). Need your support in a request for opinion discussion on the talk page of Pius XII. I would like to have the image removed. Thanks, --UAltmann 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is well-known that the image is a depiction of Pacelli himself, who--while a cardinal--was the architect and signatory of the Reichskonkordat. However, I am unable to back this claim up with a source at the moment because I am away from my books which are in Hanover. On fair use grounds, I agree that the image shouldn't be in the article without some type of source supporting this interpretation. However, if I am right about this, I believe it qualifies as a depiction of "the objection in question," namely a historical figure illustrated the work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister Move

Your move to Prime minister (sic) is wrong under WP rules. WP does not allow pages to be moved to grammatically incorrect locations. The office is spelt two ways: either with both words uppercased or both lowercased. As technical reasons prevent the page being located with both names lowercased it was decided long ago, on this and similar cases, that there was no option but to use the title in uppercase. That policy trumps any vote. Indeed if the RM proposal had been spotted in time, admins would have aborted it as the vote is invalid under WP rules.

The reason for this policy is simple. Having an article on something called a Prime minister would have Wikipedia an international laughing stock. It is about as loopy and ignorant as writing United states or George bush.

Please be more careful and avoid making WP a laughing stock. If the media ever saw your move they would have a field-day. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)}

I haven't seen any discussion regarding this on Talk:Prime Minister, so I commented on this at the administrator's noticeboard. I don't think United States and George Bush are analogous here since those two subjects never have the second word in lowercase. It seems like, if necessary, the {{lowercase}} template can be added to the top of the Prime minister article. Regardless, I await confirmation at the admin noticeboard that the precedent you speak of does indeed exist. -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps confirmation from you would suffice (I'm currently busily searching for the relevant policy). -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the past where RMs have resulted in results that clashed with the MoS and NC, admins overrule the RM using the IAR (Ignore All Rules) rule which is there in effect to override a decision taken under a rule which if implemented would damage WP. Writing Prime minister, as I have said, would make us a laughing stock among among interested in current affairs, politics, political science, history, or anything similar. It is a really really embarrassing mistake. Just how embarrasing however may not be appreciated by people outside the area of political science. It is like having an article on France and naming its capital as Berlin, or an article on George Bush and saying that he is a Democrat (or that he is the wife of Bill Clinton!) It is of that scale of, if you'll pardon the word, "wrongness". FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)}

I have no interest in defending Prime minister over Prime Minister; my goal is to determine which is more appropriate (given naming conventions) for the article title. As for "It is like having an article on France and naming its capital as Berlin, or an article on George Bush and saying that he is a Democrat (or that he is the wife of Bill Clinton!)"... no, it's not even close. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In view of the controversy I open another RM. The previous one had rather low participation, so I advertised this one on a couple of notice boards. I have to say that the consensus, so far, is to leave it as is, but it's early days. If you can think of other NB's or Projects where there might be an interest, please stick a note up. I have to say it's not something I feel too strongly about, but I thought it was worth revisiting. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear. Thanks for the heads up on Prime Minister. At first I thought it was a joke, then I realised it was more Wiki-madness. Support duly added. Ardfern 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A word in your ear

Could you take a look at this, please?

Wikipedia Commons

Hey there, thanks for uploading those images of the St. Patrick's Cathedral. I just wanted to suggest that you upload them to the Wikimedia Commons instead so that they can be used in all of the wiki projects. Its exactly like uploading an image to wikipedia. Just stick them in a category like "Category:British honours system" for now and we can create a page for the Order of St Patrick later.

BTW: I hate Guiness too. Im a Canadian and give me a Labatts or a Molson Ex anyday. I've been up to Scotland but never made it as far as Irland unfortunately.Dowew 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Request

Your comments at Talk:Prime minister#Jtdirl's Comments on User talk Pages are requested. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I'm sorry to say I can't support you on this one. Prime minister is a common noun and doesn't take caps. Prime minister is thus the correct title for an article about the office of prime minister. The obvious solution is for all countries to call their governmental heads Teasocks. Adam 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know I am in no position to give lectures on civility, but your aggressive tone is not helping your case in this matter. Adam 06:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, hi. I wonder if you could answer my question regarding ice cream. Do you think that article is incorrectly titled, since the 'I' is capitalized and not the 'c' in a non-beginning-of-sentence context? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This weekend I asked three tenured political scientists (two Canadians and one British) in my university's department of politics, and not one had a problem with Prime minister as the title of an article. If you can give me the name of an academic who is happy to have his/her name published as somebody who would would fail a student on this basis, I'll post their contact details too, and the political scientists can then carry on this happy discussion amongst themselves. Rattus 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland -- you might be interested. Djegan 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. It doesn't list you as a party, but you may wish to add yourself. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland and, if you wish, add you name and indicate that you agree to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BI Terminology

Hi Jtdirl, I’ve been exceptionally busy lately (selling my house and moving half way around the world!) and so am only now returning to the ‘fray’! There are some pieces in the BI Terminology section that are hugely dodgy, to which you may already have been referring. Two bits that jump out are: ‘The term British Isles is in widespread use, and is defined as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands".’ [Is defined...by whom?, since when?, much modern usage says different...!] ‘Ptolemy includes Ireland, which he calls Hibernia, as being part of the island group he calls Britannia. He titles Book II, Chapter 1 of his Geography as Hibernia, Island of Britannia.’ [I don’t care what some Roman thinks (mistakenly)!! The BI-brigade basing their argument on the distant academic guesswork of an ancient Roman does somewhat amuse...Again modern usage is ignored...] Do you fancy having ‘a go’ at these?! One other thought, what would be your view on streamlining the content of that separate 'BI (Terminology)' article into the main BI article 'Terminology' section?! Could be fun and stop this stupid duplication. Pconlon 13:51, 6 September 2006 (PT)

Devin 79

Hi, I'm finally doing what I should have done a long time ago and getting an RFC to get Devin79 aka 68.35.182.234 banned for his continual revert wars and pov pushing. We have both had to work hard try and limit the damage done by this guy, so I would welcome your support.

Jdorney 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, the RFC is up and running here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Devin79. Please endorse! Jdorney 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ireland Project

Hi, I joined the Basketball project and I was wondering where you could tell me where to find the Ireland Project, i'd like to join. Just H 14:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to Irish Wikipedians' notice board Cheers ww2censor 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Male consorts

Hi Jtdirl;

Currently, John Kenney is moving Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and George of Denmark to titles including "prince". The same conventions that apply to females also apply to males, but John says that he doesn't think it should be so and is changing the pages instead of following through on discussion. It is at the talk page for Albert. Thanks. Charles 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating

Hello, you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image revert

File:Ratzinger Szczepanow 2003 10.JPG

I didnt want to revert an image seconds after yours. The image you uploaded, while showing a full profile, is not of sufficient quality (blurred). What do you think about this one? -- AJ24 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman

You banned User:Sussexman citing he had sent another contributor a solicitor's letter. My understanding is that is untrue, and that all he did was make robust attempts to point out to certain users that they were breaking UK law. He has not himself made any personal legal threats. Is that not the case? He has made some fine contributions to Wikipedia articles has he not? If you are not going to ever lift this ban I think you should be posting a very clear explanation why and how it equates with natural justice. 213.122.112.24 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello... just some belated thanks for your comment about the maps I made. It's nice to know they've been useful to people. -- Vardion 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice page! And how did you...

How did you protect your userpage? I didn't know you could do that to other pages other than the main page, let alone userpages. Just curious. Oh, and nice limericks. Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... great limerick, and thanks for the reply before you took a WikiBreak (as I like to call it), and cheers! •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User Image

Hallo there, glad you changed your Map of Ireland's capitals.png image at user name to Ireland-up.png - keep up the good work Culnacreann 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

jtdirl has left the building (temporarily)

Hey folks, Thanks for all the msg. Unfortunately I am not able at the moment to continue to participate on Wikipedia at the moment due to a tight deadline for other busineess. I will of course be back quite soon. I just don't know how long I will absent from the project though I will pay occasional visits back here. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)}

"Joe Cardinal Sixpack"

Care to come back to discussing [[197]]? Lima 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Violation of probation?

Over the last few months User:Wyss has repeatedly contributed to homo- and bisexuality-related topics under her IP 194.146.111.10, although this user is banned from making any edits related to such topics. See [198]. However, she contributed to the Picnic (film) article removing the expression "jilted boyfriend" (see [199]) and frequently included the "disputed" tag in the sexuality section of the Nick Adams page (see [200], [201], [202], [203], [204]). Wyss even included a reference to her own book in the Lesbian science fiction article. See [205], [206]. I think this is a violation of Wyss's probation. The following edits to the User talk:Wyss page prove that IP 194.146.111.10 is identical with Wyss: [207], [208]. See also the history of the Talk:Joshua Gardner page, where most contributions are from the pen of IP 194.146.111.10, User:The Witch and User:Wyss. Onefortyone 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:P6orthodox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:P6orthodox.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reporting abuse?

Hey. How/where does one go about reporting personal attack? Bastun 09:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No source image

Image:Brianlenihan.jpg has no source and will be deleted in 7 days unless yopu specify one. YellowDot 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User Lochdale

User:Lochdale has again removed well-sourced paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley page. This is not acceptable. See [209], [210], [211], [212], etc. Lochdale's behavior supports my suspicion that this user identity has primarily been created to remove my contributions and to harass me. See also his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 01:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We have gone through this issue again and again. Your assertations are not "well sourced". Instead, you make an effort to take reputable sources to buttress questionable (at best) claims. You've made a considerable effort to have me banned not only from the article but from Wikipedia entirely. I have tried to engage you in the Talk page but you have a clear and direct agenda that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the truth. This matter should be arbitrated. It seems, however, you want to create a red-herring by attacking me and focusing on me personally rather than your actions. I have no interest in "harassing you" or even having anything to do with you. I do, however, have issues with your agenda and utter disregard for the truth. If anything, you have made every effort to make my life miserable on this website. And for the last time, I have no connection to Wilkes, a vast conspiracy, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa etc. etc. Lochdale 03:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Lochdale simply claims that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. He also claims that most books do not support my contributions, but he is wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. He frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [213]. He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. He says, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [214]. This statement speaks volumes. Lochdale's only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [215]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [216], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some user's, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [217], [218]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [219]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental disconnect in your argument is that you either use questionable sources to support your agenda or you twist existing sources to suit your own ends. The fact remains that neither Guralnik nor any other reputable Presley biographer ever suggested that he was homosexual. Guralnik wrote two exhaustively detailed bios on Presley and he simply never, ever mentions it. What you have done is take inneuendo and conjecture and then tried to buttress that with selective quotes from reputable sources. Put another way, you basically put your own spin on every piece of information can could somehow be construed to suit your agenda. Other bios of music stars do not suffer from this sort of abuse which should be indicative of your agenda. Selective quotations does not mean you have a leg to stand on. Lochdale 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't say in my last contributions that Elvis was homosexual. We are talking about the section concerning the singer's male friendships which played an important part of Elvis's life. And all of these are well documented. Onefortyone 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The friendships are well documented but Presley being a homosexual is not documented at all. The problem with your "well sourced" edits is that these edits are entirely reliant on buttressing unsubstantiated claims with legititmate quotes from legitimate secondary sources. The fact remains that Guralnik never even suggests that Presley was homosexual. Further, 99.9% of the secondary sources on Presley never mention this. You use selective quotation to support unsubstantiated rumours. Lochdale 17:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as you said, the friendships are well documented and should be mentioned in the article. We are here talking about Elvis's homosocial relationships, not the rumors concerning his alleged homosexuality. The latter is not mentioned in my recent contributions. It seems as if you are unable to understand the difference between these two terms. Furthermore, did you read 99.9% of the secondary sources? I don't think so. Otherwise you would have known that there are indeed some sources dealing with the topic, but, as I said, this is not mentioned in the article. Onefortyone 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term homosocial can have potentially pejorative and POV connotations. For example, whilst hanging out with the Memphis Mafia Presley also had numerous affairs and girlfriends. Rather than making a judgment about his social network we should mention it briefly or not mention it at all. If we do mention it then we should not make any judgment about it one way or the other. And whilst I have not read every book on Presley the vast majority fail to ever mention that he had a homosexual relationship with anyone. Don't you think we should give them just a little more weight? Lochdale 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman

The Gregory Lauder-Frost page has now been deleted. Will the block on Sussexman remain? If so, could you explain. It seems most unfair as he has worked on quite a number of good articles, not all of them political. Chelsea Tory 07:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to add my support here. Having looked at the reasons for his block it states that he (Sussexman) personally sent a solicitor's letter to someone else on Wikipedia. Is that actually true? Is there positive proof that he was even involved? Smells of a witch-hunt. 86.129.82.48 14:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using this Talk page as a forum for asking this but I missed the whole business re GLF, could someone please explain to me what occured and why his artice has been deleted, he was, undeniably, notable. (Couter-revolutionary 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Image tagging for Image:Queen-alex.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen-alex.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:QueenMaryCirclet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:QueenMaryCirclet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Gpo metropole ruins 1917.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gpo metropole ruins 1917.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Piusxiii.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Piusxiii.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -SCEhardT 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are also a few more images at PUI, listed directly under this one. -SCEhardT 04:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Johnpaul1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnpaul1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Four-courts-statue.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Four-courts-statue.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 04:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The so-called West Cork Flying Column Image

Regarding the image http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Flyingcolumn_westcork-DB668.JPG

I have a book called The Flying Column - West Kilkenny, 1916-1921 with this photo in it.

Those in the photo are named and the photo is entitled Seán Hogan's Flying Column. It operated on the Kilkenny/Tiperary border and has nothing to do with West Cork or Anti-Treaty IRA.

The picture is in various places and I am attempting to correct the inaccuracy but now that it is in places which have nothing to do with this photo it is getting on top of me.

Help!

Jm butler 08:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

He's back!

Aidan Work, banned from Wikipedia in January, is now posting as Paisleyite1976 (talk) and 202.180.98.82 (talk) (New Zealand IP). The Paisleyite connection is the same as Work's politics. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Commonwealth Numismatic Project where he writes his name. Hu 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The RSJ Smile Award...

I, The RSJ hereby award you the RSJ Smile Award, an award I issue which signifies that this person is a great Wikipedian, and is willing to help out other people. I may also give this award to Wikipedians if they are feeling blue, getting beat up by the community for making a mistake, or just because I feel like being nice! So, have a great day, and I'll be seein' ya around... •The RSJ ^{(Central—Say What?!—CCD)}• 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Was wondering if you could help me. My home page was recently vandalised by User:James III and I want to know if any possible action can be taken. It would be much appreciated, thanks.--Couter-revolutionary 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert (the consort)

I think you should check up on what's happening with this article and the naming conventions at the moment, courtesy of Cfvh. Deb 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical references to City of Derry/Londonderry

Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Bell talk 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User Onefortyone and the Presley Article - Again

Sorry to bother you with this but this is just going nowhere. As soon as User Onefortyone's probabtion was lifted he went right back to editing the Presley article. Once again, the same use of selective quotation and questionable sources have been used to support his original research. Indeed, both his mentor [[220] and another editor [[221]] told him to stop (in no uncertain terms it might be added). This user's entire reason to exist on wiki appears to be to get as much scandal and gossip written about Presley as possible. Is there anything that can be done or should I jus try and go straight to arbitration? Thanks. Lochdale 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lochdale is still deleting whole paragraphs and relevant passages from the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance, [222], [223], [224], [225]. I don't know for what reason he is doing this, but there can be no doubt that his primary aim is to constantly harass me by removing my contributions, wrongly calling them questionable or original research. See also the history of this user from the beginning. In fact, my contributions are well sourced, as everybody can see. Onefortyone 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not well-sourced. They are, at best, selectively sourced. As I have pointed out, you have been banned from this article several times due to your behaviour. Your own mentor and another editor have said in no uncertain terms that what you are doing is wrong. I don't care to be involved with you in any way, shape or form but I object to your agenda and your hijacking of wiki rules to suit that agenda. As I said, I am happy to discuss this in arbitration as needed. Lochdale 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the passages you have deleted? I don't think so. Otherwise you would not have written such things. Onefortyone 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it in detail and it's a mess. If you want to move it to the sandbox then I would be happy to discuss it there. Also, there is much in the article that is critical of Presley so your contention that the article praises Presley just isn't right. You are doing everything you can to cross-reference other pages that you have heavilly edited in order to build this lurid theory about Presley. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic. Lochdale 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

need to merger diplomatic corp [sic] with diplomatic corps

Sir: I think it is necessary to merge the article diplomatic corp with diplomatic corps. Thanks. Dr mindbender 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Our Lady

Hi Sorry my poor english... I´m from Brazil and I´m illustrating a book of Rosary and I would like to use this image on the cover. Do you have it in a higher resolution? Thank you so much Claudia

Hey, where are you?

On holiday? In jail? On tour? It would be good if you could contribute to the ongoing debate on naming conventions. You played such a big part in setting them up that you should be involved in any changes. Deb 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:1stdailmeeting.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:1stdailmeeting.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Communist state

Whenever you have the time, could you drop by the communist state article and perhaps expand it? 172 has restored much of the text from your 2003 revision, but I'm not sure if he has the time to expand it himself. Your expertise would be helpful, since most editors, misguided by the media's definitions of the term "communist state", are unable to contribute accurate information to the article. -- WGee 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

bono

hola bono como estas me gusta tu musica tu banda y todo lo que haces tambien me gustan todos los videos de U2 todas tus canciones.

ademas me gustan todos los colores que vos usas vestis.

y tus personajes que fueron creados por vos como la mosca mofo macfisto y bad.

espero que estes bien y te encuentres bien

te quiere mucho mariana L frohlich de buenos aires argentina.

un saludo para vos y para tu banda U2 que es genial segui asi y sigan asi son lo mas divertito que conosi en toda mi vida .

aguante U2 y el rock n roll . amor y paz.

unionist Irish

The unionists where I live (north of Ireland) will not like you calling them that but thats what they are IRISH Culnacréann Ireland 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexandra of Hesse

Could you please take a look at Alexandra Feodorovna of Hesse and by Rhine, someone has moved it two/three times in the last couple days and a simple revert won't do. Obviously, this person hasn't read over the naming conventions.

Thanks for the help, Prsgoddess187 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Smallon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Smallon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, Image:Queen-alex.JPG is still missing crucial info, such as its publication date (as opposed to the date the photo was taken), plus which the site which you quoted as a source is no longer displaying the photo, so the provenance is now gone. While you and I might intuit that the picture is probably PD (in which it should be "PD" not "fairuse"), we can't keep the endless unfree pics of Britney off WP unless we are ruthlessly consistent in our application of standards to images. Stan 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Charlemagnecrown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlemagnecrown.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

I regret to say that I have decided to terminate my participation with Wikipedia. It has been a challenging, often rewarding, but all too often frustrating experience. I have come across some of the most astonishingly talented individuals who have done remarkable work and produced extraordinary articles. However I found the constant bombardment with messages from those damned bots the last straw. The idiotic things constantly bombard me with messages demanding that I supply information on photos that I have supplied repeatedly, but the damn bots through design flaws miss. Perfectly legal images, including some of my own taken by me for Wikipedia and unambiguously stated to have been taken by me, and given freely to Wikipedia, have been deleted amid snide insinuations from bots that the source of the picture is disputed when the source has been added in over and over and over.

I also found myself spending far too much time dealing with vandalism. The sheer size of Wikipedia makes maintaining quality impossible. Too many articles that were top class and the work of superb contributors could be reduced to unreadable pulp by one or two illinformed editors. I ended up giving up the fight to maintain standards.

I cannot possibly list all the great contributors I met over my four years here. Among them were Mav, Deb (Man I'll miss you!), John Kenney, 172 . . . I was going to keep going but I could fill the page with the list. To all of you, thank you for a most wonderful experience.

To Jimbo, I salute your courage in creating this extraordinary site. I only wish that we had tighter structures to help keep up standards rather than have to fight over and over again to undo vandalism.

I will drop back occasionally, probably anonymously. I didn't intend coming back at all, such was my frustration in recent times but I have been using the site tonight anonymously and corrected a few errors and thought I'd better explain my departure.

There is more I could say but . . . well may I will someday. I wish Wikipedia all the success in the world. I have been proud to have been a contributor and hopefully have been of some use. I am particularly proud of some of my work here. When I came here the Irish pages were dire and the naming conventions on royalty an international laughing stock. I was glad to have devoted so much time to repairing them. I was particularly chuffed to hear on the BBC recently an expert say that Wikipedia's coverage on titles and usage was the best of any encyclopaedia and showed that a lot of experts who knew what they were doing contributed.

I won't spill the beans on who they are but over the years I became aware through private channels of some of the identities of some of the contributors. Suffice to say that you would be surprised if you knew who they were. One of them was a senior Vatican official with an astonishing (and impressively neutral) knowledge of world religions. One contributor here was at the time a head of government and we even had a European royal on here. One of the saddest experiences I had was to see a very very senior figure, a world-renowned expert who could command fees in the tens of thousands for a ten minute speech, hounded off here by a group of ignorant fools who knew nothing about the topic but made that gentleman's life a misery. Encyclopaedias like Brittanica would have offered that person a blank cheque to write for them. A small bunch of idiots drove him away.

But enough of the cribbing. Thank you for the experience. I wish Wikipedia every success in the future. But please please find a way to control the ability of people who don't know what they are talking about from driving away though who do. And please please would someone get the photo-gestapo to start working with people rather than waging a blitzkrieg on people's work. Not every one among those solving the problem of illegal photographs has an attitude. Many work very well with people. But a few storm around hounding people. In my last month on here at least 9 people I knew and highly respected were driven away by the bot-madness, having had their work torn to shreds, their honesty impuned and their desire to help fix problems undermined by bot-bombardment day after day. It drove them away. It has driven me away. Unless something is done to fix it it will drive others away also. And Wikipedia will be the poorer for it.

And finally, as those of you who know me know, I am also a poet and lyricist (and a historian, polemist, political scientist and a couple of other things - time to get back to the real job and leave Wikipedia on its own) and occasionally leave joke limericks around. Here is my final effort.

When it comes to writing Wikipedia
There are vandals who will try then to beat ya
By savaging texts
and becoming great pests
All to earn us a criticial media.

I'll decided to call it a day Having had to add in one more say.
The curtain now drops
My editing stops
But its been fun, which I'll miss come what may.

The end.

Slán libh and God Bless.

FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)}

Or as I am known in the real world, Thom Cadden.

Oh dear... Thom, it's awful to see someone such as yourself go. However, reading all you have written, I understand and agree with most of what you have said. All too often I have witnessed, been the victim of, and have been caught up in such things that you have described. Simply put, for people like us, the anonymity that Wikipedia affords is for us, both in how anyone with bad intentions can come in here and those with good ones can simply be brushed off and driven away. You were instrumental in keeping me here when I first felt like leaving (I have no real desire to be here anymore myself) and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on and the help you have provided me with the varying European royal articles. Please, feel free to email me using the link on my page if you want. Gratefully, Charles von H. (Charles 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Charles, you were an absolute pleasure to work with. You were one of the best Wikipedians I ever came across. You did a magnificent job. I am amazed how emotional it feels to be leaving. Believe it or not there are tears in my eyes. This project has been part of my life for four years and I loved it to bits. I am so emotional right now. Thank you for your comments. As I said, you were such a pleasure to work with. I didn't add your name in above because I began to realise that I'd be adding in at least forty names. By the time I got to 172 I had to tell myself 'stop or you'll be at this all night.' Unfortunately ill health has also taken its toll on me. I found myself becoming too stressed here and it was distracting me from finishing my own books and actually costing me money. Plus new media opportunities have opened up for me which may take up a lot of time. Again, Charles, Thanks you for your words. I will email you when I get the chance. Thom FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 04:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)}

When someone comes here with so much information to share and a will to essentially better educate the English-speaking world it is bound to be an emotional decision when leaving. I'm sure everyone comes here for one of a few reasons: to at first correct a glaring error as an anonymous editor or to say, "this isn't right, but *this* is" or to create an article. Mine was the last of the three but every single one of them leads one to become dedicated and to build a network of Wikifriends that one can rely on to help and learn from (which arguably is the greatest thing one can do, learn). My time on Wikipedia has been relatively short, but I am happy that I'm able to be seen in a positive light. Thank you for granting me that. So many others are quick to judge, to dismiss and to ignore!

Thom, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors away from Wikipedia. I am looking forward to that email when you have the time. - Charles Charles 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (and you don't need to thank me!)

I am without words. Please do what is best for yourself and our Encyclopædia. I did not know you very well, but from my first edits I watched you…over a year now. You will be missed. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thom, it brings a smile to my face to learn that respected figures and royalty are impressed with the work that we have tried to put together here. I deeply respect the need for privacy for these individuals but I am running possible individuals through my head (but that's the fun of it). Hopefully a foundation on which improvements to Wikipedia can be built has been established and even if we all end up leaving, others should come in and make it an even better place to learn. Don't forget that email! My latest email saga involves an adopted prince -- the fun never ends. I'm sure you'd get a kick out of it. Charles 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a great loss for the community, but I'm sure your talents are just as needed-- if not more-- in other arenas. Good luck with your books. Most of all-- seeing the comment about your heath-- feel better. Sincere personal thanks for your many years of contributions. Over the years I have learned so much much from reading your articles. Through your articles, you may have taught be more about Catholicism and Irish history than anyone else. Warmest regards, 172 | Talk 08:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although we didn't always agree, you were always both fortright and fair. Thanks indeed for all your contributions. You'll be missed. Bastun 08:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ave atque vale, sir. You were a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I only wish we'd interacted more.
Regards,
Septegram 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck for the future- sad loss to Wikipedia. Astrotrain 15:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I never got to know you Thom, but I always noticed you on here. My being an Irish-American I always tried to look out for Irish or Irish-American Wikipedians. The ironic thing was I came here just now from the talk page of the Irish Republic just to see this disheartening message. It is sad when a site become so popular that it begins to drive away the old guard. But I wish I had gotten to know your more. But your countless additions to Wikipedia have helped to further the knowledge of my ancestral land. However, I do admit, that working on an freely edited encyclopedia can take a hit on one's well-being drive them bonkers. So I guess I'm glad that I don't have admin powers and listen to the countless whining and bitching that comes along with wikipolitics. I wish good luck in your further endeavors and if we ever cross paths in Ireland or somewhere else, I might buy you a pint of anything but Guinness. Course, that will have to wait till I'm above legal drinking age. ;)

Slán libh and Faol saol agat, gob fliuch, agus bás in Éirinn. --Saint-Paddy 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My fellow countryman, I'm very sorry to see you go. While we don't at all share a POV, I've always appreciated your efforts to be fair. Slán agus beannacht. AnnH ♫ 22:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So long, Thom. Thanks for the great work, and I wish you the best of luck in all your endeavors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Take care Thom. You sorted out a tough situation for me with class and aplomb. I am forever grateful. You're always welcome for a pint on me in Artane or Chicago. Lochdale 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, you were one of the best Wikipedians that I have come across, you always wrote with interest on the talk page, and your edits were to the point. I see that the BI page is the object of the groundhogs yet again. Any chance of coming out of retirement. We miss you, and we'll miss you. MelForbes 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Although we didn't always see eye on some matters, I've always appreciated your efforts to be fair. You were a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and you’ll be missed. Brian | (Talk) 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wishing you every success

We've had our moments in the past, but I am just writing to let you know how very sorry I am to see you leaving. Your dedication and deep knowledge of many arcane subjects has been a great asset to Wikipedia. In particular, I am very grateful for the support you gave me over the date format issue. --Pete 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• You will be missed. (Radiant) 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think we ever exchanged two words, but I certainly respected you. I am gutted to read you won't be around here no more. All the best. Steve block Talk 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a Great Retirement...

No! Don't leave! Wikipedia needs your great contributions (and limericks that are thought up at the spot)! If you leave, we'll lose a great contributor and Wikipedia wil look like tis!plz jtdirl,dont leev,wikipedia wil die witout ya!

Okay, back to normal. Why don't you take a nice WikiBreak, and see how things play out. It's your decision, so choose the best thing for you. Hope you don't leave - The RSJ 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AliceDenmarkCrown.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AliceDenmarkCrown.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is this sort of ignorant bullshit that led me to leave Wikipedia. Maybe we should interpret the I in IDW as Idiots rather than images and delete the individuals running riot in that section. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)}

Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Mystery Person

One of the saddest experiences I had was to see a very very senior figure, a world-renowned expert who could command fees in the tens of thousands for a ten minute speech, hounded off here by a group of ignorant fools who knew nothing about the topic but made that gentleman's life a misery.I know this has nothing to do with articles but could you please tell me who this was please.I'm very interested.Please. Dermo69 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Don't leave!

Image:Imperialcrown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Imperialcrown.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kingcrown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingcrown.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More replaceable fair use images

• Image:Dailchamber.JPG

—Chowbok ☠ 00:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Robbo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robbo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sig.

Why you change your sig. map of Ireland? why you not have a 'complete' map with NO border? a sat. image etc. Well I was visted by 'Gnevin' and was told that IMAGES in your signature is against Wiki rules so I removed mine. Culnacréann 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's not permanent

Dear J I only just saw your farewell message. I hope you will be like Sinatra, and keep coming back. I shall be looking out for you. Hope you're having a great Christmas, and all the best for 2007. Deb 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		With thanks for your numerous contributions. I'm sorry that you are no longer editing Wikipedia. Timrollpickering 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Garda Police Ireland.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have applied the required tag. --Red King 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jp1arms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jp1arms.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

tag {{seal}} applied --Red King 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:George5.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:George5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:A022ht 5 SedeGest.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:A022ht 5 SedeGest.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alexyugo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexyugo.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Oconnell-street-fighting-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oconnell-street-fighting-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kingcrown.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kingcrown.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 17:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Germanambassador.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Germanambassador.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Esurnir 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Apal.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aras Front.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Aras Front.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Seantokelly.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seantokelly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queenpope.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queenpope.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen elizabethqm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen elizabethqm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Comptr.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Comptr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)