User talk:Jguk

Template:Nothere Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

This is the second anime list I am trying to get featured. Based on your comments on another nomination, I feel you might be interested in this nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes --Cat out 13:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Cahn

Brookie here - I have started the above article and would aprreciate some help from those with more knowledge. Thanks Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.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 an argument 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. User:Angr 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religioustolerance.org

I noticed your stance about this site, and the fact it is not a proper source. I rather agree, they seem to be so biased that I doubt there is one straight and true statement in the whole site. What I wonder is just what the bias is. Would you know what to what group--Svartalf 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)(s) the owners of that site belong or support?[reply]

6 months...

...already. We miss your contribution at WP:CRIC. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Tintin (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How have you been? It's great to have you on board again. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great to find you again. I saw that you went to Wikibooks during your break. So much must have changed since the last time you were here. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my name to those who are very glad to see your return. Welcome home! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good God he's back! I just saw a contribution and couldn't believe my eyes. Are you getting warmed up for the Ashes tour yet and will you be paying us a visit down under in person? Welcome back old man -- I@n 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. However, I am just briefly popping back (I didn't have much to do last Monday after we won the Test). I may touch in briefly again in the future, but am unlikely to return as a significant contributor. All the best, jguk 14:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, a little editing is better than none. Its good to hear from you again anyway -- I@n 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Hope to see some more occasional posts by you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - I am officially away at the moment, but could not pass up the opportunity to say hello! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are able to find time to make a lot more contributions, especially your historical work. Best wishes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your return, but I'd still like to add my voice to the chorus here. Guettarda 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of four captains

Thanks for some valuable contributions. --Dweller 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And wow, thanks for the DYK! --Dweller 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk's XI

Hi. Thanks for comments. I'll look into them and post on the talk page there. --Dweller 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial fix undertaken. <blushes> --Dweller 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Interestingly, at the top of this page you have a comment "If you wish to send me a message, please email me here. Otherwise assume I have not seen and will not see your message. Thanks, jguk." but the link says you've not specified your email address. --Dweller 16:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rotherhithe Tube Station.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rotherhithe Tube Station.JPG. 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}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source 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. Conscious 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Conscious 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

Hi Jguk, it's just that we've been through this before. You spent a few weeks as I recall trying to get rid of "verifiability, not truth," and were opposed by multiple editors. People do like it, and it's very, very helpful. I've seen it instantly turn disagreements around, and it's succinct and clear: the kind of thing you usually like. That one phrase, "verifiability, not truth," sums up V and NOR. Of all the phrases we need to keep, that is the single most important one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have conceded that it will stay. But why so vehemently oppose moving it down the page a little? It would still be there and quotable. Indeed, I wouldn't object to the reintroduction of that sentence that you wish to see remain within the context of the change in presentational emphasis that I am suggesting. Intriguingly your proposed Wikipedia:Attribution, which you appear to want to replace WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, says absolutely nothing on truth. I confess, based on that, I had thought that you had changed your insistence on mentioning "truth" and was genuinely surprised to see you argue so strongly against me on the point on WP:V, jguk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V has around 920 words, NOR has 2,220 and RS 4,490 (the precise number depends on how you choose to count words). Most of what can usefully be said on the matters covered by these pages is on WP:V. Indeed, it would be relatively straightforward, with a bit of give and take, to expand WP:V to around 1,000 words to cover all the points. Your discursive WP:ATTRIBUTE proposal takes the thrust away from verifiability entirely, and lapses into the "try to cover every scenario" problems besetting the other two pages. It is already over 2,000 words long (and probably set to expand further).

I agree with you totally that we only need one policy to cover these related content issues.

Bearing the style and length comments above, would it not be best to leave WP:ATTRIBUTE and concentrate on adding those few words to WP:V that are required to merge the other concepts in their entirety? This would have the benefit of brevity, as well as making it a much easier read - and make it more read, jguk 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I started a new proposal, instead of arguing to incorporate NOR and RS into V, was so we could leave the word "verifiability" behind. It has caught on and so I'm not sure trying to get rid of it is realistic, but the word implies that in seeking to verify something, we're trying to find out whether it's true, which we're not. So I chose "attribution."

I'd go further, were it up to me, and would incorporate NPOV into V and NOR too, so that we'd have one content policy (WP:ATTRIBUTION or WP:SOURCE) and three ideas: (1) Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, but need not actually be attributed (which is the essence of NOR); (2) Everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source, or it may be removed (the essence of V); (3) The views of reliable published sources on any given topic should be represented in articles on that topic in rough proportion to their representation in the relevant literature (the essence of NPOV).

All the rest is detail.

As for WP:ATT, don't worry about its length. At the moment, people are still feeling their way, adding things to see how they fly, removing them again. It'll settle down eventually and then it can be tightened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's relationships with two of his contemporaries...

Hi there, Jguk. We're having quite a discussion over on Usenet about the 1882 Test Match. We've been sidetracked several times by matters of interest, and one thing that we haven't been able to solve is the nature of W. G. Grace's relationship with Fred Spofforth and Bob Thoms, the umpire who upheld his appeal for that controversial run-out of Sammy Jones. I've asked BlackJack, but he, unfortunately, couldn't really help me. You seem to have quite an interest in The Ashes, Jguk, so I'm wondering if you might help. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

PS: Here are the links to the Usenet threads that we're using for our discussion: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/79f927dcb57ab0f9/59cb6c0250882149?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#59cb6c0250882149 and http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/b430bc08e2372e42/a989ec69037059c7?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4#a989ec69037059c7. Cheers again, Robertson-Glasgow 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Courcy the umbrella-handle muncher???

In the "History of the Test cricket (up to 1883)", you wrote: "Epsom stockbroker called Arthur Courcy, is said to have bitten through his brother-in-law's umbrella handle." I've heard about a spectator biting through his umbrella handle, but I have never heard the name of Arthur Courcy mentioned in this regard, and I certainly wasn't aware of it being his brother-in-law's umbrella. Would you care to give and quote your sources? Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worry not; 'tis been sorted.

Policies

Please don't disrupt WP:V again. It isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed huge chunks of text. It's a policy page. You can't just remove whole sections and be surprised when you're reverted. You know this from the last several times you tried to do it before you left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a note and discuss before, not after, and please discuss this on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to have multiple discussions about this, so please post on the policy talk page from now on. We have the same objectives, but I don't like the way you go about making unilateral changes to long-standing policy, then reverting when people object. I also don't like the POV forks, the aggression, the discussions in more than one place, and the spinning. What you seem not to realize, is that the current contents of V are there because many very experienced editors agree that those rules work. That's much, much more important than counting words, which is what you seem to focus on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just be completely straightforward, you'd find an ally in me, but I really don't like the M.O. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. I don't mean it to; it's just that it gets a bit much. Why not simply propose the changes on talk? You might manage to persuade others or find yourself persuaded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any aggression can be put down to a refusal of you to discuss issues I raise, and yet revert any changes I make in relation to them. If you can discuss what concerns you on talk pages at the time, or only revert if you then go on straightaway to outline what your concern about the amendment itself is, then you'll find much of my frustration with you will wane, jguk 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made your changes prior to discussion and three editors arrived within minutes to revert you. You'll need to discuss very thoroughly before making radical changes to long-standing policies. I know it's frustrating to have to talk about issues for a long time, but it's the only way to get policies changed substantively. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a false impression. I reverted you, Jules reverted you, and Ann arrived to revert you but was beaten to it. Please continue this on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with you. You've spent the day trolling and trying to get people to fall out with each other. You blatantly delete half a policy without discussion, then just as blatantly deny you've deleted it, then you accuse other people of failing to edit collaboratively. It's utterly bizarre, and I can only hope you are trolling, because if you're not doing this on purpose, it's disturbing. No more. Don't contact me on my talk page; don't expect responses from me on other talk pages; and don't take my lack of response to mean I agree with anything you propose. I've watched you do this time and again, with issue after issue, editor after editor, and I'm not going to be sucked into it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say on this one. I've spent all day trying to get SV to explain why she disagrees with a suggestion I made, making it clear I'm happy to discuss it. Is it trolling to ask an editor who has reverted you to explain what they disagreed with about the edit? What are you meant to do on WP when someone point blank refuses to discuss anything with you - and in particular why they actually disagree with you? Oh well, some people are like that. Thankfully almost all other editors are quite happy with the idea of constructive collaboration. I'll look forward to working with them. jguk 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I suppose the plus side is that if SV really is going to ignore me, I'll get the benefit of impartial comments from others when I make comments on policy talk pages. Some will agree with me, some won't - but on the plus side those threads won't be drowned out with noise, jguk 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally clear

good point, we should probably update {{proposed}} to reflect this usage (since it's relatively common). (Radiant) 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religioustolerance dot org

Hi. I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

I understand you have some history with this -- feel free to weigh in at WikiProject Spam. Thanks, --A. B. 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clue us in on this -- it was helpful. Since my main focus is on true spamming, I think I'll let this go. That's not conceding that these are appropriate links -- it's just that there's enough to do with hard-core spammers and they're so much more fun. --A. B. 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes

Hi Jon, are you coming out to Australia for the Tests? — Moondyne 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (formerly I@n)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

Sydney Riot of 1879 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. As you were one of the major contributors, please help bring this article to current featured article quality. --RelHistBuff 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jguk, do you have the citation details for the Harriss and the NSWCA letters? — Moondyne 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the author(s)

Hi

I restored "the author(s)" on the verifiability page. It is far more accurate English. A few of us had a chat about this a while ago and this was the best comprise. Self-published sources might be from a "themselves" or an "itself", authors encapsulate both.

Some editors have claimed it means that only the self-published authors can use stuff about themselves, would you believe?

I support you. 195.82.106.244 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note re V

Hi Jguk, I probably missed the recent event, but I know that as of a couple of weeks ago as well as a few days ago, we were discussing specifically the nutshell box. In that discussion, which I think we had consensus (I initially disagreed and then agreed with the others) the nutshell format was an issue. Today I saw you reverted the nutshell into a bland (and non-standard with the other policy pages) message box. I also saw the disagreement in the Talk page with Jossi. I agree with you that consensus has to be reached a priori for these pages, I guess the question is which version is consensual. IMO at least the nutshell has been there for quite a while over the last few months, survived a lot of upheavals and conforms to the other policy pages. Crum375 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyline

Just a note, on the Bodyline FAC, you should append your Support per the FAC instructions, "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this." You can just add a statement that you have contributed to the article in the past. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remarked because I had seen your name a lot in the 2005 edit history, but if those entries were not significant, you're right that a mention isn't required (I don't have time to check, but certainly take your word for it). Sandy (Talk) 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous

Thank you for your note, and no, I hadn't realized it was a UK/US thing - though I probably should have thought more about why there were such a large number of cases of spellings each way. John Broughton | Talk 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

Jguk, I want to try to work on this today, to hopefully get it closed out. Are you around? I can't find any of the books - do you have publisher and publication date on them? I'll follow your talk page, to keep discussion in one place. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, ALoan found them on amazon.co.uk - I left some other questions on the FAR. Sandy (Talk) 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Sede vacante.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. -- 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1967 Close axed.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1967 Close axed.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1967 Close axed.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1967 Close axed.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 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

The featured review for this has stalled, with no clear consensus. There are a handful of citation requests. Do you think you could handle those? I'd be happy to strike my remove, as would the others I'm sure. The requests I think are quite reasonable as detailed in the review. Marskell 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK

Come to wikimediauk-l, we have corporate loose ends to attend to - David Gerard 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4-1

hmmm. Cheers —Moondyne 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Alletson

Hi. When User:The Rambling Man and I have finished our current FA drive for Ipswich Town F.C. and Norwich City F.C. (at peer review and "reconstruction" respectively!) we're planning on tackling Ted Alletson next, assuming we can get a usable image or two. If you're interested in helping, you're more than welcome. --Dweller 11:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom corporation tax FAR

United Kingdom corporation tax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Wogan Article

Hi, I know you haven't done anything on the Terry Wogan article recently, but you seemed to have a lot of facts at your fingertips. I was hoping you might be able to tell me what Wogan's Parents' names were, since you implied you had access to his book "Mustn't Grumble" - I've been doing substantial edits lately, and have it nominated for GA status now, but this bit of info with a source would round out the personal section nicely.

If you have time, I hope you can get back to me on my talk page, or directly into the article. Cheers --Fritzpoll 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it (since the discussion has happened so many times), but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). There is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.daniel folsom 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brian Close on main page.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brian Close on main page.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashes

The Ashes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You are among those who have created the most. So you are among the first. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]