User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TheOldJacobite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Rec'd. today

This keeps on growing.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

But I see you already have it ... as well as Softlavender.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not going to get drawn into that... I have enough headaches on WP, and I am not looking for any more. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Brewster's Millions

Gosh, how do you put up with it? Never realized the silver-screen was such a contentious area! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, I am not sure why I keep editing here. It's really not worth it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I must point out to you, my good confidant, Hillbillyholiday, you do *meet* some excellent editors who become firm friends.
Best wishes to both of you!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth, lovely words and my thoughts entirely. Hey, guess who I've been edit-warring with at Adele? I think I'm up to 10RR now! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh! The nincompoop with the unpronouncable user name ... I guessed that it would be before I visited the lovely Adele. Go for it!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC at The Departed

As a recent participation at Talk:The Departed#Whitey Bulger and The Departed this is just a note to let you know that there is now an RFC regarding the issues discussed at Talk:The Departed#RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Red Dawn reversion

I'm not going to initiate an edit battle, but I am curious.

Editorially speaking, I've always been taught that when first referring to a person in an article to include their first and surname. Yet, you marked my revision as unnecessary. If you feel a complete reference to the actor playing a role in the Plot section is necessary, why is any reference to the actor necessary, especially since the cast is listed later in the article (and some of the cast named in the introductory paragraph). Mikeylito (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference of opinion about this in the Filmproject, with some people favoring simply using the actor's last name in parenthesis, and others feeling the actor's name should be removed altogether. I tend to favor the latter option, but simply reverted to the status quo in this case. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

William Monahan

Could you put this page on your Watch list, for reasons that will be obvious if you view the revision history? Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Well, we know who that is. Yes, added. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

I was given a reason, ONCE, not twice, by Trivialist that made very little sense. I added a poster that was more well-known, was used on the VHS cover, and was in higher resolution. He reverted it with the explanation that didn't involve reasons one and two, but instead pointed out that nonfree images cannot be high resolution. Which makes no sense to me. I'll keep it the way it is now with the poster that you and Trivialist seem to prefer, but I would like an actual reason or an explanation of Trivialist's reason. --Matthew (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your revert at Schindler's List

Reverting with the comment "The argument is irrelevant." might be nice for your ego, but how about explaining you reasoning at the discussion? --Kurt Jansson (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have anything to say about this, say it at the article talk page, not here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But what shall I write there? What do you mean by "The argument is irrelevant."? Which argument? And why is it irrelevant? I linked to the discussion about the reliability of Reddit-AMAs where I have described the process. If you still have any doubts it would be helpful to write them down there. Or at the article's talk page.

At the moment a fact stated in the article Schindler's List is wrong. I corrected it, you put the mistake back in. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we proceed? --Kurt Jansson (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Query

Should this edit remain in situ? Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I fixed it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Film help

An IP user with several different IPs in the 79 range (same location) has been adding and re-adding some peculiar and unecessary/unfounded adjectives to the first sentence (lede) of Sophie's Choice: namely that the film is "existentialist" (false) and "fictitious" (absurdly redundant and unnecessary). Could you help out there, or refer the page to someone who can? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

IP:79.183.209.142 has now reverted Softlavender. I have made the revision to restore the article and issued warning on his/her Talk and on User talk:79.179.167.226 & User talk:79.180.212.124. Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added the film to my watchlist. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all! Appreciated! Softlavender (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Per my request, the article has been protected for one week. We will see if that discourages the troll. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to the noticeboard.

You are invited to this noticeboard here again. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck ...
It is related to this. This is OUTRAGIOUS!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and...

Greetings TOJ, Just popped by, but now that I'm here, thought I'd remind you not to let 'em get you down :) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We haven't chatted in some time but I hope you are well and are having a nice autumn. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the good cheer! Thank you very much! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Zmaher's edits

Hi TheOldJacobite,

I noticed your interactions with Zmaher (talk · contribs) on Red Dawn (2012 film). Lately, he was at it again and I took it to WP:ANI. Feel free to drop by and share your experiences. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 19:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheOldJacobite, while ANI was no success, I went through AIV and that did the trick. Final warnings have been given. Thanks for your input. --Soetermans. T / C 10:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk on the talk page.

I will talk to you on Talk:Ransom (1996 film) on our dispute. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

After two erroneous reports to ANI and the generally negative attitude you have displayed regarding me and my edits, you will forgive me if I am not in any hurry to engage you in further discussion. You make your case on talk, and we will see if anyone else agree with you. I have made my thoughts on the matter quite clear. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

correcting and updating personal page information

Hello Old Jacobite, I hope I am doing this correctly. I have made small edits and added interesting snippets of information to a number of pages over the years but I am in no way a regular contributer to Wikipedia. I would however like to see my own public figure updated and improved but I understand it is considered improper for subjects to edit on their own pages although I did remove one serious factual inaccuracy last year and that remained removed. It seems that fairly recently a regular contributor has revamped my account and laid it out in a much more user-friendly format, of which I approve. I would now like to contact that person and offer more information, updates, past history and maybe photographs. Is this acceptable Wikipedia etiquette. Any pointers would be very helpful. I even bought the Missing Manual Guide to Wikipedia but confess to finding it a rather daunting read. I would like to contribute much more on the subjects with which I am conversant. Thanks in advance. Papblak (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken

Heya TOJ - Could you leave the full text be please? Please see Talk; lots of precedents (all the Shakespeare sonnets, for example). Also Wikimedia does encourage us to cite Wikisource, and even has a quote parameter (that's not too pretty, regrettably). Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not going to leave it in place. Full text of poems, etc., do not belong in articles. That is why we have Wikisource. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have submitted your repetitive reverts for Dispute Resolution. I am reverting your edit one more time, so that the Wikisource quote of the full text remains. We can resolve this in a civil Wikipedian way, I am sure. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to The Green Mile (film)

From the infobox film template:

“

Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list.

”

In your defense, yes, Hanks is listed at the top and I see why you made this edit. At the same time, the policy is clear as to what should be done regarding other actors in the billing block. The policy should be taken with a grain of salt, but in a film like Green Mile where there are a large amount of important characters, I would say we should follow the policy in this particular instance. I'm reverting your edit now. If you disagree with this notion, we could take it to the talk page and work it out there. Please note that I'm not trying to attack you at all by saying this (as you may have noticed, I didn't argue with you reverting me on Seven (film)) but I think this issue needs to be addressed. Thanks. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page and/or at the Film Project. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Moonrise Kingdom#"Starring roles"

I started a new thread querying the use of Moonrise Kingdom's poster as the ultimate authority as to what are the starring roles in the film. I wasn't sure whether you've seen this and whether you have anything to add. Alfietucker (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Goodfellas revert

Hi, re this revert, happy for you to revert any mistakes made by my bot's edits, though would you let me know afterwards so I can fix the error for next time? Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, certainly! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Return of a problem

Hello TOJ. I noticed that you've placed some warnings on IP 90.200.85.80 (talk · contribs) page. I just thought I would let you know that this is the return of our Burton-on-Trent vandal. Here are the previous SPIs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive. I thought I would leave these links in case you need them. As ever, thanks for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew I recognized that IP, but could not remember why. Thank you for the information and for keeping your eyes open! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Please see the post by Bishonen here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Disruptive IP who was blocked two days ago is back. Looks like we can report any new IPs directly to that admin. That should make dealing with this person easier. MarnetteD | Talk 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much easier. Thanks for the update. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Onorem (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is in reference to True Romance, it is the editor who added the material who is violating BRD by repeatedly readding the material and failing to use the talkpage to explain his edits or his reasoning. The burden is upon him to prove notability, not for me to disprove it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR doesn't require one to follow the BRD essay. You are edit warring just as much as they are. The burden might be on them, but that doesn't give you unlimited reverts. You could also start a discussion. --Onorem (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I did. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely don't care enough to revert you, but I'm curious if you have a reason for not wanting that particular review included. How would someone prove notability for including a review? The site is notable. (Or it at least has an article here.) What kind of argument do you expect the IP to make? --Onorem (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did you post here rather than on the article talk page? You do not care enough to revert, but you care enough to come here and question my motives? I doubt the notability of that list, and I do not believe the notability of the website, which has nothing to do with movie reviews, makes that list notable. The IP's failure to make any effort to show it is notable speaks for itself. They made a list and he was on it, so what? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I asked. I'll not bother you again. I didn't post to the article talk page because I really don't give a shit about the specifics of that article. I just don't understand what your reasoning is, or how you thought anyone could respond with an argument to notability. What makes the other reviews notable? Forget it. Enjoy your victory until the IP shows up again and this whole nonsense is restarted. It's off my watchlist now. --Onorem (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What the ****!

Having rid ourselves of AutoMamet (talk), I was appalled to read the second thread here → (About Hearfourmewesique) this morning. What do you feel?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 10:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to remain neutral on this one. I share your skepticism, though, and do not believe it is a good idea to welcome Hfm back. As for Mamet, his block will end eventually, and he will be back... ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand, though I suffer despair.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 13:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that as well, and I empathize. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: 3RR warn

Nowhere in WP:3RRNO justifies these edit-wars. Also, your rollback over his/her contributions are a blatant violation of WP:Rollback and your tool should be removed as it was misused to edit-war. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm kicking you while you're down, but I've removed your rollback. Repeatedly using it in a content dispute is not acceptable. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is bullshit. What you are saying is that a user can repeatedly add his or her opinion to an article and not have to worry about being reverted. When I reverted the editor in question the first time, I left a message on his talkpage explaining my reasoning and telling him not to revert without explanation. At that point, the onus was upon him to justify his edits with sources that showed this was something other that his opinion. His response and his continuing attitude and reverts clearly indicated he intended to be disruptive and that he felt no need or responsibility to justify or source his additions. That attitude is unacceptable and I interpreted his edits as disruption and acted in what I honestly felt was the appropriate manner. Then, I lost my temper and pushed the limits of acceptable behavior. But, my requests at RPP were sincere attempts to nip the dispute in the bud without further article disruption or damage. At this point, all five of those articles make claims that are not sourced, and which are nothing more than that editor's opinion. That, at the very least, should be reverted. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

But you had other options than reverting him 30 times today. You could have asked for a second opinion from an experienced Wikipedian, or sought help at a Wikiproject, or even reported him to ANI. Reverting 30 times in one day just isn't allowed, even if your reverts result in improvements to the article. Only in cases of clear vandalism, defamation, block evasion, or copyvio are you allowed to revert continually. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this was clear vandalism, by an editor who made it clear he was not willing to listen. Still, I did admit that I went too far. As I said, I lost my temper, which I am not offering as an excuse, merely an explanation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You can try to request an unblock (or wait the 22 hours that left). In the strict sense the addition of his point of view is not vandalism, just, and maybe just, disruptive editing. But if we consider the genre was correct in his additions, it is not likely to judge it as vandalism. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Note – this editor just opened a sock account at User:TheOldJacobite2 and was blocked accordingly for the same edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not create that account. I do not know what the hell is going on, but that is not me. The last thing I would do is create a sock account, and certainly not one that is so obvious. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can a check-user be done to show that this account was not created or operated by me? Obviously, I cannot leave a message for Materialscientist, the blocking editor, but I want to reiterate that I did not create that account and do not know who did. I would like this sorted out as soon as possible, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just talked with a checkuser, who has confirmed that this was a "joe job", so to speak (i.e. TheOldJacobite2 is unrelated to your account). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And the culprit has been found. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into this and dealing with it so quickly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The situation was just explained to me (I knew there was a sock someplace). I apologize for assuming it was you evading a block. My mistake completely. It appears you have a vengeful enemy. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You made an assumption based upon the available evidence, just as most people would, myself included. It seems to me that he simply showed his true stripes and made it clear that he was not here to help build an encyclopedia. I am not blameless in this situation, but I was not maliciously intended. I appreciate your apology. Thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It was I who blocked TOJ2. My sincere apologies for the erroneous and offending block message – one more example on that I should never stop learning wikiskills. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As far as I am concerned, that brings this whole affair to a close. I suppose there is something comforting in the reality that we can all fuck up, admit our faults, learn from it, and move on. I am certainly ready to move on. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually moving on is relative. Someone who is willing to "joe job" impersonate you once, can do it again...plus do other things to other editors. We must keep an eye open for future nefariousness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment, but I am not going to waste any time worrying about that guy. People like him come and go. The rest of us are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's get on with it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt

Greetings TOJ. Although I don't suppose that a check on this will serve any purpose, I'd just like to let you know that I, for one, don't doubt that it's simply someone setting you up. Re the 24-hour block, I too have been in similar situations to the one(s) that led to your block, and I fully sympathise with you. One of the perks the admins have is that they can indeed nip that kind of behaviour you refer to in the bud, in more ways than one, whereas we mortals are expected to remain Cool, Calm & Collected... but not too Bold. If the block imposed had been for a longer period, it might have been worth appealing, but as it is, consider it an opportunity (there's always a backlog o' stuff to sort out in real life) and yet another battle scar you've picked up along the way. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your message. I am going to sit this one out like a good soldier, because I know I crossed the line. But, I am not going to stand by while someone impersonates me. Something has to be done to address that. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For you

		The Purple Barnstar
		You made a mistake but you owned up to it. The unwarrented attacks on you that followed have earned you this award. Cheers MarnetteD \| Talk 15:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I second everything Michael says here. All the best!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You For Smoking revert

Greetings, with thanks for your tireless efforts. I wish to respectfully address your decision to revert my additions to "Thank You For Smoking". While I cannot deny I may have inserted far more detail than was necessary (can you blame me? I was involved), I take issue with your justification that it was extraneous. The point I wished to make was that the writers actually incorporated some real, significant science into the script. Very few productions take the time to do research to this depth and incorporate it properly, in context -- after all this is not your typical cocktail party banter. My bias regarding medical significance aside, I do feel that the writers deserve recognition for their effort. This was not, to my mind, extraneous. I ask you to review and reconsider. I would welcome either your editing down of my addition or your suggestions to me of what would make it acceptable as an addition. In any case, I do thank you and wish you well. Drmcclainphd (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This matter should be discussed on the article talk page, rather than here. Please post your argument there so that other editors, including myself, can see it and respond and perhaps some consensus can be reached on this content. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia revert

There is a mistake on the page and you reverted to the mistake. Bruce Springsteen was nominated and won the award for the song Streets of Philadelphia. Neil Young was nominated for his song Philadelphia and lost. You are making a mistake.Maki79 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I fixed the error. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)