User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 1
Jtdirl, could you please write your articles in complete sentences? Thank you. -- Zoe
Lots of people here follow really stupid naming policies. It's a pain in the ass even trying to argue with them. Keep up the good fight! Lir 08:41 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)
Jtdirl, I'm gonna ask again. Please use complete sentences in your articles. -- Zoe
Hello there Jtdirl, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, great work on Northern Ireland. Cheers! --maveric149
Sure thing, Zoe! But when are you going to write proper english. I've tried to find a word 'gonna' in any dictionary but, as you might say, it ain' there! Only joking, Zoe! It is 3.18 am and I'm sorta (!!!) tired. Or rather I'm wik-ed out and heading to sleep. Thanks for the message. Will do. Opps, sorry. I WILL DO IT. :) JTD 03:08 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
Hi JTD - just wanted to say good work on the GB/UK monarchs thing. It's the sort of thing I'd recognise as incorrect if somebody pointed it out, but that I probably wouldn't have noticed just casually surfing around the place. Keep up the good work and all that. --Camembert
Get some sleep. It's Christmas soon! I think you're doing a good job even though I disagree with you about the Queen Mother. Mintguy
Per your question on my talk page:
Good question. Normally a user would just choose which page title is best and then redirect alternate forms of the name to that page title. But in this case the move function could not be used since there were two edits in the redirect titled "Irish language" (which I'm assuming is the place where you want the article). So an Admin is needed to delete the redirect page. I've done this and have also done the move. Please tell me if the result is what you wanted. --mav
Can you explain why you cut a substantial part of the discussion from the talk page of IPF? I know I shouldn't take these things personally, but you cut half of a comment of mine in which I think I was being reasonable, and left the half that was perhaps more venting, leaving the comment hanging with a "but" Slrubenstein
My entire last comment was cut as well. Perhaps it contained information you werent capable of dealing with yet. "If you cant handle the heat..." -Sv
Thanks for the explanation -- I suspected it was something like this. Slrubenstein
JTD, I think you are being churlish on the Irish potato famine talk pagewhen you write,
- You've just proved my point. Most Irish people know who John Mitchell was and so how to rate his expressed opinion. Many Irish Americans don't.
So what? Isn't the task of a scholar to understand, and the task of an encyclopedia to educate? Of course many readers will have no idea who John Mitchell is. But you write as if the purpose of this article is to entrap people into revealing their ignorance; as if when someone doesn't understand something, you have somehow "won." But we need to assume that everyone who reads articles here are ignorant, and that it is our task to explain things to them, not gloat over what they do not know.
Also, so what that "Irish Americans" don't know who John Mitchell was? I am sure that there are a lot of things that Irish Americans know that contemporary citizens (or do you call yourselves subjects?) of Ireland don't know. Again, so what? Encyclopedia articles are meant to educate, and the task of scholars is to understand. In a long comment above you reveal that you do have some understanding of Irish Americans and their concerns. Why not use what you know?
To say that "history owns history" is a meaningless phrase. History, however it is defined, is something that some people study, others remember, others forget, others celebrate, others mourn, in short, something that has different meanings to various people. Obviously the Irish potato famine has one meaning to people living in Ireland, and other meanings to people living in the Irish diaspora. I have no doubt that it has other meanings as well. A good article -- NPOV -- will examine critically, and explain, as many of these perspectives/understandings as possible.
You have posted a lot of meaningful content on the talk pages. Instead of deleting or archiving them -- or even responding to other people's provocative comments -- why not incorporate them into the article itself, and continue to improve it? Slrubenstein
The reply is on Sirubenstein's Talk Page --- Below comments as far as the double lines are moved from my main page to here.
yes, there seems it is always difficult when two people are working on an article at the same time. In any case, I edited my last comment and placed it on your personal talk page, where I think it really is more appropriate than on the article talk page. Also, if you are archiving stuff, I suggest you creat an archive 2 for later material. The convention also is not to select specific stuff for archiving, though, but periodically to archive contiguous material as the talk page gets too long. That said, I still think a lot of stuff you have placed on the talk page should not be archived but if anything be incorporated into the article. Slrubenstein
Once again, I appreciate your detailed response. I am sorry I misunderstood the exchange and Sv's use of Mitchell. Nevertheless, my intention was not to intervene in your debate with Sv (such as it is) but ratehr to make an observation about that debate that I hoped would be constructive in improving the article itself. You ask:
- Would Steve accept Mitchell's words being used if they described merely as propaganda? Would he accept serious question marks being placed against his favourite author's reliability, given that he uses Mitchell's views as gospel?
And I answer, I do not know, and I do not care. All I care about is making a better article (an article to which I admit I have nothing to contribute but from which I have much to learn. Moreover, I admit, I am as interested in how people talk about the Irish potato famine as in the famine itself -- and by "people" I don't mean you and Sv and whomever else may participate in Wikipedia; I mean professional historians; Irish politicians, English politicians, and Irish-American politicians and community leaders, in other words, all those relatively large groups who have an interest in how the actual history of the famine or the continuing representation (or as others would argue, no doubt, misrepresentation) of the famine in the popular imagination. So my question now is, is Sv the only person who knows of and quotes Mitchell, or are there many others, whether on one side of the political spectrum in Ireland, or in the U.S., who appeal to Mitchell or others like him? If so, I think Mitchell must be discussed in the article (and if not Mitchell, whomever else is widely quoted). Also, I do not think labeling Mitchell or anyone else as a propagandist and leaving it at that is good scholarship: under what conditions did that discourse arise, and what are the conditions that continue to make this discourse meaningful to many people? From many of your comments adressed to me in the talk section of the article, it seems to me that you are capable of answering these questions without being dismissive; indeed, sympathetically as well as critically.
You needn't respond to this if you don't want to. At this point I think I have explained my own position as well as I can; if you agree, I figure I will see the results soon in the article; if you disagree, well, peace be unto you and I still appreciate those contributions you have already made... Slrubenstein
I appreciate the tone youve chosen to take. ad hominem attacks are worthless, and i think youve come to realise that, and separate your passions from your professionalism. On a technical note, older material can always/usually be retrieved in the older versions of the page. these are editable, and the codetext can be cut from them. On a final note, (and food(fastfood) for thought), "A teacher teaches best what what he/she needs to learn." is there any truth to this? --Sv
I think the version of IPF I just read (1/10) is vastly improved, really quite good. Good job, Slrubenstein
Hi. I kicked off an article on Parnell, but didn't really feel I could do justice to him. I hoped someone else would pick it up and put in all the important bits, but so far no one seems interested. Have you any plans to expand it - if not, could I please draw it to your attention as a possibility? --Deb
JT, I think that if someone uses the Search function and puts in "Lord John Russell", they'll get a match on this article. Even using the new "Go" button takes you there. -- Zoe
Hello, sorry to barge in unannounced again, but I noted the debate on Lord John Russell, and, although I agree with the basic premise that we shouldn't include such titles as "Sir" and "Lord" in the name, you do have a point. This was at the front of my mind because I had just been doing "Lady Caroline Lamb" - actually I've reserved that for the film, and just put her biog under Caroline Lamb, but it doesn't look quite right. I think the reason for this is that she was called "Lady Caroline" from birth, her father being an earl. Therefore in a sense you might argue that the "Lady" was part of her name - quite a different matter from acquiring the title by marriage or being given a knighthood by the queen. Was this the case with Lord John Russell - I mean, was he called that from birth? Deb
JT, I know what you mean about the Wiki addiction. !!!!! -- Zoe
Jtdirl; could you point out exactly which articles you've had disappearing edits on, and about when you made the edits? I can check the web server logs and at least get an impression of what's going on. --Brion 20:02 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)
I trust that in due course you will expand the items on O'Connell Street and on "Irish Statues and their nicknames" to cover "The Street of the Three Adulterers". PML. (Thanks. I forgot about that. I'll add that in straight away!) JTD 00:41 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)
JT, I'm not sure what article you're referring to on my talk page. I didn't add any content that would indicate a Lord Fitzalan (that I recall), if I made any changes to an article they were probably mainly cosmetic. Point me in a direction? As for the Irish potato famine article, I'm staying out of that one. -- Zoe
Go to bed. It's gone 5 am! Mintguy
Good job on Riksdagen, that entry really needed to be revised! It was also a good addition to the Constitution of Sweden, even if all of it wasn't entirely accurate. The entire former Riksdagen entry has been integrated into the Parliament of Sweden entry, which is placed in the structure under Government of Sweden. (On the structure of Politics of Sweden see here or look somewhere on my page.)
I suspect that we might share some similar interests. For one thing I have noticed that political science doesn't even have an article on the parliamentary system(!). I've always felt I knew to little about the (political) history of Ireland, so I look forward on reading up on some of your contributions. Further additions and comments regarding the Swedish politics entries are warmly welcomed. / Mic
You think maybe Two16 and Fwappler are the same person? They seem to have similar grasps on reality. -- Zoe
For what it is worth -- please just ignore Two16, it is the only thing to do. That said, I'd still like to reiterate a comment I have made about the IPF page (which by the way I think is very good, largely thanks to your edits). First, I think it is important to distinguish between a factual description of what happened, and various explanations and evaluations of what happened (I think the article does that, but sometimes the two get muddled on the talk page). Second, in discussing the various explanations for and judgements of what happened, I do not think it is right to privilege Irish vs. Irish diaspora (or Irish American) points of view (although the two need to be distinguished and contextualized). Finally, some of what I see on that page really might be better off in a separate article in Irish diaspora... Slrubenstein
- JTD -- I am sorry that I miscommunicated; any time I have alluded to any differences I have had with you, I should have used the past tense. I do think there was a moment, quite some time ago, when I was unsure whether you were lumping me together with Sv or not, and I did not think you understood or agreed with my position -- as I say, this was some time ago. I assure you: I think you have contributed a lot to this project and you certainly have not offended me or said anything to me that merits any kind fo qualification or apology; moreover, any respect towards or appreciation of me is reciprocal. I also fully understand your issues with others -- if you peruse my page (or talk page) you will see an exchange with someone identified as "ark" that really took the cake (the debate carried over from pages on the incest taboo and something called neolithic childrearing or something like that); I also had a frustrating exchange with Two16 on the Revolution talk page.
- Substantively, I have problems with any discourse that suggests that one group of people "own" history. I do not want to get into debates over revisionism -- and I certainly am not defending or excusing any of the various people who have insulted you with ad homenim and silly remarks. I have tried to present my own view towards historiography in general and the Ipf article in particular (in which I have tried to accomodate not only your own expertise in the area but those points of Sv that I consider valid or meaningful) as constructively as possible.
- It sounds like despite Two16s latest rant you will not abandon the IPF page -- I am glad. Slrubenstein
- Thanks for your detailed response on my talk page. As usual, I find that much of what you write could and I think should be in an article -- if not IPF, then an article on Irish historiography or even as a section in a general article on Post-colonial historiography. Please consider this. What you wrote on my page is too "meta" I think for IPF but does belong in some article.
- As for archiving -- I am sorry but I cannot help you, at least not right now. I have never archived a page before and would have to go over the process before trying, and I am about to leave my office, Slrubenstein
- In a pathetic sort of way I am glad you can sympathize with my Two16 experience. In any event, I wanted to tell you again how exciting it is to see real progress on IPF. I fear at this point I am way way out of my league and I doubt I can add anything else constructive, but a lot of great stuff is getting out there, thanks, Slrubenstein
I think these buggers have ruined the IPF article. Mintguy
Message just recieved. A cable connection has apparently spoiled me - It hadnt occured that this was an issue. Ill also include a head up on the size issue on t:IPF page if someone else hasnt done it already.- "Bugger" Sv
I agree completely. Bucking horns was just a fact of life, though, and its rather pointless to qualify the act of B.H. as being positive or negative - its just a part of the process. And I appreciate the fact that you know a lot about the subject; perhaps so much that people like you who have a great deal of information at close hand, often forget that the rest of us are way back here: we need the full story, and the Union act seems the beginning of it to me, though, it goes agains instincts to build up so slowly. My journalism (major) instincts kick in - I want to know the what. the when, -- the why, is obviously something that comes after the what, and as our clashes were evident of, the why is hard to explain in a summary. you and i both understand the importance of history, and clarity, and the wikipedia, as a potential source for someones "informed" point of view, and this is, i think the real basis for our common ground.
A lot of times, it seems, people like you and i, wind up arguing not so much about the material, as about the style: much of my take on things deals with the flow of information first, and its human interest (who else is going to read it): an example:
Mine: Its immediate impact on Ireland was devastating, and its longterm impact continues until today; manifested in socio-political issues, sexual and marriage patterns, emigration, and land-holding policies.
Thine: While its immediate impact on Ireland was considerable, its long-term impact, in terms of changing land-holding structures, sexual and marriage patterns and emigration, proved immense.
Im not sure if there is a quantitative way of comparing the differences between the event of the Famine and the legacy of the Famine... So i wrote it as a two parter, it was devastating, and.... You, (or someone else) wrote it as a comparison, While its... its... . It struck the editor in me that the comparison was less a product of an intended point, and more a product of unclear language, or a (wiki) writers habit; the tendency to use comparisons as a way to vary the flow....
Im not sure. Its small, but I think if we can hammer this one out, we can deal with the rest rather efficiently, and to everyones satisfaction (save yours and mine - of course;) - Stevert
Hi JTD - as far as I know, there's no automatic way to move texts from the wikipedia to Project Sourceberg. You'll have to start a page over at http://ps.wikipedia.com by making a link on the Main Page there (all articles are linked from the main page there, because there's currently very few of them) and importing the text in by hand. Then you can replace the article here on the wikipedia with the following single line:
#REDIRECT [[ps:whatever the article name is]]
which will make a redirect straight to the article at Sourceberg. That will keep any links to the page at wikipedia working. Hope that makes sense - if you need any clarification or whatever, just ask. --Camembert
I had no idea there were keyboards that lacked a cardinal number (or hash) key. On a PC you can get the symbol by holding down Alt, typing 35 on the numeric keypad, and then releasing Alt. If you're on a Mac or some other system, maybe there's some equivalent of that. Otherwise, I'm not really technically minded enough to help you on that one, I'm afraid - you might add a question to the bottom of the Wikipedia:Village pump, where somebody who knows how to help is bound to see it. Cheers--Camembert
If you've got consensus on the naming convention, then by all means add it to the appropriate naming convention page. However, people have a habit of coming out of the woodwork at the last minute and disagreeing with things just when you think consensus has been reached (I'm speaking from experience here), so it might be a good idea to first put your change/addition on the talk page of the convention page in question and leave it there for a week or so before changing the convention itself. I think this is often the best way to do things in the long run, even if it does hold things up for a few days.
By the way - I know what you mean about addiction. I can hardly walk past a library these days without nipping in to check some wikipedia article I've written or am about to write. I've not yet reached the stage of ringing up the queen though - that's addiction indeed! Keep up the good work--Camembert
JT, I don't know what's up with the Google search. It might be that it takes Google a while to catch up. Why not take it to the Village Pump, where somebody more knowledgeable than me can answer this question. -- Zoe
You better archive your own talk page before it gets too long for your browser. Maybe you should ask on the mailing list or maybe the Main Page talk page? -- Zoe
- Hope you don't mind me cutting in on the Google thing - the reason many of our pages are not listed at Google is that a while ago somebody made a bit of a balls up with the robots.txt file (which tells search engines like Google what they can and can't see), with the result that Google wasn't allowed to index any of our pages. This has now been put right, and the pages are starting to be reindexed again. It'll take a little time, but they'll all be back on Google eventually. --Camembert
Big, big mistake taking me on... Phonies like you who hide behind a computer can pretend to be anything and there are always enough dummies around to buy your load of crap. Your supposed resumé isn't worth zip. I understand why people like you find Wkipedia perfect for self-glorification. Exactly what has been your REAL contribution to Wikipedia? I don't need pats on the back so I don't run around like a child signing my logo on as many articles as possible. I do QUALITY work without fanfare until retards like you show up. Hey Superstar? Why not have them vote to get rid of me?....DW