Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 09:56, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jooler, please don't insist on having the Irish breakfast so English breakfast-sided. I took out some of the POV (yes, POV!) stuff and left it neutral and factual. Please don't simply revert it, but feel free to discuss it on the Talk:Irish breakfast. I'm sure some agreement as to the phrasing can be reached. Ludraman | Talk 09:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jooler, you made a very good contribution to the "history" part of the Irish breakfast article. Nice one! Ludraman | Talk 17:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. If there was one thing, it might be that there is too much content... its more like a history of the irish diet rather than a history of the irish breakfast....

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the same reason that the United States page is at United States rather than The United States, even though we say "the United States is a nation" not "United States is a nation." The article the isn't used for terms in Wikipedia page titles except in book titles, for example. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Or, if you want another example, for the same reason that the Cultural Revolution page is at Cultural Revolution rather than The Cultural Revolution. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have replied to your most recent comment on Talk:Great Game. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The date format change I made to current sports events was to fix inconsistencies, not to impose one culture's preferred date format over another. Yes, you can choose a presentation format in preferences. But with inconsistent date formatting, unless you choose MMM DD, YYYY the in-calendar links in current sports events (and all other events pages) won't work (see m:Help:Preferences#Date_format). Using a consistent date format can't solve that problem but does at least increase the chances of those links working (two of the Date format options work rather than just one).

I don't understand why you reverted current sports events. Since, as you argue, you can set the preference, why bother? -- Avaragado 14:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could be right, but if so I'm unaware of any such policy. Do you have a link to it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I attempted to answer your concerns and questions on Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). I hope that's helpful. By the way, it appears that someone has already renominated the article for deletion. Rossami (talk) 15:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jooler,

Thank you for your comments.

Precisely because this is an encyclopedia that the term most understood and used should precede any other terms to avoid confusion.

There is an overwhelming "hits" on "Asian Tsunami" because the world uses this term to refer to the event ... media, press, governments etc.

See my point ?

Moreover, you can register your opinions at Wikipedia:Requested Moves to place your votes to 'support' or 'oppose'.

Kenkam (talk) 8:16am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

We are not a newspaper. Jooler

Your edit (thru no fault of yours that i know of) clobbered the page; i fixed it, probably perfectly, but the greatest uncertainty about that is that anything you did in the crucial edit, other than adding the "right" setting in the image markup, got lost. I doubt you did anything else, but i didn't know what else to look for and thus did not pore over the diff listing for the edit. If that is justified, you could do it much more efficiently than i.

Principally for your own protection, please at least glance thru the temporary "Repair (completed) of doubling damage to this page" section ata the start of that page.

Thanks, --Jerzy(t) 17:04, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Thanks for being open minded on the S-----d sub-topic. I wrote in a legalistic style because I was dealing with the law and if you don't spell out the law you get into trouble. ("You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre" is a common saying in the USA, but of course it is plain wrong. You can shout "fire" if the theatre is on fire and you would be blamed for not doing so if you knew and no one else did. But a theatre ticket is also a contract at law and by purchasing it you agree to abide by certain terms and conditions which includes not voiding the other contracts/tickets by causing a disturbance.)

Here are the boiled down key points that hold that article together: 1) it is a boat and it does come under Admiralty law. 2) the UK had jurisdiction going back to the 50s - just follow the legal history. 3) the Marine Offences Act that shut down the pirates was an extension of the 1947 Wireless Telegraphy Act which shut down Bates on the other fort which was inside the 3 mile limit - so Bates knew. 4) the Firearms Act had never been extended and the local "judge" was not up on the law to know that it was a boat which came under Admiralty law. 5) Essex Police have in the past gone out to Rough Tower. 6) Bates did not occupy an abandoned fort. That is the biggest snow job of all. He admits to fighting with the Radio City and then the Radio Caroline lot to get control. So it was already occupied. Therefore the legal question is: what was the legal status of the people he pushed off? In UK law they were squatters and since Bates does not want to go into a UK court he cannot claim squatters rights. 7) the UK never abandoned it - hence the MoD buoys. Just read the "Official Notices" on Bates' S-----d site and you will see that they were going to take on the UK by putting their own buoys in the water and backed down. Same goes for amatuer radio - they were stopped by the DTI. They were also stopped from using their unlicensed microwave link to Suffolk for Havenco and they would have had to have got a license from Crown Estates to lay a submarine cable. So when Lackey found out that he could only use a slow dish and then he found out about 1990 US case, he turned on Bates and called him a liar on the Internet and ran from the project after losing a lot of money and making himself look like a fool.

I have and my associates have a wealth of first hand knowledge about all this (we attended the 1990 US court case and we have taken it into Essex courts in the past) and I am personally in contact right now with the Home Office concerning this silly saga. The law is plain but it is really the difference between the cowboy USA mentality of going in guns blazing (like Waco and David Koresh) and the UK version of sitting them out and swatting them quietly behind the scenes by ignoring press coverage. Unfortunately the lack of official UK response in the press is taken as a sign by fans that Bates created an independent country when the exact opposite is true - which is why no one has ever been able to do anything with a sunken barge with a rusting fort stuck on top of it.

Actually the same story is true of the Radio Caroline ship Ross Revenge. The people who have it now are quietly trying to find a way to get rid of it because they cannot get legal ownership of it, they are also squatters and it costs too much to go into court and fight it out. Besides which if Bates did that he would have to admit that he never had it in the first place!

You are right. I am burned out with the Wiki part of this but if you have specific questions about anything that I have stated - just ask and I will do my best to answer them. It is true that I do have current written correspondence confirming phone calls and it is possible that I could create a web site somewhere for you to link to as documentary reference. The person to watch is the guy from Aussie land who has a personal stake in this. He is operating under more than one name on Wikipedia and he went so far as to get a buddy in his country who writes part time for a newpaper to write to my associates claiming to be a full time reporter doing a story. We called the paper and they told us who he was. They gave us his phone number and all we got was an anwsering machine. We wrote back to him and all we got was a fizzle. However, you can't reason with him because if you follow his links you end up with a picture of him dressed as though he is Prince Phillip at a banquet, only this guy was in his own flat down under. When I realized that I was trying to reason with insanity I quit. MPLX/MH 17:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think going with Paul Ewald von Kleist is for the Kleist the Field Marshal better than with Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist. Otherwise, nice work finally resolving the Ewald von Kleist naming mess. I'll look into some official 3R documents on how his name was officialy spelled out. GeneralPatton 23:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In most cases we use the most commonly spelled out name instead of the full name, for instance we use Heinz Guderian instead of his full name Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, or Erwin Rommel instead of his full name Erwin Rommel, or even Sepp Dietrich instead of the full Josef Dietrich. There is of course the absolute champion Maximilian von Weichs whose full name was Maximilian Maria Joseph Karl Gabriel Lamoral Reichsfreiherr von Weichs zu Glon. However, like here, official German military documents use the abbreviated names, the full names were pretty much just used in the birth register. So going with Paul Ewald von Kleist is pretty reasonable since both are commonly used either together or separately. GeneralPatton 00:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Typically, requests are only supposed to be there for five days. It says this on the page "After five days here, if there is a rough consensus to move the article, it is eligible to be moved." I don't think it's unreasonable to extend that for a short time, but since the Freedom of Information Act discussion was not active and not clear on any direction, I archived it to the article talk page. Periodically, we must enforce some time restrictions, since leaving discussions only adds to the length of the page (which right now is still at 135 kb).

If you really want to take this up again, I suggest listing the question on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

What I did was inform some people who might be interested in the conflict but didn't know about it. I asked people (whom I thought might have reason to care about the conflict but simply didn't know about it) to give an opinion, not any particular opinion. You yourself concede that some of the users I informed had a history of voting against the definite article. Does that not therefore indicate that these users have an interest in this sort of conflict on Wikipedia? And if I didn't inform them about the conflict, and if those users didn't know about the conflict, then the discussion on the page would not truly reflect the general opinion on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (talk) 01:31, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You voted for Charity shop, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Francs2000 | [[]] 21:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watch list Philip Baird Shearer 00:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, I do not understand why you continue to get worked up over the Irish breakfast article. It's a reasonable topic for an article - even if it turns out that originally we did nick it from the English. If that's your problem with the issue, I'm sorry - but the reality of the situation is that our "Irish" breakfast is regarded by both the Irish and tourists alike as just as Irish as shamrocks, Aran sweaters or Guinness - regardless of where it originated. Not that we have a definitive answer on that score.

zoney ♣ talk 20:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Try to avoid insulting people. Holding a different opinion does not make people stupid. Nobody I know watches too much American TV or says "lootenant". Many people I know do use "period" for emphasis. -- Necrothesp 22:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm ignorant now, instead of stupid. Right, read carefully before you try any more insults:

1) I am fully aware what the American meaning of "period" is, both in its "full stop" meaning and its emphasis meaning.

2) Please inform me what your basis is for saying "it has no such meaning in British English". I've lived here all my life. I use it. People I know use it. Do you have the monopoly on knowledge of the English language and its British usage? I think not.

3) The Oxford English Dictionary does NOT list this meaning of "period" as an Americanism. I do not use Americanisms.

4) The usage of "period" for "full stop" was once common in Britain. This meaning has died out over time, but the emphasis meaning remains. It is not an Americanism, but a residual usage of what was once a common British word.

5) Try to be civil. This is an encyclopaedia, not a school playground.

-- Necrothesp 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on Talk:Irish breakfast. Cheers, JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdr) 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jooler, would you mind joining the homeopathy discussion page? We need to work out a compromise between what you want to see in the article and what others view as NPOV. I'd like to avoid wasting everyone's time by people reverting and re-editing the same thing over and over. --Lee Hunter 21:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You made a mistake in your edit summary - don't you mean reverting to uglier map? :) (Never thought we'd make it big time enough to have a revert war. Cool! Guettarda 19:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to reduce the confusion, by explicitly distinguishing between the installation (Guantanamo), and the geographic feature (Guantánamo). Based on experience, leaving Guantánamo Bay as a redirect will likely lead to the occasional attempt to "correct" the base article's name.

And you're adding to the confusion, by putting it back to

Guantanamo Bay ... contains a United States Naval Base

instead of

Guantanamo Bay is a United States Naval Base

—wwoods 19:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you please refer me to the place in the policy which says that these CIA maps are "house-style"? Also, why is less information better than more information? Thanks. Guettarda 17:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to revert the maps at United States, Canada, United Kingdom, ..., etc? They were free, they were available, so they were stuck into whatever pages lacked better maps. They are not standards - they are placeholders! Guettarda 17:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I mis-spoke on one of them. Regardless - I posed the question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps - though, glancing through that page it seems to contradict your assertion.

I of course normally prefer free and Wiki-made images to ones from other sites, even public domain ones. This is an exception though. Those maps are seizure-inducing ugly and do not look reliable at all. I think anybody with half a wit of sense would agree with that. --Fastfission 17:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your help and common sense is needed. User:Kelisi, has been producing some maps and trying to replace the CIA maps for several Caribbean and South American countries. In my opinion these new maps (which have more detail than the CIA maps) are vastly inferior. They use garish colours, terrible decorative fonts, use a horribly large pixel size and are generally ugly and crowded, and look terribly amateurish and like they were produced on a Commodore 64 or something. Here is a list of maps he has produced . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Kelisi&hideminor=0&namespace=6. Perhaps the worst example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilmap.gif . Bizarrly these maps seems to have support from a few people who have been trying to push through their inclusion on several pages. Please see talk:Panama and talk:Honduras. Jooler 09:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I looked at rather a lot of those maps. The colors are a bit garish and as you said the lines could be better, but the maps are far more detailed than the good looking but rather useless maps already in the articles. I notice that Geni made an effort to improve the color scheme of the Panama map, and that a healthy discussion is going on. One of the examples you gave of a purportedly very poor map, Brazil, in the Kelisi form clearly shows that vast country cris-crossed by rivers and gives a huge amount of detail that sets the bland CIA-produced map to shame. It's uglier than the CIA map but I don't think esthetic criteria are more important than information. Geni has shown that the maps can be improved--if I were you I'd get behind him and encourage Kelisi to consider changing the color schemes. I don't think the pixel size is a major problem because these are maps intended to be loaded on a web browser and some aliasing is to be expected, but there are anti-aliasing algorithms that could be used to clean up the mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have the skills and the tools to show us how it could be cleaned up more? At the moment I think the difference in quality of presentation is too high to advocate replacing the CIA maps. Pcb21| Pete 15:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See talk:Panama for my comments, but in general I agree with Tony. -- Arwel 13:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although they contain more information, it is lost

You'll have to sort it out yourselves--I have no graphical skills. I thought Geni's version showed very effectively that the maps could look good with the right color scheme. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about it. You might file an RfC on the subject, to see if you can get community consensus. RickK 19:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Consider that this is not dissimilar to the progress of an article. It starts out as a small but possibly good-looking stub, totally lacking in detail; it goes through a period during which detail is added but the article becomes more disjointed, and thus uglier, as a result; it is then redrafted and polished. I am pretty sure that this will happen with these maps too, so you shouldn't be overly concerned if things seem to be going aesthetically backwards for a while as long as the amount of information is going forwards. It'll come together in the end as long as people like yourself care. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, comment on the Germany map if you like, but please don't interfere with the map itself. Kelisi 16:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please allow the peoople to compare like with like. Displaying a thumbnailed version of your map alongside a full version of the other looks like chicanery to me. Jooler 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well it isn't. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that it is thumbnailed, and can figure out that a full-size version is only a click away. If they haven't the wit to work that out, they have no business editing Wikipedia. Let them see the maps side by side. They can look at the big one if they want to. Credit them with having the wherewithal to point and click. Kelisi 20:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at the maps on the two talk pages. IMHO they're plain ugly, but they do show more details. I for one would keep the old ones for the time being. We (at the moment, mostly User:Egil) are working on a wikimaps project, which will feature wiki-editable maps that can be included similar to commons images. That will render map discussions obsolete, as we can generate maps ourselfes then. --Magnus Manske 07:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Salve, Jooler!
Thanks for your expeditious reply to my question about "A voters" and the like. Though I have a poli sci degree, British politics wasn't something we covered in school. I'm grateful for your reply. If I can be of service, please let me know. PedanticallySpeaking 15:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

"would of" is a normal Irish usage and is therefore Hiberno-English and correct for an article on an Irish topic, there is no reason to call it bad grammar.Notjim 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You said:

I'll stop using "whilst" in British articles when Americans stop using "sidewalk" or "raincheck" or "broil", "canola", "take out", "flatware", "pantyhose" etc.. in American ones.

No problem. My original was meant, as you must have known, to be taken in a spirit of humor (sp)?. Although some usages grate on the nerves of a "foreigner", there is no intrinsic advantage for one usage over another. Thank you for alerting me to the difference between the British and American usages of broil and canola, of which I was not aware.

I know that Brits say "pavement" when we say "sidewalk". We think that a "sidewalk" need not be "paved", and can, in fact, be a path in the grass or earth. How do you refer to a path beside a road that is not "paved"? Sometimes the road is "paved" and the "sidewalk" is not, sometimes the reverse, sometimes both, sometimes neither. But the term "sidewalk" is explicit and unambiguous, "pavement", in the British sense, to my mind, is neither. I suggest that "footpath" might substitute for both usages.

Too Old 15:46, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Why did you change the caption on the Rockall map??? Most of the article is about the competing and conflicting claims from Iceland, Denmark, Ireland and the UK --ClemMcGann 23:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? - the UK claim is in dispute, no other nation accepts it

quote: {The United Kingdom continues to claim jurisdiction over Rockall, but this claim is not accepted by Ireland. Each country remains aware of the continuing position of the other.} see [2] (http://www.gov.ie/debates-00/18oct/sect7.htm) --

Denmark and Iceland have also rejected the British claim --ClemMcGann 09:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you continue to present what is, in effect, propaganda? --ClemMcGann 10:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[1]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring): The question of jurisdiction over Rockall and adjacent areas has been a matter of dispute with Britain for many years. Britain has claimed ownership of the rock itself since 1955 and it has declared a 12 mile territorial sea around it. Ireland has not accepted this claim. --ClemMcGann 14:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what this has got to do with the issue. Jooler 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The UK claim is rejected therefore it is disputed

and its not a metter of who owns it - it is a matter of whether it can be owned--ClemMcGann 19:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So that ownership' is therefore disputed. Geddit!? Jooler 22:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, No, Two or more parties can have a dispute over ownership. In this case no one can own it. To say that ownership is disputed, is to say that one of a number of competing claimants actually owns it. --ClemMcGann 16:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I say "I own my garden", and you say ... "no you can't own your garden it belongs to the Earth". Then you are disputing my ownership. Nuff said. Jooler 16:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, a garden can be owned, probably every garden is owned. Now if you said "I own the moon" ??????????? --ClemMcGann 17:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who says a garden can be owned? Some people do and some people don't. When the Americans started trying to own territory in the American West, some of the Indians didn't understand the concept of ownership of land, as far as they were concerned the land was for everyone. You could still have disputes about ownership though. What's to stop the UN issuing claims to land on the moon tomorrow? Jooler 17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<What's to stop the UN issuing claims to land on the moon tomorrow?> common sense and respect for international law --ClemMcGann 17:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You think it common sense to ignore possible exploitation of the resources of the moon? I would imagine that sometime in the future, although who knows how far into the futrue, mining rights will be issued on the moon. Jooler 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<far into the futrue> --ClemMcGann 18:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-existent names have recently been purged from List of interesting or unusual place names, and it seems to me that "Gropecunt Lane" comes into that category. If there's still a thoroughrare with that name, then it could be replaced. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the places might exist, but the names don't. Frankly, the list would double or triple (or more) in size if we added archaic names, as many if not most of them sound odd to modern ears. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if it were renamed, the old name should be removed. Why did you not respond to the main point in my previous message? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, I haven't suggested that "Fucking, Austria" be removed. And why haven't you responded to my main point? It's not just (or even mainly) about size, but about the nature of archaic names that are no longer used. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't follow your argument at all. I said that if it were removed, then it should be renamed; it hasn't been renamed, so I don't think that it should be removed. That seems perfectly clear to me.
2. The analogy with people doesn't stand up; I'm not talking about missing places off a list, I'm talking about missing names off a list. If you look at List of jazz pianists, for example, you won't find Dollar Brand listed — because he changed his name. You'll find Abdullah Ibrahim, because that's what he changed it to. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point about archaic names stands. But I've asked the question on the article's Talk page, so let's see what others think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)