Umm, okay, I wasn't trying to "impose" anything. I only changed it from football to soccer because I thought that if it's on a page that tells what "football" means in different places, it's redundant to say "Football means Australian rules football". Calm down... Mourn 17:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because football (if you bothered to look at the page...) is about historical contexts and whatnot. You might want to check what you're talking about before you get all worked up. Mourn 20:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop imposing your bias on this article. --Leifern 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Let me explain something to you:[reply]

• Just what is most notable about homeopathy is a matter of interpretation, therefore opinion. It is plainly biased to say that the ultradilution aspect is "notable" at the expense of anything else.
• It is not a simple fact that homeopathy does not meet minimum scientific and medical standards. It is, in fact, a bald-faced lie and fraudulent statement. Homeopaths claim in fact that the efficacy and safety of homeopathy is an observable fact, and seek to prove this through their trials. You may say that these trials are unconvincing, and this is a common criticism, but anything else is an outright lie.

This is very elementary logic. --Leifern 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both you hand User:Leifern have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your right im sorry. (24.60.161.63 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

With your neutral vote would you anticipate that the vote would be discounted or should it be used to calculate the total votes and the consequent percentage majority and thus be registered as a half vote for for and a half vote against the move? Jooler 10:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of what usually happens in this situtation, I dunno. I'll see if I can find what happens in other votes. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the choice is up to you. Either give a half vote to each or remove the vote or plump for one or the other. Jooler 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around, neutral votes are not counted towards the tally/percentage, so that's what I'd like to do thanks. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, prefer my vote not to be stricken out - my opinion is still the same and still exists; do the same as with other votes on Wikipedia and just do not count it towards the total either way. I've never seen this half-point thing anywhere. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 15:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlbinoMonkey, I've not come across half points before. Oldelpaso 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jooler, in the recent Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move, User:Rousseau made his first edit a vote in the process, which you subsequently edited out (which seems fair and reasonable to me, as there's the danger of sockpuppetry, while the user shouldn't suffer from bad faith). What I would like to know is, is there a consensus guideline that prohibits a user to vote as their first action, as a voting process on Talk:Hanover 96 has something similar. If you want, could you take a quick look at Talk:Hanover 96#User:Hargreavesfan? Poulsen 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's considered vandalism--Nn-user 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it (well, selected bits anyway). I'd be interested in working on putting all the information onto the page, however, we'd meet an obstacle: There is no online source for election results between 1885 and 1950. I'd be happy to give it a go without that if you like. --New Progressive 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing all that research. H.B.W. Brand, elected in 1865 on your sandbox page was in fact Henry Brand, and he later became Speaker of the Commons. He was a Liberal.

I'm having some difficulty identifying the party of Henry Fitzroy (statesman). In the PDF that you uploaded to the Commons, it says referring to the 1874 general election on page 23:

"After 23 years of Conservative disaster and defeat," said the Sussex Express, in reporting this election, "the representation of Lewes was at this contest reversed."

Thus from 1852 to 74, there were no Conservative MPs, so he definitely wasn't one of them in that period. There is a reference in the 1859 election to him being a Liberal MP, but the 1841 return indicates that he was a Conservative running against Liberals.

I grew up in Surrey, though I spent a lot of my teen years sloshing around bits of West Sussex. I'm presently in my final year at Oxford University. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been based around the constituencies in those areas. New Progressive 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find anything else on Henry Fitzroy (statesman) on Google other than his angeltowns article and the fact that he was descended from the Tudor Duke of the same name. I do not possess a library card for my LA though I imagine I could find most of what I might want to look for through the University libraries. New Progressive 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to oppose the deletion of this cat, but when I try to edit the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy I can't locate the discussion in the edit box. Clearly, I'm doing summat wrong. Help, if you can. Please reply to my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Folks_at_137 Thanks. Folks at 137 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone to the category, followed the link to the "for deletion" page, and given my two euro cents... is there anything more I can do? --Svartalf 19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your userpage as i moved the 'This user is a sceptic, even of this userbox' userbox to Skeptic, as it was already taken. C.B 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by taken is, when i put the code that was originally given for it, i got a blokes face instead of the emoticon i was expecting. So, i moved the emoticon. I am aware of the irony of the spelling and my userbox combo, but changing one letter seemed less offensive to the original writer of the userbox.C.B 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled his death date from Leigh Rayment's peerage pages, and he probably got it from Burke's or Debrett's. If you've got the newspaper from the period I'm somewhat more inclined to trust that. Maybe note both in the article? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, try not to use the F word. Be civil, please. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Calm down, please.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jooler: I can't condone your use of language on that talk page, nor the comment directed to Sebastiankessel, but I can fully understand the frustration that we can encounter here. I hope you have had a chance to relax after all this and hope that you won't be leaving the project. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you apologized and even when you didn't mention me by name it is accepted. You have every right to be drunk, after all, you're a brit. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful reply at User_talk:Molly_Mockford#Lewes. Sorry. --rbrwr^± 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay civil. I can understand your frustration on the userbox front, but picking fights on Jimbo's user page will just get you warned/blocked, and will make anyone arguing for keeping userboxes seem willing to violate WP:POINT. I'll be completely honest: for a while I was a little tempted to do that too. But let's stay level-headed here. JDoorjam Talk 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just illustrates the point doesn't it. They can MESS with my user page but touch Jimbos and you get blocked. Jooler 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.

• St John Bosco and LGBT edits evrik 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. It's a pity about the tightening-up of image uploading, but probably for the better. I've got the German-language bio of Mackensen and some old postcards so I can probably scare up a usable image. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to know that you stand always against the asses against the world. --Licinius 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ass? Latin? Either way it is very clearly an insult, but I am not offended. I just passed it on in the interests of Wikipedia. --Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, I will make the case to you since you judge me an ass. The other football codes and the games that have followed them are on all based upon their original code of rules. Like say the American football is placed as descended from Rugby school rules, probably equally true as of AFL, which is stated quite differently. This is different and quite strange to have a section titled "Australian and Irish Variations". To be honest, on such a basis Rugby League is just as much an Australian variation of football, they both came from England, and Rugby League is the game of half the country. I changed it to something along those lines, though my memory fades to the exact words and that is how this began. --Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for that link, I was wondering where the info for that statement was. Assuming that editor got the official english language countries correct, there are 2 others that aren't fifa affiliated (so it should be 4 out of 45 then I guess - I'll fix it and make a note on talk). Cursive 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy? I live in Australia and there has been no controversy at all. In fact the opposite. Most media outlets now refer to football as football. It makes a few Aussie Rules people unhappy, but this isn't controversial. Why is Australia singled out for mention? Answer: to mention Aussie Rules in the football section. "Controversy" is inaccurate. Jealousy is a more accurate descriptions and if you’ve followed any of the debate on wikipedia, you can certainly tell from some reactions that it’s not a POV statement. --Executive.koala 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. Spelling is never my strong point. Actually, do you know of a way to spell check in wikipedia, because I had to do it in Microsoft Word, and when it started it was in American English. I don't think there was any errors in grammar.

Thanks, ISD

Thanks again for the help. I take it the spelling is now alright.

Hello ! I noticed that in adding the once deleted link to the Human Rights in France page, you summarized your edit as "rvv" which commonly means "Reverted Vandilism." (see rvv) I was the user who originally deleted this link, and as such I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edits as vandilism. I included an edit summary as well as participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page (started by a user who wants to add this particular link). If you would like to include your arguments for changes to this article, I encourage you to come share your ideas on the talk page. - Aquarelle 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for translating an article listed at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. This is just a little reminder to remove the translation from the list when you've done it and add it to the "completed translations" list at the bottom of the page - thanks! Saint|swithin 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, pardon me. It was a mystery person, then! :-) Saint|swithin 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further edit warring I am bringing this here. What is the difference between canadian bacon and ham? They taste and look almost the exact same. The difference between what you call streaky bacon and canadian bacon is MUCH larger than the difference between canadian bacon and ham. If a redirect is necessary, I think it should be to ham.

Either way, canadian bacon should at bare minimum have its own section in whatever article it belongs to explains what it is. --MateoP 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to make little since.... Why is canadian bacon considered a "bacon" when it looks and tastes exactly like ham. It tastes nor looks like any kind of bacon I've ever seen. Either way, this all needs to be explained in a section in the bacon article if we are going to forward canadian bacon there.

The bacon articles covers it very poorly, but I changed it some. this should be an acceptable compromise. --MateoP 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are unwilling to compromise. --MateoP 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your differences on the talk page. Reverting each other is pointless. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended at all. A previous post had similar logic to yours and the words from that post which stuck in my mind the most were "easy peasy" so, when I saw those words again I assumed that they were from the same person. The reference to archive heaven was meant to convey that the prior "easy peasy" posting was not in view but stored away in the talk's archives. No other hidden meanings at all so, if you were the earlier poster or not I encourage you to post your argument from time to time so as to keep it visible, things tend to get lost in the archives.  :-) hydnjo talk 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) Ah so, it was you. This is from archive 3 (last November):

Jesus Christ, why are people so thick. It's like this..

1. Choose a door; you're lucky it's a goat! but you had a 2/3 chance of choosing a goat so the odds were on your side.
2. Monty reveals the other goat.
3. You switch; it has to be the car as the other goat is gone.
4. You win!
5. If you had chosen not to switch you would have lost.
6. By not switching you're stuck with that 2/3 chance of getting a goat. Switching meant that you turned it into a 2/3 chance of winning the car.
7. Easy peasy. End of story. Nighty Night Jooler 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hydnjo talk 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that reference to the article, and letting me know. One of us should look up the original PPC piece.... --Macrakis 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your "I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about" helps matters. You yourself were bothered enough to revert my change, furthermore asking me to "not act against the consensus", when there is no consensus. If you don't care, stay out of the debate and don't revert. I'm trying to use a standard Wikipedia avenue for settling this kind of dispute. You should respect that. Gsd2000 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't respect your comment. I also cannot respect your attempts at claiming a consensus when it was three versus four - either you failed to check your facts before claiming that (multiple times), or you are being economical with the truth. However, that's all I'll say for now. I would not want to keep you any more from those intellectually challenging articles that you contribute to, such as Chav, Twiglets and Milky Bar. Gsd2000 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - you asked me why I am getting so steamed about this issue. I find that quite ironic having read your contribution to the discussion on the nomenclature of River Plate for which you produced an outburst the likes of which I have never seen on Wikipedia (after losing). You're allowed to get steamed about a silly you-call-it-potayto-I-call-it-potaHto debate but I'm not about the quality and relevance of a paragraph in an article relating to five hundred years of history and hundreds of millions of lives? Gsd2000 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find these remarks pretty cheeky. I wanted to let you know I had to pull this user up about poor behaviour before, referring him to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, though not to any great effect. I'm pretty annoyed too that after all our efforts to accommodate him he has gone to RfC, presumably to get the result he wants. I wonder if there is anything else we can do, within ethical guidelines and Wiki rules of course, to help him to be a better member of the community. Guinnog 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that pretty cheeky too. I was publicly accused by Guinnog of vandalism in my edits to British Empire, despite the fact that my contributions show I am a regular contributor to the European empire space. How is accusing a fellow contributor of vandalism being a better member of the community? Gsd2000 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your claim of "stalking", Jooler. A man is judged by his deeds. On Wikipedia, your deeds are your user contributions. I was simply looking to see if you were a regular contributor to the empire space (like I am). I found it mildly amusing that you had contributed to these articles (and your drunken outburst) - perhaps my wit was a little too cutting here. (I apologise). But there is a serious point at stake - I wouldn't edit an article that I am not qualified to edit. I was trying to see whether you were qualified to be making the statements that you were making. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but just because anyone can, it doesn't mean everyone should. (And no, that's not directed at you). Look at this for an example why: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=48787724 Gsd2000 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found your immediate revert of my compromise along with the comment "not acceptable" pretty arrogant on your part too. (ie it's not acceptable to you, so it's not allowed to stay.) Not to mention your repeated claims on the talk page that I was acting against a consensus when there was none (you still have not acknowledged that you were wrong in claiming that), and then your contribution to the debate that I was getting worried about nothing, after you had reverted my compromise and got what you wanted. I found your approach not only arrogant, but rather underhand too, as it appeared to me that you were attempting to swing a perfectly reasonable debate with falsehoods. Gsd2000 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've reverted an edit to the Battersea Park page for containing an alleged spam external link. I wonder if you'd care to have a look at that user's other work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_street_skates

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_W

He keeps editing - he doesn't seem to engage in discussion. But - I admit - I'm kind of an interested party, so maybe a second (or nth) opinion would be good. Daniel Barlow 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]