User talk:12.144.5.2

Louis Epstein,who contributes to Wikipedia from the IP address 12.144.5.2,can be reached at le@put.com and NOT at the email address of A. Ross Eckler Jr.,which someone had put here.

Contents

1 Spaces after periods and commas 2 Ross Eckler 3 create an account 4 Departure...Have You Seen the Last of Me! 5 Hi 6 Mystical Organizations 7 About Bcorr 8 Louis Epstein 9 Freedom Tower 10 Freedom Tower 11 Re: Freedom Tower 12 AFC Wimbledon 13 Freedom Tower 14 A suggestion 15 reworking 16 Name for 120-year-old-ian 17 Formatting tip 18 Did you read the moral?? 19 Lady O' Goodwood Cup 20 Ramona Trinidad Iglesias 21 Longevity 22 2004 Atlantic hurricane season 23 Tammy Imre 24 List of Life Peerages 25 Full names in titles 26 Fans' Stadium 27 Coinage specifications 28 A question 29 Lord Justice 30 Supercentenarian 31 Getting a user-name 32 Spaces and punctuation 33 Longevity II 34 Put a space after your commas and periods 35 Spaces are good 35.1 No spaces are better 36 Conceits? 37 Bravo !! 38 Supercentenarian 39 Mass reversion of Supercentenarian 40 Spaces after periods and commas 41 Respect for my limitations 42 Cardinal Sin 43 Cardinals 44 HRH The Duchess of Cornwall 45 true Catholic Church 46 Papabile 47 General Conference 48 Offer of assistance 49 Template:Football League Championship teamlist 50 Supercentenarian 51 Dalek history

Spaces after periods and commas

In the interests of avoiding duplication:

The following Wikipedians have requested that 12.144.5.2 type a space after punctuation marks:

• Wik
• Tompagenet
• Evercat
• Dysprosia
• Zocky
• Optim
• Tobin Richard
• Maximus Rex
• RickK
• Dori
• Jiang
• PMC
• —Morven
• Salsa Shark
• Hephaestos
• Ams80
• ZackDude
• Mintguy (T)
• CryptoDerk
• Michael Hardy
• Oleg Alexandrov
• ugen64
• Lst27
• Cool Hand Luke
• Iainscott
• Audrey
• ✏ Sverdrup
• Ds13
• Meesham
• the wub

I too would like to see Mr. Epstein properly use spaces. I find it hypocritical that a man who takes 2 1/2 days to take a train ride cross-country rather than fly in a plane can have such a hang-up over a single space after punctuation. I find it quite irritating and self-centered.

Robert Young

As far as I am concerned,it is my way,not the popular way,that is better.And my avoidance of being treated like a potential terrorist because I want to travel is rooted in the same principles that make me resist wasteful orthographic conventions.--L.E.

Reasons:

• We like a consistent style on Wikipedia, as descibed at wikipedia:manual of style.
• We prefer the style with spaces after punctuation, as more readable. Space concerns aren't a problem, as Wiki is not paper.
• To get that consistent style, when 12.144.5.2 adds content without normal spacing, someone else has to correct that, which takes a little effort.

However, this currently isn't worthy of a ban, and Cyan and Optim have volunteered to correct content added by this user (drop a note on their talk page). Provided this user doesn't revert such "corrections", there is no major problem.

Responses:

By now you should realize that NOT typing spaces after punctuation marks is a habit I have had for decades,and stick to fiercely. The centenarian researcher A. Ross Eckler Jr. (son of the census bureau official who died in 1991) can be reached at wordways@juno.com.

If I thought the convention of waste space after punctuation had any merit,I would have adopted it many years ago. It's not laziness,it's objection in principle.I'd much prefer that others DIDN'T impose orthographic conventions I dislike,on what I write the way I write it.--L.E.

People who think spacing after punctuation makes sense are out to sabotage the work of those of us who use space more efficiently.I am not "making" anyone have this prejudice,and it's their problem if they can't bear seeing stuff typed without that waste space.--L.E.

My dedication to keeping out extra spaces long predates the WWW.According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style Writers are NOT expected or required to follow all or any of these rules. --L.E.

Yor korekt that riters are not expekted or rekwired 2 follow punk2wayshun rools. However, riters are also not expekted or rekwired 2 follow speling rools either, akording 2 the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

You believe that spacing after punctuation is a "popular mistake". Fair enough. I'm curious then, if you would respect or support someone in a (seemingly similar) belief that spelling certain words in certain ways is also a popular mistake. Ironically, it could be argued that you yourself spell the word "efficiently" so wastefully, rather than eficiently? --Ds13 01:51, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

You've made some great contributions and I'm impressed by your work, but I'd like to point you to two articles which I think you need to read, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and How to create policy. If you don't agree with the standard that's been set down (ie using one or two spaces after sentences) then that's fine, if you feel so strongly about it try to set a policy, don't just take it upon yourself to change the standard so that other people have to go and clean up your edits. -- Meesham 05:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ross Eckler

I've been trying to find more info on Ross Eckler. Do you know where I can find his publications, esp. re: centenarians? Thanks. Fruits 16:39, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

create an account

Hi. You should create a user, and log on. Your contributions are very useful. Once you create a user you will be able to move pages without cutting and pasting and it generally makes life easier for everybody. Mintguy (who was in the Wimbledon end at the 1988 FA Cup final).

I use the Lynx browser,I'm not one of those mousy types who cuts and pastes.Everything I type,I type by hand. Thanks for your view that my contributions are useful...I note that my "Tel Aviv" comment that it's controversial that other countries should get to decide what a given country's capital is has not only been deleted but the page has been protected against this comment being restored. Anyway,I never register for registration-required websites,as a matter of principle.Part of the whole "free content" ethos,IMO! Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2

You mis-understand my comment about cut & paste. As for "registering" it's not a question of registering, it's a question of creating a user handle that is more identifiable with an individual than an IP address which no-one ever remembers and that could be used by many different people. Other than a user-name and password no other information is required. In fact you are more anonymous with a user-handle than an IP address. Also contribtions from IPs tend to be viewed with more suspicion than named users. Which may explain the Tel Aviv, Jerusalem problem. BTW you could have tried discussing the problem on one of the talk pages, that's what they are for. Mintguy 05:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Departure...Have You Seen the Last of Me!

Once on Tel Aviv,three times on Jerusalem.

Since Wikipedia refuses to tolerate the statement that the idea of countries deciding what another country's capital is is unusual.let alone controversial,I will not be making any further contributions. My email address is above for any who care to write to me.

Update Well,it looks like the edit war on Jerusalem today concluded with the language I deemed essential restored after all. So I may be banging around for a while yet unless the other side forces bias through again.

Hi

Hi, I liked your contributions for List of chiefs of mystical organizations! Feel free to make more contributions and participate more in Wikipedia. Best wishes, Optim 22:47, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Optim,thanks for the kind words. L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

---

Hi again. Just to say that I enjoyed reading your Grand Lodge article. By the way, it is true that leaving no space after punctuation saves space, but I think there is no need to do that in Wikipedia. You can open a thread of discussion in some wikipedia page, like for example the Village pump, present your ideas and propose to change the style of wikipedia so that there will be no spaces after commas and dots, and follow the usual wikipedia style until other wikipedians agree with your views (something not very possible). Your idea about no spaces after punctuation would be very useful for articles intented to be read from old or thin-client equipment such as PDAs, mobile phones, old PCs or computers with limited Internet access (old dialup modems or wireless GPRS Internet where you pay based on how much data you download). But, Wikipedia as it is now, is intented to be read with modern PCs, so there is no consideration about space. Also consider that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Have you seen any other encyclopedia with some articles following style X and some others following style Y? I dont think so. In wikipedia the style is important and we try to have a common general style across all the articles. When somebody (including me) edits your texts and places spaces after punctuation, it's not mean that we don't appreaciate your contribution, we do that only because we want each article to conform to wikipedia's style so that the reader won't be confused while reading our encyclopedia. My personal opinion on this subject is that space after punctuation is good because it makes reading easier (so it's good for the reader). Keep up contributing to wikipedia and please consider conforming to the community's standard style (space after punctuation); your contributions are really good. Peace. Optim 03:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well,I use lynx] from a text-based console,and think something designed to be read needs to treat graphical material as non-essential,and tailor its content to the text-based reader with the "frills" as secondary.I have never considered white space after punctuation to make reading easier. (You wrote your whole paragraph above as a single line that is too long for a Lynx web form...I try hard to make sure every single line I write in an article is below that limit,as it makes them very hard to edit.I can not interpolate lines,I have to retype articles if I want to add something and there are overlimit lines involved.

As I asked you in a recent email,Optim...how broad do you intend the "mystical organizations" to be?...the Self-Realization Fellowship,headed by Yogananda to his death in 1952,James J. Lynn (Rajasi Janakananda) from 1952 to his death in 1955,and Faye Wright(Sister Daya,later Sri Daya Mata) since 1955 would be questionable on the religious extreme,while the Society of American Magicians is presumably debarred because its magic is illusionary? --L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

You do know this can be completely alleviated by specifying an editor for text forms in Lynx? o for options, specify an editor, then hit ^E^E - in any case, editors here are supposed to work together to improve the formatting in articles as to Wikipedia convention, not against. Dysprosia 00:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mystical Organizations

Go to User_talk:Optim/Spirituality Portal, which is the talk page for the article User:Optim/Spirituality Portal and tell me your opinion.

This issue (how broad the term "mystical" is) is not so easy to answer.

Check Talk:List of dignitaries of mystical organizations too.

I would like to have some feedback from you and tell me your opinion about what I have written.

I started the page List of dignitaries of mystical organizations with the Western Esoteric-Mystical Organizations in mind, and specifically the Initiatory ones.

We can either:

a) Create two sections in page List of dignitaries of mystical organizations: A Western and an Eastern section (or more if needed). Under each section we will have subsections such as Religious, Mystical, Esoteric, Occult etc. In this we may have to consider moving the article to List of dignitaries of spiritual organizations

OR

b) move the page to List of dignitaries of western mystical organizations and create similar pages like List of dignitaries of eastern-yogic organizations, List of dignitaries of religious organizations etc etc...

how do you think?

Optim 02:58, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, illusory magic has certainly nothing to do with real paranormal-metaphysical magick. religious organizations maybe can be listed provided they have some mystical elements (emphasize meditation and inner exploration). how do you think? Optim 03:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well,the SRF would seem to qualify then...do follow the links from the Yogananda article to check them out.Some Masonic organizations I think are shy about serious mystical content,yet you include them.I have to wonder,how familiar with Fraternitas Rosae Crucis were you before I added them to your page?...I gather you knew quite a bit about AMORC. --L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

your additions to FUDOFSI and your articles on R. Swinburne Clymer Paschal Beverly Randolph are great. I was very little familiar with Fraternitas Rosae Crucis before you mentioned them. Optim 05:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi L.E., I'm just dropping you this note so you know what's going on. It seems you've frustrated RickK, a sysop, into blocking you. I couldn't find a justification for this block in our policy on blocking, so I unblocked you. He rightly pointed out that cleaning up after you is a chore, so I told him I would do the job. Hence, every day or two, I'm going to go over your contributions and put in the those unnecessary spaces. Cheers, Cyan 03:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why he blocked him? L.E. has made very useful contributions. Some issues with the punctuation are nothing serious and we can tolerate that. Optim 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your relationship to the site 'Putnam Internet Services' (www.put.com) but perhaps you'd like to ensure that they use the 'correct' punctuation. The sentence 'This is a quiet little page,but you can follow it anywhere on the Web. Use search engines!Read news! Go shopping!' is hardly consistent. It's hard to believe that you are serious when a site that you own/run/edit(?) doesn't conform to your style of punctuation. Regards -- Ams80 00:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The spaces that you see there are artifacts of new lines in the text editor in which I compose the HTML,not deliberate spacing after punctuation on my part.You may see this on paragraphs I do in the Wikipedia too,since I make sure never to do too much on one line of the text form(Lynx doesn't like overlong lines).--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

---

About Bcorr

Hi. You listed User:Bcorr at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. You are supposed first to discuss with the other user and then to proceed with the conflict resolution. It is recommended first to read Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution, request mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitrators, as far as I know (this is Wikipedia's policy I think). It seems that some users are upset with you, probably because of the spaces issue or for some other reason I am not aware of. Please be sure to follow the policy carefully in order not to upset them more. If you can provide more evidence about the originality of Longevity myths please do so. Note that since you use an IP address and not a registered username, you may look suspicious to the eyes of some users, I think. (Personally I have no problem neither with the IP address nor the spaces, I think you have the right not to register, but I recommend you to do so, I think it will be good; you can use your IP address as your username if you like, something like 12.144...) Best Wishes, Optim 05:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As BCorr has not furnished further evidence in response to this post (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements&diff=2168603&oldid=2166711), and as you seem quite agitated about it, I have reverted to your version of Longevity myths. I should like to point out that there is no reason to believe this wasn't an honest mistake on BCorr's part, so perhaps you need not fear for your reputation quite so... loudly. -- Cyan 06:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Last edit corrected NO grammar" -- I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "1982,and" is a grammatical construction, I was under the impression that it is just nonsense. Regards -- Ams80 21:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Louis Epstein

Greetings,

I would like to comment that I have known Mr. Epstein for about five years now, and he would NEVER plagiarize anything. Indeed, someone so quirky and idiosyncratic wouldn't want to plagiarize someone else's work.

Mr. Epstein insists on using "Unix" software and is anti-Microsoft, anti-Yahoo, etc. However, I think Mr. Bcorr was too quick to assume plagiarism, especially in a topic he was not an expert in.

Like Mr. Epstein, I have contributed cases of "world's oldest people" to Guinness World Records. We work with Guinness, not plagiarize Guinness.

Mr. Epstein's work is actually better than the average news media article, as he meticulously tries to get the facts right. His only problem is that he is not very compromising when it comes to dealing with others (for example, the punctuation issue).

Sincerely, Robert Young Atlanta

Freedom Tower

I know you've been contributing to the Freedom Tower with me. Now, you say that when the Freedom Tower is built its official height will not be 1776 feet? There are an incredible number of sources that says that it will be including that there will be an observation deck on the top of the latticework which is basiclly a floor. Do you have any proof that says somewhere that it will not be 1776 so I can correct the article entirely? Please write back on my talkpage. Thanks - ZackDude 06:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Freedom Tower

also, on the CTBUH website it says HEIGHT: The height of a building is measured from the sidewalk level of the main entrance to the structural top of the building. This includes spires, but does not include television antennas, radio antennas, or flag poles. Height is listed in both meters and feet and is rounded to the nearest integer. This is the official criterion used by the Council in determining ranking. [1] (http://www.lehigh.edu/ctbuh/hrbd_criteria.html) -ZackDude

Re: Freedom Tower

Thank you for responding. I see your point that it is controversial if the Freedom Tower really will be the tallest building in the world. Really this is inarguable however I can tell you that according to the site I gave you earlier the FT will be the tallest building (not structure) when completed. If you have any reliable sources stating otherwise up front I'd appreciate it if you show them to me. However, I think the solution of this problem is not to say it will not be the tallest building but rather say its spire and latticework will make it the tallest building. Also there are plans for an observatory to be on the extreme top of the building meaning there will be a floor there. Anyways I'm not trying to be stubborn; I see that you would like users to see your point of view however the matter is that they will be misinformed especially since your point of view is debatable. -ZackDude 21:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are four criteria by which the CTBUH measures buildings,as stated in the World's tallest structures article and I think elsewhere on Wikipedia.In ascending order these are height to the highest occupied floor (Shanghai WFC and Union Square 7 will both be well above Freedom Tower on this),height to roof(Shanghai WFC and Union Square will be well above Freedom Tower on this),height to structural top(FT will have one higher than any currently under-construction building,but lower than that of CN Tower,which is not a building),and height to top of antenna(FT's antenna may make it the tallest structure of any kind,or the tallest self-supporting one,depending on details here;final height is not explicit).I admit to intense emotional involvement in the World Trade Center redevelopment process and deep hostility to the means by which Libeskind's plan was imposed on a public who had voted it dead last in the official poll;but I am evaluating this proposed building fairly while you sound like a cheerleader.

Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2

AFC Wimbledon

Obviously you're pleased at their winning streak, but y'know, there's no need in an encyclopaedia to update their article after every match! A review at the end of the season would be fine :) -- Arwel 19:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Freedom Tower

• 12.144.5.2 has been very uncooperative with writing articles with Wikipedia Users like me. I have tried to contact him numerous times however it's incredibly hard since he does not have a username or is even signed up with Wikipedia. For instance look at the Freedom Tower, one of the articles I have contributed the most including drawing custom specification image designs for. Without a conversation on the article he edits the article for no reason and changes things around and puts a biased point of view on the article that the Freedom Tower will not be the tallest building in the world although according to various proof it will be according to regulations etc. He likes things his way without consideration of other users or compromises and puts in things totally unrelated to the main article. For instance see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Freedom_Tower&dummy=1&diff=2593774&oldid=2593756) and look at the changes he made. I am basically getting in a put this and change this battle with him and I would ask that an administrator/sysop looks at the work he has done and tells him to please sign up with Wikipedia as username, double check his work including punctuation, and talk with the Wikipedia users such as me before he puts any controversial facts or ideas that is not backed with anything. (btw at first I thought he was using the IP because his username might have gotten banned) - ZackDude 01:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) (i have put this complaint into archives from a previous page)

ZackDude...you "tried to contact me numerous times"?...you haven't answered my posting on your talk page there,and the posting on my talk page was for whatever reason not flagged for me as "new messages",which I am used to.Note that I post my name and email rather often,and you could have gotten hold of me that way.--12.144.5.2/Louis Epstein/le@put.com (using Lynx (browser))<p>

The solution for Freedom Tower is very easy: Refer to the sources. Don't say "it will be the tallest" but "according to that newspaper it will be the tallest". It's not hard to communicate with him since he publishes his email address. My experience with him over List of dignitaries of mystical organisations some time ago was very positive and cooperative. The punctuation issue can be fixed easily, something that I am eager to do whenever I have the time. Please note, however, that we cannot force unpaid volunteers to change their spelling. Optim^·.· 05:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice Optim. I understand that is the best solution and I will try to follow through with that and put all the sources etc, however I still think that 12.144.5.2 should get a username which would help communication more (I don't know why he doesn't, possibly because his username got banned which made me suspicious) and before he deletes or changes anything big, he should talk about it via the talk page. And also he should make some effort to make his work professional or else he shouldn't be contributing at all to the Wikipedia project. - ZackDude 23:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have not registered because I never register at websites as a general rule;requiring registration to do things is against my principles for what the WWW is for.As for ZackDude's insistence that I have no proof that one building's 1614-foot roof is taller than the 1500-foot latticework on another,getting through on this is like beating my head on a stone wall.But the facts are with me on this.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

A suggestion

Hey Louis - just a suggestion (please feel free to totally ignore me if you think I'm butting in) -- since I notice you contribute around here a lot, you may want to get a user account. It lets you create a watchlist (which lets you know when certain articles are modified), upload files, and I've personally noticed that other users tend to respect logged-in users more. Anyway, it's just a suggestion - take it for what it's worth. →Raul654 06:58, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Um...did you read the paragraph immediately above,where I stated that I never do that anywhere?--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Actually, I didn't. Point taken. →Raul654 05:15, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

reworking

I just realised, I never asked for permission or approval regards my rework of this talk page.... so I hope it's ok! :) Martin 00:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well,it's confusing,but I've fixed the two immediate problems (listing Ross Eckler's address as my own,I hope no one wrote to him,and the duplicated name on the list of "avoiding duplication" names of space-after-punctuation groupies.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

---

Please create an account. It's not a question of registering. All it means is that you supply a name and password. Nothing more is required. you then get to use a lot of extra features. You can even call the user 12.144.5.2 if you want,Mintguy (T) 14:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Louis,

Here's the reason that the Lord President of the Council alteration was annoying. You have argued, "People who think spacing after punctuation makes sense are out to sabotage the work of those of us who use space more efficiently." From this, I infer that your key motivation is to use space more efficiently. Now, there are two kinds of space involved in a Wikipedia article: the rendered-text space presented to the reader, and the wiki-edit-text space presented to the editor. In this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Lord_President_of_the_Council&diff=3042979&oldid=3042473), you chose to incur a large cost in terms of edit-space in return for a one-character savings in reader-space, which I regard as contradicting your stated goal. Add to that the fact that the saving in reader-space comes at a cost of what I regard as a typographical error requiring correction (no matter how deliberate the decision to commit that "error"), I find it particularly galling that you made this choice (relative to the typical space insertion edits I usually make after your edits; in absolute terms, it's not really that big a deal; and also, right now I'm short of sleep, which makes me cranky and apt to incorrectly use semicolons within parenthetical remarks to write horrible run-on sentences) instead of just using the raw link, extraneous space and all. I hope that clarifies things for you. Cheers, Cyan 23:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well,the edit had to be the way it was because at the time he was LPC he was not yet an earl,but the article he's due (and is promised at the page on his peerage,I think) he's identified by his later title rather than the one he then held.--L.E./12.144.5.2

Oops, my bad. I didn't even realize that there were two different peerage titles involved! I guess my annoyance was entirely due to my own misapprehension of the situation. Cheers, Cyan 04:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The definition of the word grammar is given as the following:

1. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
2. The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.
3. The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language.
4. The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language.
5. A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes.
6. Writing or speech judged with regard to such a set of rules.

I have bolded one of the definitions, as it seems relevant. Throughout our website, and throughout the manual of style, there is only one argument regarding spaces after punctuation: whether it should be two or one. As the Chicago Manual of Style states, the main reason for having spaces after punctuation (namely, periods) is to provide an obvious visual cue that the end of a thought (generally the end of a sentence, prepositional phrase, etc.). It is also much easier to read using spaces. You seem to like to save space,however. Itisextremelydifficulttocomprehendthissentencewithnospaces,epecilalyistherearemanyandnurmsousdtyposnadsuchwthnit.alsomanyppl

<32useabbrevs.&thatcuasesprobswithcomprehendsion.Ifyouddecidetotransgressteh

universallyacceptedgrammarsregardingspacesafterpunctuation,thenwhynotignorespacesbetweenwords?

itisveryhardtocomprehendandthereisareasonforspacesafterpunctuation;sothatitseasytoread.

ugen64 21:45, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I hold to the simple principle that one separates words by spaces OR punctuation marks;both are overkill.--L.E.

Name for 120-year-old-ian

What do you think is the BEST term for a 120-year-old-ian?? Read the comment I put at Talk:Charlotte Benkner and it gives you 2 names that certainly have dis-advantages. 66.32.70.244 01:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

See what I said there.I think it best that we NOT bother with any division of "supercentenarian",which is intended to mean "person of any age from 110 to infinity".When that age bracket becomes numerous enough that it's worth bothering to divide it,THEN we can think about nuances.In the meantime,let's not bother.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Formatting tip

Louis - I only bring this up because I've noticed you do this a lot. Periods and commas should be followed by one (and only one) space. You tend not to put any. For example:

You tend to write: To be,or not to be,that is the question.Whether 'tis nobler in the mind...

Our preferred style: To be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind...

It's only a minor issue, but I'd appreciate it if you could do this. →Raul654 16:59, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. You're the 22nd person to ask this. --Wik 17:02, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the moral??

I finally wrote "the moral of the story". Does this sound like a good moral?? Remember, as more decades go by, the probability that it will become necessary will get slightly more likely, and you never really know what time in history we will have several 120-year-oldians alive. 66.32.81.163 23:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I responded on the Supercentenarian talk page.(Are all the 66.*.*.* messages from the same person?...much simpler when you have a fixed IP address).As it stands,a term for 110-to-infinity is more useful than a term for any subdivision thereof,and as the age of the oldest increases,the impulse will be to raise the minimum to keep the discussion on only the most extreme ages available.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Lady O' Goodwood Cup

This is the correct name of the race although it is often called the Goodwood Cup. The first comparison that springs to mind is like the misnomer that Arsenal football club play their games at Highbury Stadium when in fact they play at Arsenal Stadium.Scraggy4 22:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias

Well spotted on the duplicate articles - I have merged them all together into a single one at Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan. —Stormie 05:21, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Longevity

Louis could you have a look at Longevity and see what you can do with it. Thanks. PMA 04:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2004 Atlantic hurricane season

The link you added to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season to corroborate the four hurricanes in 1886 requires registration, which isn't acceptable for a general reference. Plus, sites like that typically have terrible retention on their articles. But I bit the bullet for the sake of knowledge.

I think I've finally sorted out what's going on. The issue was not the Brownsville hurricane as you speculated. The problem was the one that grazed Galveston. The Monthly Weather Review from 1886 reports maximum sustained winds of only 50 mph at Galveston. The old version of the "HURDAT" (Hurricane Data) file, published by NOAA, also shows the storm being of tropical storm strength, which is what several sites with plots appear to be using, and where I was getting my numbers.

However, the revised version from last summer shows the storm peaking at 85 knots at its actual landfall near Port Arthur, Texas. It's a case of information about a century-old storm being a year out of date. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tammy Imre

I deleted what was listed and had what I felt was the community's expressed desire (overall, not unanimous) to remove from Wikipedia. You are free to either take up this issue at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, or list for deletion the articles you cite as being equivalent. I'd recommend against the latter action, as such reactionary listings tend to be looked down upon. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Life Peerages

About the double-barrelled surnames - I see what you mean, but I think what was there previously was misleading. To pick an example: Goronwy Owen Roberts was born as such, and when he was awarded a life peerage, wanted to be known as "Lord Goronwy-Roberts" (for reasons known to himself). To do that he had to change his legal surname to "Goronwy-Roberts" (or so I understand - I don't know the exact legal arrangement). But at no point would anybody call him "Goronwy Owen Goronwy-Roberts". So, I consider it an interesting point that he changed his surname, but not really important enough to put on that page. The name we should list is the one he was known by before he was ennobled. sjorford 22:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense - in fact, I'm sure now that I did the right thing. If George Brown changed his sig from "George Brown" to "George-Brown", then either way his name just has those two bits in it - listing him as "George George-Brown" makes things more confusing. Although I can see that some sort of footnote might be useful, to list those peers who changed their names for this purpose. sjorford 22:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Full names in titles

I'm afraid that it's Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). If you think full names should be used in article titles, then the best thing for you to do would probably be to raise it at that policy page's talk page. It would be a great shame, though, if you felt that this one policy prevented you from contributing to these articles, especially as the full name of the peers concerned is the opening of every article on them (as, indeed, it is for every person), and is given on the pages for their peerages. Proteus (Talk) 15:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've left my comments on the associated talk page,but as I told you,it's INDEFENSIBLE Wikipedia policy,and that makes all the difference!--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fans' Stadium

I am simply keeping the article on The Fans' Stadium in line with all other football stadiums, where a name has been given for sponsorship or similar reasons, and placed the article under that name.

See also: Arsenal Stadium, known almost universally as Highbury, Bradford & Bingley Stadium known by fans and pundits alike by its former Valley Parade, the list goes on and on. Besides this The Fans' Stadium - Kingsmeadow isn't an appropriate title for an article given that it does not follow the usual naming terms, The Fans' Stadium (Kingsmeadow) would be far more appropriate, but still incorrect given that the official title is the Fans' Stadium, whether it is known to most fans as Kingsmeadow or not is unimportant given that in every other case the article has been named for the official title. Grunners 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Replied at length at your page,just confirming that "The Fans' Stadium" is NOT,never has been,the full official name.Also, Valley Parade should remain at that title just as the various leagues with title sponsors are covered under their underlying names with their entire histories,rather than treated as becoming new entities when a sponsor signs up.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, naming the ground after the sponsor is not ideal, and I prefer the original names, BUT, it is Wikipedia policy, as a precedent has been set by all other similar stadiums to do this whether we like it or not. Grunners 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Replied at your page as well.Recapping here,1)this policy is NOT followed at ALL stadium articles,and 2)if you don't like it you DO something about it,not roll over.--L.E./12.144.5.2 18:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coinage specifications

Copied for convenience from User talk:Arwel Parry. I gather you have done a lot of the writing on British coinage,and thus are probably responsible for the virtually exclusive use of metric units in describing specifications.Of course until quite recently they were never the units that the Mint used in determining coin specifications,and the implication that they were,in describing changes in weight and dimensions that took place long ago,is unsettling.I don't have a good reference source for the weights in grains and dimensions in fractional inches,but their inclusion in the articles would be very,very welcome. --Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, the dimensions and weights of the current British coinage were given in metric here long before I discovered Wikipedia. As to the articles I have written, the dimensions and weights are obtained from Coincraft's Standard Catalogue which is probably the most easily obtainable detailed reference work on English and UK coins, and which gives such information exclusively in metric. I gather from your ISP name that you're probably in the US, and thus have a liking for the old units, but I have to say that although I was taught inches in primary school 40 years ago they're not much used now, and grains and troy pounds mean absolutely nothing to me. Regards, -- Arwel 23:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussed further at User talk:Arwel Parry.--L.E.

A question

Hi, Louis. Just out of curiosity: Is this no-spaces thing a rational belief that your way is better (and thus subject to change if you're convinced otherwise) or a matter of taste (and thus beyond debate)? Zocky 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Efforts to convince me otherwise have failed for decades,so I suspect the distinction is academic.--L.E./12.144.5.2 00:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough :) I see that you use spaces around quotes (up the page). How come? Zocky 00:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord Justice

I suggest you read the page posted on the talk page of the article in question. Proteus (Talk) 10:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Supercentenarian

Louis, what does the use of the word "weasel" mean? Explain yourself. Marcus2 12:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"weasel words" is a colloquialism for words used to render what one is otherwise saying conditional,qualified,and meaningless...it is the opposite of boldness in making a statement,and represents an unwillingness to stand behind what one is saying.You take the statements made with regard to the oldest people ever documented and rewrite them with the intent of minimizing the importance of their longevity and of the efforts to validate age claims.--L.E./12.144.5.2 18:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Getting a user-name

Actually, the best reason to get a user-name is that your ISP may renumber you (i.e. give you a different IP address), in which case your edits will start showing up attributed to "128.52.123.456" or something, and (even worse), someone else might get assigned the IP address "12.144.5.2". Yes, the latter is not that likely (anyone who gets it is unlikely to be a Wikipedia editor), but the former is quite definitely possible. Noel (talk) 21:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Jnc/ReplyMyTalk

OK,I replied at your page (simple enough really to keep threads on one page,check your contributions page to see when a page you posted on no longer shows your edit as (top)).Anyway,I own my ISP and the 12.144.5.2 IP address is assigned to one server that I do my posting from.--L.E./12.144.5.2 23:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alas, i) if someone else puts a note there before the page owner, that algorithm doesn't work, ii) if you edit lots of pages, that Talk: page will be a long way down on your contributions list!

Anyway, if you own your own ISP, you're of course relatively safe (unless your upstream decides to renumber you - but your service agreement may preclude them from doing so, of course). Noel (talk) 02:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spaces and punctuation

Hi there. As a courtesy to your fellow editors here, could you please add spaces after punctuation? This is standard practice in English and not doing so means that somebody else will need to take time to fix this. Thank you in advance. :) --mav 09:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the head of this talk page for a long list of people who have made the same request that I adopt the same popular mistake.;)--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Longevity II

Louis could you go through Longevity and turn it into a proper article - especially the future secction. PMA 00:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult for me to do that from my browser without wholesale hand-copying.What parts are you most interested in improving?--L.E./12.144.5.2 04:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Put a space after your commas and periods

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Every single edit you make has to be changed, yet you continue to refuse to take the two seconds it takes to put a single space after a comma or period — your contributions are great, but it's just an annoyance to have to paw over your edits and clean up after you. That's proper English. Your edits are all going to be changed to be like this anyway, so why do you continue to waste everyones time? Please use it. I beg of you. User:Oven Fresh/sig 03:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have considered the avoidance of spaces after punctuation marks important since a long time before there was a Wikipedia.If I contribute here,it will follow my orthographic preferences,not popular mistakes.--L.E./12.144.5.2 04:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay.Ithinkthat'sagoodidea.­FromnowonIwilleditWikipediahowever­IwantevenifI'mwastingotherpeoplestime.Thanksforthetips!­User:Oven Fresh/sig 19:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not the first person who's missed the point.One should separate words with spaces OR puncutuation marks...got it?--L.E./12.144.5.2 19:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you seemed to have missed my point. The point is you're wasting everyone's time by making us clean up after your edits. Wikipedia isn't the place to carry out your crusade against spaces -- most people think it's easier to read that way. This is the English Wikipedia, where we speak english; grammar included. So please, put a space after your commas and periods -- if you know you're wasting everyone elses time by not doing so, why do you continue? User:Oven Fresh/sig 01:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've had this disagreement for many people for many years.The popular error of spacing after punctuation is not "grammar",it's an orthographic practice that ought to be abandoned.And I don't help the cause of its abandonment by doing it myself.There are limited conditions where I might do it if I were specifically paid to,but not on Wikipedia,thanks.--L.E./12.144.5.2 17:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you don't have a problem with wasting peoples time as long as they're not paying you? User:Oven Fresh/sig 20:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That they waste time inserting spaces they wrongly believe should follow punctuation marks into articles I have the sense to write without them,is not my fault!--L.E./12.144.5.2 22:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spaces are good

With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. From The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/spacing.). Gentgeen 04:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The important part is only one space which means not more, nor less, than one space. Gentgeen 04:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No spaces are better

The publication cited recommends one space too many.;)--L.E./12.144.5.2 04:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conceits?

What exactly gives you of all people the right to describe anyone else's punctuation edits as conceits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centenarian&diff=10278087&oldid=10264034)? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To use a HTML command to render a dash when there a perfectly good hyphen key on your keyboard is most emphatically a "conceit".--L.E./12.144.5.2 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bravo !!

You,Sir are a hoot.A real example of the kind of freedom most people wish they could have,but lack the courage to put into action.On the anarchism page they talk of individuals free from rules but argue over the rules to impose a lack of rules.Havel of the Czech Republic said to be free act as if free already.You,Sir are an example for all of us.Bravo.(I type this way here as a symbol;elsewhere I'll use a space after the punctuation.That's MY choice.) signed Anon

Supercentenarian

Well, it is a small world - we exchanged Usenet comments, oh, 15 years ago in rec.heraldry, amongst other places, I believe.

I was just posting to point you towards the discussion I am trying to start in Talk:Supercentenarian on the use of tables. I'd be grateful for your comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can't be 15 years ago since I first posted a newsgroup message in 1994.As you can tell from my comments on that talk page,the introduction of formatted tables into the Supercentenarian article,from my point of view,turns something I worked hard to create into something no longer worth touching for me.L.E./12.144.5.2 02:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa - meant to say 10 years - for example, [2] (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=epstein+aloan&hl=en&lr=&selm=42iqd9%24o5s%40tzlink.j51.com&rnum=1). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes,that was me...not that it does anything about your taking an article I poured a lot of work into and turning it into something I can not even bear to look at.--L.E./12.144.5.2 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - are you saying that you find tables aesthetically displeasing, or that they just make it difficult for you to edit, or both? If the former, I find long bulleted lists, each with four or more points of information, rather ugly and dificult to read. If the latter, surely there is some work around: can you copy the source into another editing program? (I know this is clunky, but I really do think the tables are better for the reader). I have to say that I would, if given a free hand, put College of Cardinals in a table too. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are elements of both.The table formatting makes little difference to appearance in Lynx (as I noted,it seems to be a version and driver difference as to how they are rendered) while when I look in a graphic browser on another computer (I run and prefer a CLI environment at 12.144.5.2) I have to say they seem busywork to me,a superfluous affectation that does nothing to improve presentation.The article being full of tables also diminishes its appearance of being an ARTICLE,hence the effort to move it to "oldest person" because it was more tabulation than discussion.From the editing point of view,the tables cause byte-bloat and one has to wade through the formatting characters whenever one makes an amendment rather than only having the material one wants to work with.It's apparently possible to invoke an editor from the browser but I don't think article text can be loaded into it.Bottom line is that only articles with a MINIMUM of tables are worth the effort to me to edit.--L.E/12.144.5.2 16:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mass reversion of Supercentenarian

If you wish to edit an article, you really should avoid undiscriminatingly reverting all other recent changes merely because they came after the edit you object to. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 14:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My revert was more discriminating than you give it credit for,it was mainly to remove the table formatting and the HTML-for-dashes but I also added the Eckler link (which you modified and restored) and the Herkimer County link(which you didn't) as well as removing the self-promotionally arbitrary link to the Nanoaging Institute and certain superfluous repetitions of information.--L.E./12.144.5.2 21:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You may well have a valid point about the dubiousness of Brazilian woman's claim to longevity. I would not object to a simple edit that reflect this, but I do strongly object to your "mass revert" of everything, including tables and &ndash;. The tables look better and are more readable, and the &ndash; are standard for a range of numbers or dates. Tables are a standard feature of Wikipedia and you can't unilaterally remove them when a considerable number of other people want to leave them as they are. -- Curps 08:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object to any edit that keeps the tables,as from my perspective they look no different reading and are a hideous headache editing.As I understand it there is a plan to make the Wiki code render hyphens (much easier in editing!) AS the HTML dashes,at which point all HTML dashes will be turned into hyphens in the articles,so Susvolans is just doing silly busy-work.--L.E/12.144.5.2 14:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spaces after periods and commas

Dear Louis. I start with the assumption that you are a well-meaning person, and with the best for Wikipedia.

Then, for one, why don'y you make yourself an account? That would be very helpful and very much appreciated.

For two, it is universal to put spacing after commas and periods. Why don't you follow the accepted standards? Besides, since most other people think differently, your edits will always be chaged to the standard, if not by a human, then by a robot. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My long history of avoiding spaces after punctuation marks,and of any form of registration for participating in websites,are noted above.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 02:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respect for my limitations

Please refrain from using the words "insert" and "periods".They evoke painful memories for me and I should not have to be subjected to such pain.I regret that you have made contributions with such choices of words.Thank you,and good luck with your quest for efficient punctuation. --142.179.67.186 07:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal Sin

I didn't say I thought Sin was papabile, but the Chicago Tribune did. [3] (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504030438apr03,1,3625123.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) Gentgeen 04:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinals

I have changed the name to List of deceased cardinals and given it a mention at List of cardinals, --SqueakBox 18:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) List of notable deceased cardinals, --SqueakBox 02:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

HRH The Duchess of Cornwall

Mr. Epstein, I wonder if I might request you to clarify a point of contention relating to HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (and, indeed, that of the previous Princess of Wales). Some have argued that it is proper to refer to her as "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales." Another user, however, has suggested that "Princess Charles" would be incorrect, as "Princess [Husband's Name]" is only used when the husband is not a peer. I would be obliged if you would provide your view. (See the talk page.) -- Emsworth 00:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

true Catholic Church

Please stop changing the boilerplate on the page.

• There is no support for what you are doing;
• There are agreed boilerplates to be used. Wikipedia doesn't make up different ones on each article.
• You have surpassed the maximum number of reverts allowed by a user on that page. Technically, as you have done so, I could as a sysop have blocked you from using wikipedia. I have not done so but one of the many other sysops might still. But if you persist in reverting that page you will be blocked from wikipedia. You haven't been because I believe you clearly as a genuine user with an opinion to express. But the blocking rule is supposed to be rigidly imposed. (Even Jimbo Wales would be blocked if he had done the number of reversions you have done there.) But if you persist in reversions, no matter how genuine your viewpoint and the fact that you aren't a vandal, the wikipedia rules will have to be applied and you will have to be blocked from wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 00:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You deleted your previous comment justifying your removal of my revert,so I figured you no longer stood behind it.Isn't the maximum-revert three times within 24 hours?

I continue to maintain that use of the standard boilerplate for that article is a violation of NPOV policy,and there's no opposition to my viewpoint on either of the talk pages where I have expressed it and given plenty of time for response.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that continuous revertion of your boilerplate would have sent a clear enough message as to the complete opposition. I am puzzled as to how you think I have withdrawn my opposition. I did no such thing. Let me state it clearly. I see no justification for your argument, none whatsoever. (And I am usually good at spotting the logic of other people's argument, even if I disagree with it. But I cannot for the life of me understand your stance.) The only issue is that wikipedia for technical reasons cannot use the name of this church used by that church. That is covered by the standard boilerplate.

There is no issue regarding the name they use. None whatsoever. No-one else on that planet uses it so they are welcome to it. They could call themselves the Screaming Fans of Jesus for all I care. If they use a name that no other religion uses, claims or opposes, what they call themselves is their business. Our only responsibility is to use the correct undisputed name they use. We cannot for technical reason. The standard boilerpate says what. As no-one agrees with you, and a host of users revert your changes, that should send the message that you are in a minority of one. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed. Stop reverting or this time it will be treated as vandalism. FearÉIREANN 03:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to comprehend that you do not understand my argument.The name this organization uses in the orthography they prefer is with the specific purpose of appearing to be a POV value judgement.If I say "I have heard that the True Catholic Church claims to be the true Catholic Church",I am making a statement that they have a position.If I say "I have heard that the true Catholic Church claims to be the true Catholic Church",it looks like I am stating a tautology,because in using the orthography they prefer I have made it seem like I have used an adjective to describe them and conceded their point,rather than identified it through capitalization as part of their organization's name.(In a similar vein,the organization called The (Original) Church of God is not the oldest of the groups called The Church of God in various variants.But without capitalization there is no NPOV).--Louis E./12.144.5.2 03:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Louis, if we say 'you can't call yourselves that' then we are expressing a POV, which we cannot do. If another religion says 'hey guys, you can't call yourselves that' then we would have some justification in questioning what name we can use for them. But as no other religion has not challenged their name, we simply cannot, under any circumstances, express any opinion as that would be us expressing an opinion on their right or otherwise to call themselves that. And that would be POV, which we cannot do. They can call themselves the true Catholic Church, the True catholic church, the tRUE cATHOLIC cHURCH, the HCRUHC CILOHTAC EURT or anything else and it makes no difference.

I personally regard them as a bunch of nutters but there is nothing I can do about it. I detest the British Tories, but have to write NPOV stuff about them. Ditto Sinn Féin and George W. Bush. Unless a third party religion challenges them, the rules of NPOV mean our hands are tied. We have to call them exactly what they call themselves, nothing more and nothing else. It is that simple. We are not the jury and cannot be. We are simply the reporters of fact. And the fact is that this shower of ejjits call themselves that name. So we have to do under NPOV rules. I am surprised you so misunderstand the rules of NPOV not to see that. FearÉIREANN 04:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it.Calling them what they want to be called is POV,and designed by them to be POV.If reference to them can not be framed to make clear that it is their way of putting their name that is being used,and that it is not the writer's choice of reference,there is no NPOV possible.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Louis. This is ridiculous. It doesn't matter a damn how POV their name is. We use it unless it is disputed by another organisation. One Irish political party uses the subtitle - The Republican Party. We use it. We are not saying they are republican, even though they use that name in a POV manner to imply that they are more republican than their rivals , just that that is what they call themselves. The President of Ireland is in by that title. Some people read POV into the selection of that name by Ireland, as it implies all of Ireland whereas the President is only president of part of Ireland. But we, again, use the president's official title. The King of Spain is called King of Jerusalem. We aren't saying he is, merely that he is called that by some people. It does not matter what the tCC calls themselves. If no independent third party challenges their right to call themselves that then we have no choice whatsoever but to call themselves that. None. Zilch. You really do not understand what NPOV on wikipedia means. You are imagining a problem that does not exist. You are talking a POV stance on the name. We cannot do that. This is no validity whatsoever in your argument. That is their name. No other religion challenges it. So we have no choice but to use it. It is that straightforward and that simple. FearÉIREANN 23:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The folks in Rome would certainly seem to be challenging the designation of any other organization as one whose identity they falsely claim!--Louis E./12.144.5.2 03:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papabile

The information in question was previously added to Papal election by another user. Of course, I could not simply delete the information; I felt that the information on papabili would be more approrpirately added to Papabile. If you like, however, I would not at all mind removing the information from either article. -- Emsworth 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General Conference

Maybe a general statement. x may conduct but x presides. Recent examples of this include: GBH when third counselor, in 1983; MGR in 1979 or whatever. The current paragraph about sustaining is confusing - I tried to clean it up some. Just giving an example is confusing and looks like trivia. (cc anon page) User:Trödel/sig 20:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite correct as fact and not illustrating the extremes.Will go into detail on your page.--L.E./12.144.5.2 20:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

I've had a job as a writer, and probably would have been fired if I obstinately refused to follow common spacing conventions. Beyond that, I find commonly-spaced text much easier to read than your dense style, so no, I won't be joining your windmill-tilting. Niteowlneils 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Football League Championship teamlist

The non-breaking spaces were deliberately put into the template to keep each club's name on a single line. I have put back in the ones you removed. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supercentenarian

Thanks for the advice on my talk page.

A simple It's unnecessary to wikify every single name would have more than sufficed, since I know nothing about whatever else you were talking about, and as I have never dealt with you before now. I don't really mind if you feel like venting like that, but I believe the average user may not appreciate the sentiment and may choose to take it personally. --Bastique 13:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dalek history

Interesting. Do you have a reference for this? I don't recall it being mentioned in any of the reference works. --khaosworks 19:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:12.144.5.2"