User talk:Derek Ross/2003
|
|
Hello again, Derek. I came across a reference in a newly created article (Earl of Ormonde) with a link to the non-existent article, "Jacobite rising of 1715". I know Jacobitism is one of your specialist subjects, and I wondered if you would agree with me that:
a. A separate article on the subject of the risings would be better under the title of "rebellion" because, in my experience, that's how they're normally referred to.
b. There should either be a single article covering the whole series of rebellions or separate ones under the year, to avoid any disagreement as to which was the "first", "second", "third", etc.
And finally ... do you have any long-term plans to create such an article or articles? Deb 22:17 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, Deb, it's a big subject and as I'm not good at writing big articles (alright, too lazy to write big articles), I hadn't any plans to do so. I agree with you that the best answer is one article on the whole series of campaigns, starting with the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, since the actions of James VII & II in Ireland, of 1715, 1745 and the other smaller events were really an outcome and a continuation of that.
- I'm a bit leery about calling the actual campaigns 'rebellions', because that's very much the Hanoverian point of view, and though I'm more of a Hanoverian myself, I can see why Jacobite sympathisers would describe them as legitimate campaigns against a rebellious Parliament and its pet usurper. However your point about these events being commonly referred to as rebellions is well made, so I agree that, at the least, there should be a redirect from Jacobite rebellion or some such page(s) to the article.
- Cheers, Derek
Well, I've kicked off a new article, Jacobite Rebellion, which will obviously overlap a little with Jacobitism, Bonnie Prince Charlie, etc, etc, but should, when suitably expanded, give a clearer idea of what references to the "Jacobite rebellions" tend to mean. I still think it's worth more than a redirect. Deb 22:39 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Fair enough. You've made a good start. If you're just going to stick to rebellions rather than the other campaigns, it's a shame to miss out the rebellion of 1689, even if it was short-lived, since it was a bona-fide internal rebellion like the '45 -- no foreign support or intervention -- (and Walter Scott wrote a cracking song in Bonnie Dundee').
- To the lords of Convention, 'twas Claverhouse spoke,
- "Ere the King's crown shall fall there are crowns to be broke;
- So let each Cavalier who loves honour and me,
- Come follow the bonnet o' Bonnie Dundee."
Yes, you're probably right. One of the difficulties is that some call this the "first" Jacobite rebellion, but mostly the 1715 one is called the "first" - so what does that make 1689? (Serious question.)
My main reason for creating this new article is that I feel the term "Jacobite Rebellion(s)" occurs so often that it somehow deserves an article. 212.159.36.93 18:27 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
I may be alone in this but I think blanking pages is a bad habit, except in extremely inflammatory instances. When you blank a page it makes EVERYONE who has a hand in discussing it waste time going to the history, picking out the right version, etc. It sounds like a small hurdle but it gets annoying for moderators I'm sure. Please don't blank pages, edit them or report them. I already reported My Heart Is In Your Hands and Revolving Around The World when you blanked them. Thanks again. -- Goatasaur
- Sorry if it upsets you. I've always liked the guideline "Be bold in editing". We are all moderators and I've never had any qualms in removing obvious rubbish whether inflammatory or just plain gibberish. After all it's not exactly difficult to revert my edits if you disagree with them. I never delete pages and if someone feels strongly enough to revert what I've blanked, it doesn't upset me. That's the Wiki Way. I don't often blank pages, but I'm afraid that I still will from time to time when I see an obvious candidate like Revolving Around The World. Cheers, Derek
There is no proof of such statements as you have left on my talkpage. Susan Mason
Maybe so. Proof of anything to do with people can be hard to pin down. However there is quite a lot of evidence supporting the statements that I made. Anthropologists and other social scientists have studied this subject for many years and you can find a lot of papers on it if you find the subject interesting as most people do. If you don't like research projects, take a look at history. Spain in the 1930s has material of interest. It's also interesting to follow the progress of communes set up on anarchic lines during the 1960s. Most of them followed a fairly standard progress away from their original principles as they grew -- or they fell apart. Only the ones which remained small, managed to remain properly anarchic. -- Derek
gimme a source Susan Mason
Okay. This should get you started.
It's a study on how religion acted as the rules/rewards/punishments system in 19th century Communes. It's got lots of references. Be warned though, it's a lot of work doing this sort of stuff, so you're on your own after this freebie. I've no interest in trying to change your opinion. I'm just pointing this out because you seem interested in the subject. Good luck. -- Derek
And here's one more weblink to a popular science book about groups in general which talks about the "magic number" 150 and its significance for human groups -- The Tipping Point (http://www.nextreformation.com/html/general/tipping.htm) -- it makes for easier reading than the average academic paper. There's an excerpt at the link. -- Derek
- Interesting. I wonder how close to that point wikipedia is... Martin
- Counting total users, Wikipedia has already passed it. That's why users like myself are constantly surprised by things that have been decided without our knowledge: it's got nothing to do with cabals or conspiracies; it's just that there's too much going on to keep track of it all without dedicated time and effort. However since an individual Wikipedia user's success is mostly dependent on their own actions rather than upon their social standing within the Wikipedia "community", they don't need to keep too close a track on what other Wikipedians are up to, unless they're up to no good. Thus Wikipedia still works in a relatively informal manner (more formalised than when I started contributing though). I think that we may run into problems when we have more than 150 concurrent trolls, vandals, or other attention-seekers contributing but we haven't reached that point yet. -- Derek
It's also interesting in that there are roughly 150 nations. Hmm. log(6x10^9)/log(150) = 4.49. So, five steps of hierarchy?
- Nation
- State
- City
- District
- Organization
- Work group?
Or something. The Anome 11:18 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Never thought of that. Could be. It's an fascinating point about the approx. 150 nations. Probably a coincidence though. The limit doesn't forbid groups with more than 150 human members. It just says that they rapidly become more dysfunctional as they grow beyond that point, unless they are structured or formalised in some way. And the overall structure is more complex than a straight hierarchy. It's more of a network. Hence the Kevin Bacon game -- Derek
I used to think all the lists were silly and useless too, but then I was talking with someone (typing, really) and the person mentioned that people find different vectors into wikipedia--some of them more obviously useful than others. So the lists aren't necessarily for me, but others find something in them and they're not conspicuously harmful, so there you go. Koyaanis Qatsi
I won't argue with that, KQ, but you could say the same thing for definitions of common words and we don't do that even though that would provide yet another vector into Wikipedia. Normally I just leave these lists alone but I can't help commenting on them occasionally. -- Derek.
- Hm, that's a good point. It's a way in, but is it encyclopedic? ... Well, people seem content to have them, so I'm content to have them stay. I've even contributed to a few of them. (though Schroedinger's cat is the only "list" contribution I'm proud of). :-) Koyaanis Qatsi
Re Michael A. Jackson: I thought his book Principles of Program Design was brilliant. It's a real shame that all his examples were in COBOL; it might be better known if not for that. -- Dominus 04:48 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. Great book. What a pity it isn't more widely known. -- Derek
Thanks for troll-watching. It's funny that Lir/Vera can oppose describing the Soviet Union as a regime on one page because that's an anti-Soviet POV but support Fred Bauder's personal theories on another. Spite and jealousy for JTD seems to be the only thing that's motivating him/her. 172
- Sadly, Spite and Jealousy are very strong motivators. However even without them we have enough trouble with trolls, spammers, and other hidden agenda-pushers. I don't fight back as much as some of you guys but that doesn't mean I like what's going on. -- Derek
I loved your reply to Shino on the talk page to Communist state. It gave me quite a laugh!!! Should we appoint a Trollfinder-General? :-) ÉÍREman 04:42 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
Glad, I cheered you up. Anyway, I'm off now. I don't have your hardy 'all-nighting' constitution and it's nearly 1 am here. I'll let others be the Trollfinders-General for just now (there's too much work for one). -- Derek
"Of course you don't understand the problem. Idiot trolls never do"
- I don't think that was an appropriate thing to say nor do I think is was in line with the principle of WikiLove. Even if it is true most of the people reading it will not know the history behind it and many will come to the conclusion that those types of comments are acceptable in general around here. The last thing I want is for Wikipedia to become UseNet - I'm sure you agree. --mav
<sigh>Bouquets and brickbats</sigh>. You're right, I don't want Wikipedia to become like (the worst parts of) UseNet. But we've all made inappropriate comments from time to time. Remember that while situations where I have made comments like the above are rare, it's easy to find similar situations where I have refrained from commenting altogether despite the strong temptation to do so. -- Derek
- Yes I know. I've also said more than my fair share of, er, less than appropriate things on Wikipedia. --mav
Caledonian Railway (Brechin) is an orphan. could you find some articles to point to it? :) Kingturtle 06:17 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
- Strange, it didn't used to be. There was a whole list of UK private railways and it was one of those. I'll take a look.
- Okay, I see what happened. Renata refactored the list, accidentally breaking the link at the same time. -- Derek
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I didn't even notice it. :-) --cprompt
- Don't mention it. You'd have done the same for me. -- Derek.
Hi.
About Mary, Queen of Scots. I agree with what you wrote in my user talk page. This seems to be the name by which she should be listed by here as it is both a native name ( as you've pointed out) and the name by which she is best known by at any rate. I've read quite a few accounts of her, and the only place where she has ever been called Mary I of Scotland is here. At least one other user, Zoe, seems to agree with the idea od renaming her page as well. Arno 08:14 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Er, well, I didn't actually say that I agreed with renaming her page, I just said that it was her official Scottish title. If we did rename the page for her we'd have to do it for every other Scottish monarch as well, since they were all Kings or Queens of Scots, not of Scotland. And there *was* a Mary II of Scotland. She was James VIII's daughter. So you'd be naming them Mary I, Queen of Scots and Mary II, Queen of Scots which is even less expected than Mary ? of Scotland (particularly for Mary II), and would make Scottish monarchs out of line with the others. Best just to leave things as they are, in my opinion. -- Derek Ross 23:48 17 May 2003 (UTC)
There is more than one way to skin a cat. History granted Mary the title Queen of Scots. No other monarch has been given this title, so I don't agree that having to rework all the Scottish monarchy pages is warranted. Dduck 20:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re British Guiana 1c magenta, it seems a bit idiosyncratic to use "¢" for "cents"; I don't know of any philatelist who does it, and even my stodgy old Stanley Gibbons catalog always uses just "c" for British Guiana stamps. Stan 02:06 23 May 2003 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Stan. If standard philatelic usage is c for cent, revert my changes. I thought I was improving things but it looks like I was wrong. -- Derek
Hi Derek -- thanks for the show of support. As you may have noticed, I occasionally lurk in, and then run into the people like the ones on the French Monarchs page and run away again. Oh well -- maybe when we can do history without confusing nationalist cant with scholarship ... JHK
- I'm just glad that you haven't given up on the Wikipedia entirely. But your experience is definitely a pattern that's been repeated a few times, I'm sorry to say. Scholarship is essential but it's even more difficult to put over than the NPOV, particularly when it comes up against entrenched patriotism or anticommunism. -- Derek
Dante, please don't make links that only those with administrative powers can use such as the undelete links which you have put on the Vandalism in progress page. It tends to promote the idea that Wikipedia is run by a clique who don't want the ordinary user to see what they're doing. Better just to describe what the vandal was up to. Then everyone is included in the big picture. -- Derek Ross 01:09 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- No problemo. I just wanted to illustrate the vandalism and since the pages were deleted I had no other way to do so. ;) --Dante Alighieri 03:42 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi Derek, I've noticed a problem that is arising over the opening paragraphs of many royal and papal pages. We use numerous styles, many of them illogical and a throwback to when wiki named royal pages by personal name not royal nomenclature. Given your contribution in the past to getting royal page right I thought you might like to take a look at a solution I've proposed on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) page. Take a look and let me know what you think.
BTW I've made some changes on the Republic of Ireland/temp page. I'd be interested to hear your views. Slán FearÉIREANN 01:16 29 May 2003 (UTC)
- It seems best to discuss these on the appropriate talk pages, so I will. Looks good though. -- Derek
Hi Derek, great news! Scipius is back to mess up with the Republic of Ireland page again! *sigh* He changed around the temp version again to do his usual stuff (remove Republic of Ireland, muck up info on the status of the english language, etc etc etc.) Could you keep an eye on this page? The last time he tried this it ended up in a mega-war between those who know Irish history and those (principally Scipius) who don't but keep making factually inaccurate changes anyway. I have reverted back to the previous version by LittleDan which is the temp version we all agreed on. Unless Scipius is stopped again it is going to be the same old nonsense all over again, with everyone else's work reverted to suit his factually incorrect version. It would be nice if just once he tried reading a history book on Ireland. Reading the constitution would help. And a couple of other sources would help also. wikilove. FearÉIREANN 02:24 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi Derek, just thought I'd point out that JTD's representation of me is somewhat off. You can see User talk:Jlk7e for a lengthier reply. It's a pity that JTD is not in a particularly cooperative mood, but I'd like to mention that my intentions and edits aren't anything near what JTD suggests they are. Thanks for listening. -Scipius 22:58 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Guys, I know that both of your hearts are in the right place and I am sure that you can come to an understanding, if you really try. As you know from past experience, Scipius, my thinking on Ireland is much the same as JTD's (and that of many other Irish and British folk), so I won't pretend to be neutral on that matter -- I generally agree with what he writes on the subject of England, Ireland or Scotland. But please bear in mind that it's nothing personal and I know that you make your changes with the best of intentions. And I realise that JTD's characterisation of you above is written in his normal dramatic style -- fun for the rest of us to read but harder on you than you deserve.
Changing the subject slightly, I am currently on location in darkest California without ready Internet access so I'm afraid that I won't be able to contribute to this particular rewrite of the ROI page until I get back home, sometime next week. -- Derek
Darkest California??? So the dreaded powercuts have hit after all!!! A whole week without wiki. How will you cope? Take care and have plenty of batteries for the flashlight! lol FearÉIREANN 01:41 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- It is a violation of the technical terminology of physics to speak of the "velocity of light;" velocity is reserved for a different use.
I am well aware of the technical difference between speed and velocity. That is why I made the change. In the context of the sentence changed, I believe that velocity is the more appropriate term since the waves propagate directionally rather than as a "random walk". I agree that "speed of light" is often a more appropriate term in other cases where directionality is not an issue. -- Derek
Then perhaps you should modify light because it seems to indicate that "velocity of light" is always unacceptable. Pizza Puzzle
Hi Derek -- see Talk:Interpreter (computer software) re your contribution there -- Cheers, AndrewKepert 04:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, Andrew. Note that you can check for replies to your comments by using the My contributions link in your sidebar and looking for contributions where yours is no longer the (top) entry, so I would have spotted your reply pretty quickly anyway. -- Cheers, Derek
stupid question
Hi Derek,
I have a really stupid question on the birth of the British Parliament. According to the information on this web, there was no standing parliament pre-1640s. So, when was the embro of parliament first formed, for what cause and under what circumstance?
I would be enormously grateful if you can send your reply to berrywai@hkusua.hku.hk.
Thanks, CC
- The first "British" Parliament was formed in 1707 as part of the union of the parliaments of England and Scotland. Thus it replaced the pre-existing English and Scottish Parliaments. I believe that the English Parliament was formed as a result of the rebellion of the English Barons against King John in 1215. The settlement that they forced him to sign, the Magna Carta, included provision for an advisory House of 25 elected Peers which formed the basis of the English parliament, although it didn't come about immediately. The Scottish parliament is of about the same age. The first identifiable group which was clearly representative and governmental was meeting in 1235 and perhaps earlier. Of course neither of these was a standing parliament. As your own research has indicated, parliaments in the early days were convened only when needed. -- Cheers, Derek
---Kingdom of Great Britain---
The words "Kingdom of Great Britain" never appear in the Act of Union, except as part of the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain". I maintain, therefore, that the "United Kingdom" dates from 1707. I'll accept your edit to the article though. -- Daran 16:38, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. However this has already been discussed on Wikipedia at some length and the conclusion reached was that we should follow the majority of academic historians who have studied the subject in more depth than the two of us have. They do not agree with us for various subtle reasons despite the evidence which you cite and which I have always found to be fairly compelling. Take a look at old talk on the various UK pages for more information. Thus the current use of "Kingdom of Great Britain" and the original use of "Great Britain" within the Scots language article rather than "United Kingdom" -- Cheers, Derek
Hello, just to bring to your attention the fact that "Ross and Cromarty" was an administrative counties created in 1889, covering the combined areas of Ross-shire and Cromartyshire. It ceased to exist in 1975 and was never an historic County - Ross-shire and Cromartyshire are the historic Counties, and have never ceased to exist. Hence I've removed it from the list; it really belong in the administrative county article (as does most of the information in the County article). 80.255 08:03, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- In which case the map on the historic counties page is clearly erroneous and should be removed since it includes the administrative county Ross and Cromarty bu not the historic counties Ross-shire and Cromartyshire. -- Derek
- Cromartyshire is fragmentary and is thus amagamated with Ross-shire on that map for convenience. I've recently created a better map showing the distribution of Cromartyshire throughout Ross-shire and Sutherlandshire, which is now uploaded and displayed on the Cromartyshire article. 80.255 18:03, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Excellent ! Thanks for putting in the effort. -- Derek.
Hi Derek, still can't quite agree with your re-wording of the Ten15 page. There were two basic microcodable machines at the root - one special-purpose (built by Logica) and the other the ICL Perq. Each of these was then microcoded to provide a capability (q.v.) architecture which was called the Flex machine. The two variants were known as 'Logica Flex' and PerqFlex'.
There should perhaps be a separate Flex machine page!
Sadly, much of the documentation, though unclassified, never saw the light of day outside DERA.
Ben Potter
B(DOT)F(DOT)Potter(AT)rmcs(DOT)cranfield(DOT)ac(DOT)uk
Ben, Please change anything which you think is wrong. I freely admit that this is a very interesting subject which I did not know about until I read the stub article, which I presume that you contributed. And I agree that there should be a separate Flex page. My only knowledge of it is via the external link within the article itself, so I hope that other more knowledgeable people such as yourself will add more detail. All I will do is to ensure that the article is formatted in the Wikipedia standard way and add relevant links to other Wikipedia articles. -- Derek
Derek, that's great! I worked with the Malvern crowd and am keen to see their efforts recorded. I'll see what I can do about a flex page. I should read the style guide .. naughty me!
Ben
On Nature you reverted to Alternate, but Wikipedia policy favors British usage , which favors (or perhaps only allows) "Alternative". See e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary at [1] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org):
3 US (UK alternative) An alternate plan or method is one that you can use if you do not want to use another one.
That is, sometimes in the US "alternate" is allowed, but in fact many US dictionaries disallow it (e.g. see Usage Note in the American Heritage Dictionary).
So please undo your reversion... Thanks Peak 22:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You can quote as many authorities as you wish. They are irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make which is that Wikipedia policy does not favour British usage overall. It permits either usage and asks users not to waste their time changing British spelling or grammar to American or vice versa. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The only reason that I reverted was to make that point. If I were to change it again I would change it to Secondary and sidestep the issue, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this particular change. If you want to that's up to you. -- Derek
Dear Derek: It is not a question of British vs American, since both dictionaries of British and American English disallow "alternate" as an alternative to the adjectival use of "alternative" (see the note at Wikipedia:Manual of style#Usage and spelling style). I agree that "secondary" or "other" would be fine, but many articles use "Alternative meaning" or (alas :-) "Alternate meaning". Peak 07:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, Peak, I am still of the opinion that the function of dictionaries is to describe common usage rather than to prescribe (or to proscribe) it, so I don't think that dictionary compilers have any special authority that gives them a right to disallow such usage. In my opinion, all that they should do is record its prevalence or state what proportion of the population have which opinion on its correctness. I leave it to textbook authors to give advice. We do not yet have an equivalent of the Academie Francais and I hope that we never do.
Unlike you (and apparently many dictionary compilers) I feel more comfortable using alternate as an adjective and alternative as a noun. However I do not feel so much more comfortable that I will be spending time switching one for the other. Wikipedia has many other semantic, grammatical and spelling issues which are more important and less controversial, so I come back to my main point that there are more productive ways to spend time on Wikipedia than on this particular issue. However, as you are well aware, that is just my opinion. It's your time so please spend it as you will. -- Cheers, Derek