User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 10)

I see that you were involved in PP's latest charm offensive on the New Imperialism talk page. It's strange to see him attack you; after all, you've practically been PP's patron, urging other users to give him a chance to be rehabilitated. For someone like Adam who speaks of geopolitics so much, this is utterly perplexing. PP attacking you would be tantamount to North Korea attacking China rather than the United States if the multilateral discussions were ever held over the nuclear issue! Attacking you isn't a very strategic move! However, maybe it is. Perhaps he wants to be banned. Maybe he's getting bored with the PP persona. BTW, I suspect that he's utilizing two user names concurrently, cultivating a new, very constructive persona. His incarnations have all been of varying ages, nationalities, and have been both male and female. If I'm correct about this new clone (another leftwing radical), this one is the oldest, most mature yet. Maybe the ever-enigmatic Adam wants PP to go down in a blaze of glory and then focus on this new incarnation. 172 06:50, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the advice. Right now, the only two interested in editing the main article are Graculus and I. So all these other controversies, involving PP one way or the other, are just distractions. Even if I waited for this one weak deadline to pass, I doubt that this would stabilize the page. It's probably time to list the temp page on the VFD. Only until PP's temp page is gone can Graculus and I really work things out in peace. 172 21:20, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So would it be a better idea to ignore his next restoration of the link while adding the temp page to the VFD right away? 172 21:23, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're right, getting Martin (or perhaps Mav) to propose it once the deadline is over would be a much better idea. As usual, Lir/PP has generally been successful in positioning himself as the victim and me the antagonist in this conflict. But I'm not frightened that the temp page would be promoted to the main article. As unpopular as I am around here, I doubt that a travesty of that magnitude could occur. It's such a flawed, incoherent work. I'd be able to convincingly argue against it and its many jumbled lists and headlines on this basis. However, I just don't want to fall into the trap of endless dialogue with Lir, whom you mentioned earlier is great at asking questions and dogging answers. This is all a shame because Graculus and I could get the entire series in good shape relatively shortly if it weren't for these Lir antics. I don't know how longer I can stand all this. sokolov47@yahoo.com 172 21:38, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Have I missed anything on User:Evercat/PP? It's still unclear whether the statistics at the bottom are useful, so the case would be strengthened if there was other evidence... Waterloo, Iowa seems just big enough that there might be a couple of innocent users there... (but as everyone seemed convinced PP was Lir before PP's physical location was discovered, it is quite a co-incidence if he really wasn't Lir) Evercat 20:11, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for you e-mail yesterday. I had accepted the advice, but I learned later that Mav removed the link after Angela withdrew her vote. Even more surprisingly, and to my relief, PP basically conceded defeat on the Village Pump and agreed to establish a less tarnished persona. Evidentally, we were right that Adam was getting bored with the PP typecast.

Next time, I'm going to follow a "don't ask don't tell" policy with Lir's new persona, who will probably be incredibly constructive for a week or two. It's strange to admit, but I'm eagerly awaiting his debut with great curiosity. 172 20:18, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, I liked your old color scheme on the user page more. Maybe we should all vote on it in the Village Pump?

Great photos on the user page! Not as expressive as Paektu's page, but it's an attractive layout. But the red and yellow color scheme of the profile boxes seems more Soviet than Irish. In addition, the color scheme might raise charges of whitewashing communist history and historical revisionism from Fred. 172 06:19, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm off to bed (have to get up for work at 7 &c), will you keep an eye on 195.92.168.169 (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.92.168.169) and his/her pro IRA agenda? -- Jim Regan 23:47, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I could do with the sleep! -- Jim Regan 00:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I always said you were a generous guy. Deb 20:37, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Message for you on Talk:Daniel C. Boyer -- Tim Starling 03:27, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

JT - please use email more often. Calling another user an "ass" (no matter how true that may be) while using Wikipedia's resources is not acceptable and set's a very bad example to newcomers. Please understand that the mere presence of that type of talk on the wiki hurts the wiki. --mav 07:22, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe Mav's right. An ass is a very useful farm animal. While strubborn, some of these troublemakers are hardly that productive. 172 07:43, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If Mav is the law, then the law is an ass.  ;-)

---

Ugh. I knew that you were dealing with someone with a dogmatic agenda, but the mailing list makes it pretty clear that you were stuck with debating a raving lunatic. You were merely clarifying the nomenclature, refraining from adding anything that associates you with a particular side. No rational person could see this as a personal affront. But we're not always dealing with sane people on this site, hence those absurdities posted on the mailing list. 172 09:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, would it be possible to have him and the liberator exchange e-mails? Maybe they could meet in person and have a cordial discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian matter?

---

m:Trolls request your attention to m:Wikimedia press release policy. It needs attention from those who might understand the concept of English-language imperialism. Also it tends to bring to light some issues (m:systemic bias, m:The ideal Wikipedia board, m:Wikipedia3 and m:Wikipedia4) that will have to be settled eventually, preferably, before there is a public commitment to any particular position that will bind a m:board that doesn't exist yet. Please help this process and refine the ways that m:Wikipedia Governance evolves into a more democratic small-g m:governance that doesn't rely on a clique of cabal. Who writes press releases, runs Wikimedia.

It seems multiple attempts to make Wikipedia more balanced across languages and democratize it have failed, and, it would be good not to miss this chance. A few old hands are wading in, and, perhaps, this is the remaking of the project.

---

Increasingly, it's becoming obvious that RK is better at overlooking overwhelming evidence than Adam, better at dogging questions than Adam, and far more paranoid than Adam. If Adam/Bridget/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Ril/Like a virgin/Pizza Puzzle were banned, the RK should be banned. It's time to start building up an offensive at User talk:RK/ban. 172 17:19, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Any idea what happened to User:Boots? Deb 17:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

If you want to block 67.31.x.x, you'll need to block the entire class B or at least most of the lower end of it, it seems. He's all over the place. Daniel Quinlan 21:40, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Church sex abuse article

James, we both know that the old version of the intro was poorly written. "Underage children"? "Charges that that .. charges"? Please. Now, I would not dwell on such stylistic errors extensively and just correct them, had you not accused me previously of having replaced the intro with a "poorly written" and "sensational" one (without substantiating these claims). As for the page title, as I explained in my edit comment, it is not the Roman Catholics making the allegations -- the old title was clearly ambiguous.—Eloquence 22:07, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

The recent weeks must have been frustrating for you, as a professional encyclopedist. So far, you've been baring the burden of maintaining encyclopedic standards amid Israeli moral outrage, Palestinian moral outrage, anti-Communist moral outrage (although that's less of an issue now that Fred has his own internet encyclopedia), and outrage over sex abuse. If you left, scores of articles would turn into polemics.

You might be able to put this matter to rest if you adopt the strategy you used to keep Nostrum's illiterate rant out of Catholicism. You probably should completely rewrite the intro yourself to incorporate the two points made in disputed sentences, including the impacts on the Church's image and the resulting calls for reform. Rather than criticizing the poorly written lead in, you could simply present a far better alternative that satisfies both sides. 172 08:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Looking at JoeM's user page, I have to agree that it is in the exact same style as Paektu's. He even did the "copy whole text of user page to talk page" thing. Probably the same troll. Revert edits and ignore, I'd say.—Eloquence 21:13, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

The politics are 180 degrees different though - but maybe that was never the point... --mav 21:42, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Church instructions for abuse cover-up

Are you familiar with this CBS report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml) yet? See the attached PDF links -- this is heavy stuff. We need a good summary of the instructions manual for the abuse article. Do you want to do it, or should I give it a try? I have already requested permission from CBS to host the PDFs on Wikipedia.—Eloquence 00:27, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

We seem to have JoeM's IP address (user User:212.137.33.208). As an anon he made these contributions (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.137.33.208) adding rants to Islamofascism and Palestinian. In addition, User:64.236.243.31 (notice his contributions on the page history of Israel) seems to be the IP of the Palestinian vandal. Now we could see if these IPs are linked to past banned users. 172 15:03, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi; I thought you might be interested in knowing that DW is up to his old shenanigans on the French wiki under the name JacquesD. (I'm off on vacation so may not be able to reply for a while) - Hephaestos 16:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Please see Talk:Israel. - Efghij 17:31, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)'

--- Interesting link with DW in the 64... range. Perhaps PL=DW while JoeM is a separate crackpot, given the IPs we're finding. 172 18:03, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They're not in the same range. Two good tool for lookups are:

• http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/nbbc.cgi
• http://www2.hunter.com/~skh/scripts/dnslookup.html

(if one doesn't work, try the other)

Anyway, the two IPs seem to be from different ISPs... Evercat 18:11, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Too bad. It would be reassuring to assume that there was only one source. I just noticed, however, that Hephaestos banned what is probably JoeM's IP. If that's the case, he won't be able to log in even if his user name isn't banned. We might be relieved of the nonsense after all. 172 18:14, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, how's the heatwave on the other side of the Atlantic? Here in Tampa, Florida the temperature is about 25 °C, probably cooler than Dublin. 172 18:19, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hold on, I'm confusing myself because there are 3 IPs. Here they all are:

• 64.236.243.31 - Palestine guy, this one's unclear, I'm afraid. Seems to resolve to some non-existant ISP, or the AOL Transit Data Network (http://www.atdn.net/), whatever that is.
• 64.228.30.125 - DW. This is sympatico.ca - a Canadian ISP.
• 212.137.33.208 - JoeM? This is xerox.com.

Oh, and as for the IP Heph banned, JoeM's edits continued after that, so probably not the same guy.

Evercat 18:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To make matters worse, I'm not even sure 64.236.243.31 was Palestine liberator - the Israel and Palestine articles are common enough targets for vandals, and the IP made some other non-political edits (contributions)

Moral of the story: chasing down IP addresses is a messy business. :-) Evercat 18:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Ugh. Now I've noticed that User:195.218.116.8, banned also by Hephaestos, had been making JoeM-like contributions. And guess what? This user might be that rightwing nutcase from the Hugo Chavez page. The DW=Paketu=PL=JoeM idea doesn't seem to be holding up. So the Wikipedia vandal mysteries might not be solved. 172 18:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, As an American living in the South, it doesn't really seem strange that JoeM's views are sincere. It might not be a caricature, as you were proposing. I don't know if you have the privilege of listening to rightwing American talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, etc.), but as one who does, I can attest that their callers frequently express similarly simplistic, ultra-nationalistic, and provincial worldviews, especially after the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Nor does he come across as an oddity considering some of the influential foreign policymakers and experts here. JoeM just comes across as Don Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz on ideological steroids. 172 18:52, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't seen that Heph had banned another possible JoeM IP. Anyway, probably best to just judge them all on their own merits, at this point... Evercat 18:40, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- Do you want to take a look at the little dispute going on at Chinese Communist Party? 172 22:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid my ignorance of the Israeli-Palestinian problem probably prevents me from being useful. The disputed sentence seems reasonable, assuming I'm understanding it correctly - are Palestinians living under the PA technically Israeli? ie do the West Bank and the Gaza Strip technically belong to Israel? If so, then accomodating these "Israelis" does seem to be at the heart of the matter... but if Palestinians living in these zones are not technically Israeli, then calling them Israeli Arabs would be incorrect. There's the opinion of an ignorant man. :-)

But I wonder if you're going to tell me that the legal status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is unclear... if so, the sentence probably suggests a clarity that doesn't exist. Evercat 22:54, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not "unclear" -- rather, it's "disputed". Israel and its friends say that Israeli control of WB/GS is okay; while others who want to control it instead, say that Israel is wrong to exercise that control. This wrongness is variously branded "racist", an "occupation", "illegal", etc. I daresay the issue won't ever be settled in a court, though, so I'm not too exercised over the legal aspects -- I'm more concerned with stopping the bloodshed. Brothers, let us stop fighting quoth I. --Uncle Ed 16:40, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The user who hijacked the Great Depression article and turned it into a rightwing rant is back and restoring his old version little by little. It would be great if you could keep an eye on that article before his POV rant makes a comeback. 172 14:35, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Regarding the wrath of the bird people, thanks; see User talk:Cjmnyc. -- Cjmnyc 20:59, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for starting up the new vote. I hope it will help. Angela 15:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Would you be interested in protecting British Monetary Crisis? The user who wrote that silly rant on the Great Depression page and then salvaged it the BMC page, which he created, keeps removing the banner stating that his page is subject to an NPOV dispute and listed on the VFD page. 172 18:41, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Jtdirl (or FearEIREANN), thanks for the note on my talk page: just wanted you to know that my lack of response on the new vote didn't indicate that I hadn't seen the note or didn't care. I'm just getting confused by the entire issue and vote, and have decided it's better to let people who've been here longer and have more of a sense of (and stake in) the project be the main voices. I'll keep watching the discussion, though, and will chime in if I see something I think needs saying. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 21:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You left a note on my page stating that the new vote was in the same place as the last, but I have not the fogiest idea (other than Village Pump) where that would be. I mast have followed some links there last time. Sorry. These navigations I find very difficult (like help pages) to track in Wikipedia. The pedia itself is straight forward; the rest - well maybe after I,ve been here a few months. - Marshman 04:42, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Jtdirl,

User:Angela referred me to you:

We have concluded that it is possible to cast multiple votes by 1 person into the International Logo Competition either by using multiple User accounts or different IP addresses. (!!!)

Is there any way we can prevent this? or identify votes as 1 vote per person/computer?

Thanks,

RSVP

User talk:Tonius 23:16|2003.08.13

Hum. If Adam's voting, then his choice logo's going to win. 172 23:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Would you object to me unprotecting Israel now? Evercat 18:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for you comments concerning Nostrum's continuing vandalism and trolling. But I think that I'm going to have to leave this site for good this time. I'm sick of dealing with so many users who have more respect for a vandal, with his insights such as 'Pat Robertson's penis is small' than a historian. Right now, Nostrum successfully made this into an issue of me being abusive to new users in order to distract everyone from his vandalism. There's now a lineup of users voting to revoke my sysop powers on the administrators' page. I should quit being a patsy and leave rather than take this abuse. 172 04:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

It's not Nostrum who is going to force me to leave, but the people whom he has persuaded, such as MB, Angela, Tim, Cimon Alvaro, and Mav. The pressure on the votes for administrator page is simply insurmountable. Nostrum's a gifted agitator, and he successfully played the victim. MB then spent hours going from page to page urging to have my sysop status revoked; he's probably getting back at me for my criticism of how he handled the Paektu matter. A handful of other users with whom I never worked then jumped in because the accusations sounded bad. And then Mav backed them all because I've supposedly been in the wrong in to many edit wars, in his opinion. I don't know why I'm being attacked for trying to prevent having articles like Catholicism, New Imperialism, Israel, and Great Depression turn into utter garbage, but I am. There are too many users who have never really worked with me now ready to attack anything I say or do. It's probably best that I leave. 172 16:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough! I wouldn't stand a change of surviving this lynching if it weren't for your strong words. Hopefully this inane waste of time can stop soon and we can get to some real work instead. 172 19:13, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is 172's attitude problem, and inability to work with other users, that has got him here. Let me quote him "I had to defend the defenseless new user. We don’t want this potentially valuable contributor scared off by your venom, do we?" -- 172 attacking Zoe on Talk:History of the People's Republic of China/Archive 1. I wouldn't be suprised at all if Zoe was partially scared of by 172. If 172 would talk to me, and listen to what I have to say, and would stop attacking the newbie, who doesn't always know when he has made a mistake, then this problem wouldn't exist at all. My experience with Nostrum has been good, b/c I am respectful to him. 172, has been disrespectful (amongst others), and therefore Nostrum was disrespectful to 172 (amongst others). Try to put this situation in perspective. The attitude towards others is nothing new. マイカル (MB) 19:12, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

That says a lot. Someone has respect for a self-proclaimed genius who vandalizes articles and writes at fourth grade level? 172 19:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Check out this huge bombshell revealed by MB; it would address a lot of the points you raised in your comments on the administrators' page: "Honestly, I know Nostrum personally. So, I am trying to help him out, b/c I know for a fact he isn't trying to cause harm. That is why I am going out of my way. I don't know about others, that is just my position マイカル (MB) 23:31, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)."

It looks like MB effectively destroyed the credibility that I built up after months of active contributions to protect a friend engaging in vandalism. I won't utter the string of explicatives going on in my mind right now or act until I have competent advice. I'm going to go outside and calm down with a few cigarettes. How should I handle this confession? I think that the fact that he failed to disclose this conflict of interest long ago is recourse to revoke his sysop status. First, the Catholicism protection destroyed my credibility. Now this. This proves all along that I was really subject to a lynch mob and have never been an abusive sysop. 172

172, you couldn't be futher from the truth. First of all, I'm not the only one who thinks you are abusing your powers. If anyone is leading a lynch-mob, it is you, against Nostrum. Secondly, Matt asked for my help, because he didn't understand why he was being attacked, so I agreed to try and help. I didn't realize it was a conflict of interest to help out someone you trust? People that trust you are helping you out? If my friendship with Matt is a conflict of interest, than so is you friendship with Jtdirl. My "attacks" on you are no different than your attacks on Matt. At least he has been willing to admit his faults. You however haven't. マイカル (MB) 00:04, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed that JoeM's edits were subject to auto-revert. JoeM, like Nostrum, has engaged in illiterate POV ranting. However, the controversy concerning JoeM's vandalism amounted to nothing because competent sysops subjected his edits to auto revert. Nostrum, when editing Catholicism, however, had a sysop friend relentlessly defending his POV ramblings by proxy. Due to MB's defensiveness, there wasn't a clear consensus behind protecting the page. My standing hasn't recovered since. Moreover, other competent users, especially yourself, were subjected to dealing with that trash. MB should be accountable for these actions. 172 00:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Please read my request on User talk:Nostrum/ban. マイカル (MB) 23:47, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

--- How should I address the matter of the MB/Nostrum conflict of interest? I think that it absolves me. Had I not been the victim sysop invited to protect the Catholicism page, I wouldn't have all this mistrust surrounding me among users with whom I've never worked. Now Sv, who has never really worked with me, is comparing me to RK because of charges largely promulgated by MB and rehashed by concerned meddlers. All this explains the phenomenon we were seeing on the anti-172 page: the defenders actually have worked with me and the impassioned criticism have not. 172 00:52, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Please provide you reasoning behind thinking this is a conflict of interests. The reason I defended Matt was because I knew he didn't mean any harm. This was an advatage you didn't have when dealing with the situation. If I may be blunt, I think that the people who have dealt with Nostrum (and other past users in similar situations) have dealt with the situation poorly, not even bothering to try and help the user understand their faults, and being confrontational. This is something I think should change, but I have a feeling the problem lies with the people, not with policy. There are already rules of wiki-ettiqutte. And rules on not to bite newbies. These policies have been blatently ignored by 172 and others. I am not quite certain of the motives, but I believe it all stems from them trying to protect wikipedia. I feel they have taken it too far. I can personally understand wanting to protect wikipedia at all cost, but there needs to be a line drawn. マイカル (MB) 00:54, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

re: These policies have been blatently ignored - I agree - I expect they have been ignored by everyone at some point. Angela

---

Thank you Jtdirl for you understanding. マイカル (MB) 01:15, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Okay, I'll take your advice and keep a low profile. However, it would be nice to hear someone previously on the other side acknowledge that all this finger-pointing had no weight to it and that this could've happened to anyone who sought to keep Nostrum's rant out of Catholicism. 172 01:23, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be taking a break from Wikipedia for the weekend (I think). This whole thing has made me realize I am way too involved in Wikipedia, and I need to take a break. マイカル (MB) 01:50, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I though that you were aware of my location. The other day I mentioned it on your talk page, but I guess it was easy to overlook since it came when there was a flood of other comments on your page. I mentioned it wondering how the heatwave went for you in Dublin, stating that temperatures here in Tampa, Florida have probably been cooler than highs in the British Isles. 172 17:27, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry about the Taoiseach matter. I wasn't thinking. However, I think loch in English is often pronounced just like lock, so it can be confusing. Then again, I can't think of a better comparison; this ch sound just doesn't exist in English. --Wik 18:24, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd better not. Jiang, a Californian, and I were talking about the Davis recall earlier. Right now I'm as tainted as Gray Davis, and the polls don't look encouraging for either of us. I should stay away from edit wars until, or if, I survive this recall referendum. Perhaps I should use this time to work on the History of Brazil series. That's something that attracts zero attention and controversy. That is, until a Getulio Vargas partisan finds this site. 172 18:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

You: "One wrong word could re-ignite he controversy, without it I am almost certain it will die and be forgotten." I certainly hope that some good will come out of this issue. The fact is, 172 and others made a mistake with Nostrum. While it is questionable where or not Matt deserved it, I would like to think that with a little co-operation amongst the good-cop's and bad-cop's could provide other new user's in similar cases a way out of the problems they get themselves into. It is my opinion that everyone should be provided an out. We do for all banned users. If they contact Jimbo, they can get unbanned. I dunno, think about it. I think we could improve on our vandal/ban policy/stratagy. マイカル 19:04, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Good job with the 172 fandango, BTW.
When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (for real this time) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴&#30505sv 23:01, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for being open. Consider that responibility brings its own rewards. -戴&#30505sv 23:13, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your impressive words of encouragement on my talk page. Better ask, what am I doing here? Don't I have better things to do? Or worse still, I think I'll have to block myself from this site in two weeks when classes start. Argh..addictions suck! --Jiang 05:30, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey - you might find this either disturbing or funny but at Talk:Nikola Tesla and the Village pump there is a debate about whether or not history should be written in the present or past tense! Please add your respected opinion to this before our history articles become a laughing stock of inconsistent tense. --mav

Source/1962 document

Do you have a source for the botched circ. story? Couldn't find one via Google News.

Regarding the 1962 document:

• The Observer has a new story (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html) about it here. It was also mentioned in German media based on that story.
• Secrecy: The document itself states that "This document is to be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries."
• Relevance: Some Catholic apologists have claimed that the document only applies to crimes of solicitation. However, the document itself states that all the rules (e.g. excommunication in case of violation of secrecy) apply to the "worst crime" (homosexual conduct, child sexual abuse, sex with animals) as well.
• The Ratzinger letter you referred to is here (http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc) (DOC). It states explicitly, not in a footnote, that ".. the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now ..". This seems to contradict Catholic claims that the document expired in 1983.

Ratzinger's reference to the document does not make it any less secret / less accessible to non-members of the church. Is it not true that this document was the effective guideline for all Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church until 2001? Is it then not also true that the Vatican conspired to punish Catholic priests who talked about sex abuse and other sex scandals with excommunication?—Eloquence 17:03, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

You state that the document is only relevant to the confessional. However, what are "brute animals" doing in the confessional?—Eloquence 08:56, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

I was amused to see that you'd created the Mike Yarwood article, or to be more precise, I was amused that you'd created such a comprehensive article on him. I've now got an image in my head of your mother calling you in from playing to shout "Jimmy come in, Mike Yarwood's on the telly". Was it him who, after completing a series of magical tranformations into the likes of Frank Spencer and Ted Heath, used ruffle his hair, say "And this is Me!" before launching into a rendition of ""Fly me to the moon"? Mintguy 20:55, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As you may be aware, in recent weeks I've become interested disambiguating the peerages of Britain (despite being virtually ignorant of the subject before). Initially I started doing simple disambiguation as per Duke of Westminster, but latterly I've been creating narratives of the family history and connected titles, as per Duke of Somerset, and Duke of Hamilton. I don't want to go overboard doing this kind of thing if people feel it's not required. I've been in coversation with user:Someone else about this and he prefers a different format, as per Earl of Castlehaven and Talk:Earl of Castlehaven. I'm just polling opinions on the subject. I'm also wondering if it's worth creating a wikiproject on the British peerage. Mintguy

---

Well, it definitely is London Palladium. Like every other palladium, it's named after the architect Palladio, who spelled his name with two Ls. Now we need an article on the programme (including roundabout), as well as the one about the theatre itself.

I used to be a Mike Yarwood fan once upon a time, until he got so predictable and then turned into a fascist. I didn't actually remember that he had been on "Sunday Night", etc. I think I must have stopped watching it after Norman Vaughan packed it in. Or did they revive it after a break? Deb 21:34, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi. I've kicked of a Wikiproject page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so discussion can be lumped together in one place :).

Why the revert on the Hezbollah page? -戴&#30505sv 19:37, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not actually 100% sure it was Michael that time, maybe some copycat (although whoever it was definitely needed blocking). It's a double block, but as soon as one of ours is unblocked the other one will go away too. - Hephaestos 23:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well I just thought that removing this 68.79.bla.bla's moronic comment would be seen as very provocative and just cause more trouble and that reinstating it would be the less inflaming. Even though some other user (read RK) could see that comment and flame along. I remember once RK accidentaly did it to my (long) comment and I got really angry. And um... free speech and all that.. and i saw your post on the list and maybe it would be easiest to let antother sysop police this user because it is obvious he doesnt like you :-) and it LOOKS a little like you are giving this troll some "food for thought" if you know what i mean :-) BL 05:53, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The words 'flavour' and 'flavoured' have been replaced by 'flavor' and 'flavored' in your additions to the potato chip article. Normally I would kick up a fuss about this, but it does standardise the whole article to AE. As this stuff was your contribution, an Irish invention, and flavoured crisps are far more prevalent in Britain and Ireland than in the US (at least in my experience), I thought you might have a different opinion, so I thought I'd let you know. Mintguy 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was the one who did it. Just so you understand my rationale, the article lives at potato chips, not crisps, so that right there is a marker for AE. Furthermore, other than the section on Ireland (where they seem to have invented the flavored variety) the article does seem to focus more on the American snack food. I have no objection to the article going the other way, however, I was just standardizing as I thought was most appropriate given the article as it stood. --Dante Alighieri 09:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm hopeing this is the way to send messages :c).. Thanks for the welcome. I'll update my profile with some more info at some point, but suffice it to say for the moment that I am Irish, and now living/working in London. I've dipped my toe into wikipedia a few times recently, and am probably going to get more active in it over time. It's a really good idea. Colm

---

Please see User talk:Dante Alighieri for my comments on Wikipolicy regarding AE/BE spellings. --Jiang 20:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

more --Jiang