text:
User talk:Ford

Just throw your comment at the bottom. I will handle the formatting. — Ford

2004 edits

 * (To Astrotrain) What exactly was your point on the 2004 page? Indonesia and Cambodia not important enough for you?  You do not seem like a vandal, but such deletions are unjustifiable, unless your world truly stops at the British shoreline.  —  Ford 22:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Hello Ford, I am sorry that you are still disputing the 2004 article and have tagged it for neutrality. I have added a reply to your message on discussion board. As I have said before, I do contribute to the 2004 page reguarly, and do attempt to remove what I regard as "unimportant". Your election news should really be in 2004 in politics or perhaps you should create a Elections in 2004 page so that minor world countries can be entered. Can I ask what particular entry to the 2004 page offended you so much please? Astrotrain

 * I am more offended (and my sense of neutrality is offended) by your repeated exclusions of changes of government, including very significant changes of government, in parts of the world that you do not consider important, but most reasonable people do. Your language, and the suggestions of what are important enough, or would be important enough, to warrant inclusion under your standards, are, as I said, parochial.  You have a narrow conception of what matters.  I have read your comments on the 2004 page, and you are quite dismissive of the rest of the world, while unaware of the relative insignificance of things of your interest.  Certainly Britain remains an important country, but not to the level that you rate it.  The royal doings are trivial compared to actual changes of government.  Your favoring of such business over matters of genuine import is baffling to me, and is the main reason that I tagged the article.  But you can also be sure that I will keep the article tagged as long as there is so much as one use of a royal honorific.  You may think the queen is majestic, but that is a point of view not shared by most (in the world, that is, not your corner of the world). — Ford 12:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Ford, the Queen has the style Her Majesty in the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and the entire Commonwealth. She is also styled HM in other parts of the world. Remove it if you wish, but it still is the case. In my opinion, Prince Harry's fight with photographers is a significant event, as it is quite unprecedented. Elections in Cambodia, Georgia, Burma and other countries like these are only important in those countries, and not to the world. As I suggested, create a Elections in 2004 page and stop being so childish. There is no neutrality dispute on 2004, I gave the royals their proper styles as Wikipedia naming convention demands.

Anyway, Indonessia has been re-added, and I have not removed this as other users have said they think it is important. Be glad and happy my loyal subject!

His Majesty King Astrotrain!!!

 * (See also the long discussion at 2004 – Removal of “unimportant” events)

What is and is not a word

 * (To Sunborn) I do not really care whether we use ‘till’ or ‘until’ in the article on Muhammad, but I do care that you made an unnecessary edit and then offered a mistaken reason for it. ‘Till’ is, in fact, a word, a perfectly-acceptable word, and it has the same meaning as ‘until’.  You might want to consult a dictionary before making such a comment.
— Ford 00:53, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I did check the dictionary before making the edit, I am not as ignorant as thou! I just must have missed it. It is there now, you are correct, besides 'till' is a very colloquial word and should not be used in the wikipedia --metta,  T he S unborn  ☸  14:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC).

 * ‘Till’ is not a colloquial word; substituting ‘until’ is a genteelism. This is a stylistic argument, though.  If you want to exchange the one for the other based on the way it sounds to you, so be it.  Just be careful what you say.  On that point, I would ask whether you were joking or misspeaking when you wrote “I am not as ignorant as thou!”.  Joking, I hope, because it would be an even-worse misstatement, since thou art at least as ignorant as I, and likely many times more so.
— Ford 03:03, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, I was considerably angry after a particularly bad mid-term. I shouldn't have called you ignorant. However, it is of my opinion that you are making problems where there are none. Hence I think you are a troll, or at least part troll.

 * Apology accepted. And I do not even object to the ‘troll’ comment, since I take that as an objective opinion, even if it is not true.  I came to Wikipedia as a consumer, and was enthusiastic about the information available.  But some of it was wrong, and some of it, despite the claim of neutrality, was biased.  Therefore I began contributing.  I did not create any problems in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia had problems, even according to its own standards, and I attempted to fix them.  My results have not met with universal acclaim, but surely you do not suppose that Wikipedia was a pastoral, harmonious community before I arrived?  To consider one of my edits of Muhammad, I am not the only one (even at Wikipedia) who believes that the use of PBUH in an encyclopedia article is wholly unacceptable, that it transforms an article from an objective presentation of reality into a homily.  If you consider any of my other contributions trolling, I would like to know which, since at every point where I have met with resistance, I have also met with support.
— Ford 01:00, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Proper punctuation

 * (To RickK) - For what it is worth, you may count me as a second person who believes that the punctuation changes made by 201.129.245.179 on the 2004 page were an improvement, almost to the last item, and that your reversion, therefore, made the page worse, not better. I believe your conception of “proper punctuation” needs some refinement before you next venture to charge an editor with ignorance of punctuation rules. On the other hand, I would drag out the deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic analogy here, noting that there are greater problems by far on the page than the punctuation.
— Ford 01:49, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Please point to any reputable English grammar which says that commas should be used in such a fashion. RickK 23:12, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Point to a reputable English grammar that doesn’t. You claimed to know what proper punctuation is; the burden of proof is on you. The rule is that a noun in apposition is a parallel element, and must be set off by commas on each side, so that the underlying structure of the clause resumes after the interruption. A single comma can only set off the preceding material as a phrase or clause outside the structure of the clause in question. The same rule holds for a noun being used as a modifier (like ‘Saudi Arabia’). If you are in doubt, you can say the sentence aloud, pausing at each comma, and ask yourself which sounds more consistent with logical sentence structure.

 * I would particularly point to the entry for February 26, where ‘Former British cabinet minister’ is set off by a single comma, as though it were some sort of adverbial phrase, instead of a direct modifier of ‘Clare Short’. Worse yet, it sounds like a vocative. Think of the difference: “Senator George Jetson is on the phone.”, versus “Senator, George Jetson is on the phone.”.
— Ford 02:27, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

You really, honestly think that the commas in Several British Airways flights from London Heathrow Airport to Washington D.C. and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, are cancelled and Tony Blair makes an unannounced trip to Basra, Iraq, to give a speech are correct? Sorry, they're wrong. RickK 04:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin, beneficence
Though I understand your aversion to combining Stalin with the word "beneficence", I think the term might actually be accurate in this context. Like Hitler, Stalin gained the support of his populace through the creation and expansion of the social welfare system. Perhaps the term "welfare" would be more appropriate than beneficence, but there's no particular reason to pretend that the hugely beneficial socialist welfare system did not exist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I can see this is going to be an issue. Unnecessarily, I think, and it is going to make Wikipedia look like a joke in the meantime.  But I will have to address it on the talk page.  Look for my reply there.
— Ford 02:05, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Latin language
Greetings, Ford... Would you be willing to cast a vote at Requested moves in re the Latin move? —Tkinias 02:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 18th Murder on 2004
I appreciate your denunciation of Astrotrain's insistence that this be included. Although I essay not to become intangled in Wikipedia edit wars, there are some serious defects in this article that I believe deserve addressing. The aforementioned was one I noticed as a casual observer, but after delving more deeply into the controversies surrounding this entry, it has become increasingly difficult for me not to observe others. With this likely being the sentiment of other users, how could there be a question as to whether or not this page is in dispute? Earthliberator 20:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There really is no sensible way to question that the page is disputed. As I keep saying, it is a simple matter of language.  Astrotrain is presently arguing that it should not be disputed; but is incapable of registering that it factually is disputed.  I would go further, and claim that it is obvious that the page is biased, not neutral, and should be disputed.  Nothing will avail to persuade Astrotrain of that.  Curiously, I tagged the article originally to avoid a brewing edit war.  Astrotrain and I were reverting each other, and rather than persist with that, I simply tagged the article and let Astrotrain have his/her way.  Now Astrotrain wants to remove the tag as well; apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion on the page at all.  Others have entered the fray, and while there have been other disputes among the other editors, the bulk of editors have likewise concluded that Astrotrain’s choices of what to include and exclude are biased.  Astrotrain simply does not get it.  I originally found the encyclopedia a wonderful resource.  Now I find it a flawed resource, and a frustrating project, because I have no choice about which editors to work with.  I imagine you will quickly get as discouraged as I am.  I spend entirely too much time arguing with those of closed and narrow minds.  Still, there are some splendid things about the encyclopedia, so I am not giving up just yet.
— Ford 21:38, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

CanisRufus
See Wikipedia_talk:Bots. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Royal Titles
I have just read your comments about the use of titles such as "Her Majesty", which you claim are POV. I think you are quite wrong. It is your proposed ban of them which is actually POV. These are conventional courteous forms of address comparable to "Mr". Calling the Queen "Elizabeth Windsor" is blatantly an expression of a republican point of view. You are not arguing for neutrality, but for people with your type of opinions to have control over the Wikipedian lexicon. Philip 05:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Pope
OK, I'm being deliberately sarcastic in my last edit summary - but how do you propose to make the article neutral? I see from your userpage that you do not believe we should consider him to be anything other than Mr Karol Wojtyla.

Should we go to RfC or have a vote? jguk 23:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The pages where I have reached compromise on this issue are Tenzin Gyatso, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Muhammad, all of which describe the titles and honorifics without actually using them. We can drop ‘His Holiness’ from the beginning, and append a sentence noting that his formal style is ‘His Holiness’, or that he is addressed and referred to by many of his supporters as ‘His Holiness’.

 * For the record, and I have already stated this, I consider John Paul to be no better than anyone else, but I do consider him to be the pope (which is to say, the head of the Roman Catholic Church), and I usually honor his desire to be known as ‘John Paul’; though it was never my understanding that in taking his papal name he was in any way rejecting his birth name, so both are consistent with the idea of self-identification. For all we know, he considers himself Karol Wojtyła, and his papal name was imposed by tradition.

 * On a related issue, I do think it is better to resolve neutrality disputes, but if they exist, they must be acknowledged. And I am acting in good faith, presenting my reasons clearly and logically, and summarizing my edits honestly, so I think I am entitled to a page that meets my objections, or if not, then the right to dispute (as the case may be) the neutrality or factual accuracy of any page I choose.  I am not a troll; I honestly believe that the use (as opposed to description) of these honorifics is not neutral and, moreover, is not in accord with objective usage elsewhere.  I think I am making the encylopedia more of what it aspires to be.
— Ford 00:31, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than just reverting me! Kind regards, jguk 21:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:IPA

 * (To Mzajac) I was glad to have you introduce me to the template. I was excited to use it, and spent quite a bit of time adding it to one page in particular.  Your recent changes have caused it to cease functioning on my computer entirely, though.  I’ll give you some time to figure out how to accomplish your recent goal while still preserving its earlier usefulness; but if you cannot, we should revert your last two changes to your version before January 14.  You know far more than I on this subject, so I will look forward to seeing the product of your efforts.
— Ford 22:02, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Hi Ford. Sorry, I missed your note on my talk page because I was distracted by the following one, added six minutes after yours. Thanks for your patience. I did find out that my changes to Template:IPA didn't work, soon enough.

I've tried another technique, which should apply the font specification in MSIE, but do nothing in all other browsers. Please let me know if IPA looks right to you now.

I've also given the code an HTML class attribute (class="IPA"), so you can override or supplement the font styling in your personal user style sheet (e.g., try putting  into User:Ford/monobook.css).

Cheers, Michael Z. 19:40, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

 * It looks fine today. I noticed that you had fixed it, as I supposed you would.  I appreciate your efforts (and even your failed experiments) on this matter, because I believe they improve the encyclopedia for its users.  Carry on.
— Ford 20:17, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

66.20.28.21

 * (To Alteripse) You offered, at Talk:Marietta, Georgia, to protect the page. You also cite the arbitration, which I am familiar with.  Is there nothing else, nothing more forceful or effective, that was envisioned by that ruling?  User:VirtuousO has just reverted to the 66.20.28.21 edit of Marietta, Georgia and Phil Gingrey, two pages on which I have been reverting this same edit for some time now.  VirtuousO also inexplicably reverted two other pages, Tenzin Gyatso and Syngman Rhee, or at least it would be inexplicable but for the obvious fact that 66.20.28.21 is engaging in specific retribution against me.  (Check the user contributions, and then look at the histories of those pages.  The Syngman Rhee edit was pointless disruption in the first place, and VirtuousO restored it after I reverted it.)  Is it not possible to determine this user’s IP address, or the IP address of the other sockpuppets operating on these pages, and compare them?  Can the admins not develop some evidence that 66.20.28.21 is circumventing the ruling, and take action?  Those of us following the career of this editor have mostly viewed it as a source of unacceptable bias constantly inserted through edit wars; but now we are dealing with simple vandalism.  What can you do?
— Ford 05:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I am a new admin, and haven't done this before, but let me try to help. See my note on the WP:RFAr page. I copied your request there. alteripse 14:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems that the consensus is for further disruption of this kind to be dealt with immediately, which is good. On the other hand, why must we wait until further disruption?  This has been going on quite a while since the decision was made, and I do not see that there has been any enforcement.
— Ford 00:22, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I share your distress at our lack of an immune system. Since I just became part of the "administration" here, I'll see what I can do. I think the applicable concept here is "mole whacking" in hope that the moles tire before the admins do. Wish me luck. alteripse 00:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004
In what way will you try to resolve the NPOV issue? I would like to know so that I can unlock that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Unprotect the page, join Talk:2004 as a regular editor, and then make your suggestions. Had you offered your services as a mediator, things might have gone differently.  But you have arrogated to yourself the right to arbitrate, and that is beyond your mandate as an administrator.  I am not a vandal and I will not be treated as such.  I am not a truant on probation.  I will not present to you some promise of “good” behavior so that you will allow me to do what you want.  Stand down, and then we’ll talk, not the other way around.
— Ford 02:51, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe that was a solution. Give me a proposed solution then we'll talk. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If this is your attempt to look reasonable, it is too little, and too late. You have already used what force you have.  I disagree with your approach, your motives, and your proposals.  If I wasn’t willing to go along with you under threat, I am certainly not going to go along with you after you have carried out the threat.  Come down and join the rest of us, Ta bu shi da yu.  The power has gone to your head.  You have no right to force a solution on the rest of us, and no right to force me to participate in your choreography.
— Ford 03:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

So in other words, you are not prepared to edit this article in a way that will provide a resolution to the problem? If this is the case, I suggest you reconsider the way you edit Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Do not translate my words. I mean what I say, nothing more or less.  I will not negotiate under threat.  I am not prepared to make a commitment to you as if you have a right to demand it.  You do not.
— Ford 03:56, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Well, I would appreciate a solution. However, if you don't want to be part of the process, that's up to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to unlock the page. I would appreciate it if you would work towards a solution. Don't just readd the NPOV tag, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Styles in articles
I remember some time ago you were involved in a debate over whether or not styles should be used in articles, in particular I believe it was on the Pope John Paul II page. Currently there is a survey being done in order to determine what Wikipedia policy should be on this particular subject. It is being done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. Titanium Dragon 10:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have largely ceased editing. I do not know when if ever my editing will resume.  I have given you your vote, though, since of course I agree with you and your efforts should be encouraged.  I was driven out primarily by the arrogance and dishonesty of Ta bu shi da yu on 2004 (and by the rousing reception that his abuse met with from other editors), but prior to that I had ceased editing a few pages, and specifically John Paul II, because fellow editors were so completely biased and closed to reason.  This is not going to change.  The policy I directed you to earlier on this page remains my preference, and the only one consistent with neutrality and accuracy.  But the partisans of adulation will not be reasoned with, and having the same idiotic discussions with them over and over is far too frustrating and time-consuming.  — Ford 21:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Hi Ford. I followed a link from Titanium Dragon to your talk page, and thought I'd pop in here. Don't give up. There are more people who agree with you regarding the prefixed use of styles than disagree, but those who disagree are well organized and apparently vote as a bloc. Because we are using a Condorcet method, rather than an easily dominated type of survey, the really worst case scenario I can envision now is a deadlocked decision. Hang in there. Whig 07:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please do let others know about the survey, it's ongoing through the 14th. Whig 07:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Survey completed
You may be pleased to know that the survey is completed and that the use of prefixed styles was defeated. There is currently a ratification vote underway to determine whether a consensus exists for the prevailing convention. Whig 06:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thanks for your support for my adminship. I read over your "Leading frustrations". I agree with all of them and hope to avoid contributing to the first one. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Indiana Wikipedians
Hello! Please consider adding yourself to Category:Indiana Wikipedians. Thanks! Kurt Weber 7 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Greetings
A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox,
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

GWU
Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright abuses
Hello, this message is because of your comments opossing Ta bu shi da yu admin. Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".

Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.

We stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright

Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo
Dear Ford

I've been recently involved on the subject of Kosovo, and whilst I was combing through the archive talk pages I came accross your involvment on the subject. Well since you've left it, there have been a whole load of heated discussions on Kosovo and constant revert wars. It has gotten so bad that the case is now up for Arbitration and the article is locked.

I am presenting a case against the biased version and I am also trying to prove admin bullying by ChrisO, who you've had an experience with. It would be great if you could make your contribution to the case, it will be highly appreciated. Tonycdp 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I am semi-retired from editing. Editing Kosovo, and attempting to discuss it, was one of the worst experiences in my active period at Wikipedia.  I have no desire to put myself back into that situation.  The page will remain biased and inaccurate for at least as long as it takes for the territory to be recognized as independent by the majority of the world’s states, after which the flock of mindless editors who cannot distinguish between political doubletalk and verifiable reality will suddenly recognize that Kosovo is, in fact, not part of Serbia.  While towards the end I did come to find ChrisO to be an untrustworthy editor, I had no interactions with him (that I recall) as an administrator.  And I also tried my hand at ending administrator abuse, which was the worst experience in my active period at Wikipedia.  I think I will not try that again.
— Ford 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ford, Thank you very much for your input, it will be noted. Tonycdp 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale unabashed theft of much of your page
I saw it and I liked it and I am in wholesale agreement with you. I apologize for my transgressions. I hereby retroactively request the use of this stuff. If not I will remove it post haste... --Tomtom9041 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The way you have now worded your page is acceptable. Of course, I cannot object if you genuinely believe the things that I believe.  But I do think it important that you note whose words and experiences those are, as you have now done.
— Ford 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say, Icame, I saw, I laughed in agreement, But I have one question, Was that beats per minute for an African or European Swallow?--Tomtom9041 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

request for input on pre/postnominals
Greetings - if you have time your input on my proposal would be appreciated regarding the use of Sir/Dame as an honorific title since it seems you've been thinking about this longer than I have. I'm also in favor of getting rid of postnominal letters. Ripe (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) — Ford (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume based on your remarks that you have seen my own proposals on the matter. I agree with your points, as far as I read; but you can see from the response you generated that you are not going to win the fight.  There is a vocal and relentless group of editors at Wikipedia who insist on these clearly-biased usages, and then vocally and relentlessly insist that they are not biased.  In particular, there is a vocal and relentless group of self-debasing British royalists who, when they are not complaining about the oppression they suffer through a supposed US bias at Wikipedia (while all evidence shows that they get their way plenty), are carefully monitoring every page, relevant or not, to ensure that the correct medieval obeisance is paid to every aristocratic or well-connected “knight” or “lord”, no matter how despicable that person’s life is or was.  And, it goes without saying, they deny that they are injecting any bias, let alone debasing themselves.  I, of course, being sensible, believe that the default, neutral position is that all persons are of equal value, and find it ludicrous that anyone should care that this or that government, let alone this or that unelected beneficiary of preposterous hereditary privilege, should be able to bestow a title that we must then all treat as a part of a person’s name.  But you have seen the arguments that these fools are making, yes?  The bogus distinctions between honorifics and titles, for instance?  Privileging “honors” over “qualifications”? Trust me, they will never give up.  Wikipedia just attracts idiots of a certain kind; in this case, people who not only devour every page of Royalty but yearn to write for it themselves.  Good luck.

m:Meta:Changing username
The username has been usurped. Have a nice day! :D Kylu (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the quick and friendly service. I’d leave you a tip; but 20% of nothing is nothing.  Thanks, though.
— Ford (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom of elders

 * (To Mkadams888) Just be careful what you get involved in here. This place will drive you bonkers.  Me, for instance.  I’m bonkers.
— Ford (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I should've known you'd be lurking around here...Mkadams888 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

West Lafayette

 * (To Kwamikagami) I don’t want to get into an edit war, which is why I largely stopped editing WP a few years ago, so I will ask you if you have a good reason for reverting my edit on West Lafayette, Indiana. I know the IPA and I am a native of the town.  I know the pronunciation.  It really is a minor thing, but I would request that you not revert again, without at least providing a justification.
— Ford (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In attempting to revert the change, I find myself unable to get the page to render the IPA correctly, so I have restored it to your version.  Perhaps that problem emerged from my original edit, which is what you were trying to undo, though generally I check the page preview to avoid that problem.  In any case, if you were fixing a problem with the IPA rendering and I caused it, I am sorry for the trouble.  But perhaps then you would be so kind as to remove the length marker (and the length markers in Lafayette, Indiana as well, which are also spurious).  I believe I have successfully edited the new IPA system in WP before, but I appear no longer to know how to do it.  Thanks.
— Ford (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use a local pronunciation that's distinct from generic English, you'll need to use something other than the normal English IPA template. IPA-endia has been set up for English dialects. Though it isn't fully supported, it won't generate any errors.

The problem with the generic templates is that they connect the reader to a specific IPA-for-English key, which doesn't support the symbols you were using. Since the key is incompatible with your transcription, it's not really appropriate to use it, and therefore not appropriate to use the normal English IPA template.

/ɑː/ is defined in the key as the vowel of father. If you pronounce the fa of Lafayette the same as you do the fa of father, it makes no practical difference to use the supported (and defined) symbol. Usually we don't bother with local pronunciations unless they aren't predictable, though it really doesn't matter. In this case, you only have to know that most US dialects don't have a length distinction to understand the conventional transcription. Most of our readers probably wouldn't know the difference: they click on the ɑː and see that it's pronounced as in 'father', so they pronounced Lafayette as in 'father', which is correct for their dialect, whatever it is. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. I am not talking about a local dialect with sounds unusual for North American English.  I had originally changed the transcription in 2009 (successfully at the time) when the second vowel was mistranscribed like the French pronunciation.  The problem now seems to be a disagreement over the generic transcription of English, that the phoneme itself is inherently long, and that it should thus be transcribed as long in all environments, including those (like ‘Lafayette’) where it does not receive significant stress.  Since WP does not usually use close transcription, marking the phoneme itself as long seems inconsistent, but I am not going to attempt to persuade the IPA team of that; as I implied, I am done arguing with people here, even those well-intentioned.  I will point out, though, that the encyclopedia is moving away from the wiki (or crowdsourcing) model if parts of it are essentially impossible to edit by ordinary users.  If, for instance, the French-like pronunciation had been in place when the IPA team instituted the new template, it would now be locked in.  Most of the people in Indiana know how to pronounce the town’s name, but would not have been able to fix the problem, even if they knew IPA, and mistakes like this would go uncorrected.
— Ford (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ford


text:
Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek

The Ruse That Roared, Washington Post
Much, but not all, of this Washington Post article is reproduced on the Quatloos page on DoM; that can be treated as reliable. For information only, I include an unreliable source (hosted on the Dominion of Melchizedek's site and which has been altered by them, with the addition of bracketed comments): link to the waybacked copy. Bromley86 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper articles not currently used
South China Post

"Fantasy Island", CBS

Bromley86 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Official website
Just a heads-up for any other editors who are tempted to add information that's taken directly from, and supported by a cite to, the official website: it's not a reliable source. If you want to add information, you'll need to find a nice, reliable secondary source, which is most likely to be a news article or something like Quatloos that's been accepted over on WP:RSN. Court documents will do, at a push (there's an argument that, if it hasn't been reported elsewhere, it's not weighty enough to merit inclusion, and there are possible BLP aspects when linking to court documents).

Obviously, there's no problem with including the single link to the official website in the Ex Links section. Again though, that link really should be to www.melchizedek.com, even if it's apparent that it's changed. The reason is, we have reliable secondary sources that state that's the right site (Quatloos and Global Pirates: Fraud in the Offshore Insurance Industry) and, with a scam that exists purely on the web, we really do need a reliable source for this. Bromley86 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Relatively recent activity involving DoM companies
It's possible that the Ronald Allen convicted of insurance fraud in 2010 was related to DoM. Certainly, Cliffview Pilot says so. Not sure if they're reliable, and they don't really make a decent case, so I've not added it to the article.

A detailed summary of DoM c.2008, linked to by someone heavily involved in Quatloos, can be found here. I've not evaluated it for reliability, but it may have some useful stuff in it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppets
Just a reminder...

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary,, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Dominion of Melchizedek. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/fantasy-island-the-strange-tale-of-alleged-fraudster-pearlasia-gamboa/Content?oid=2182093
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/Alert/98-38.txt
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2010/10/08/boy-do-we-know-tzemach-ben-david-netzer-korem/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dallasobserver.com/1996-05-02/news/scam-without-a-country/full
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/101206-02.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/06/15/SEC_Ties_Gold-Mining_Shares_to_Empty_Shell.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21084.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias of Editors
Bromley86 is a contributor and an editor of this page who continually changes information back to his original edits without due respect for a realistic analysis of the current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek. This page has been skewed and bias for many years and only purports negative information on the state from over 10 years (ago as of 2016).

There is no new information about the current administration of the Dominion of Melchizedek under Prime Minister David Williams and other Members of the Body-Politic, their positive activities in humanitarian efforts, or the removal of all former members; including the Founder's who turned over all title, claim, and right to the Dominion of Melchizedek.

Further, this particular user and editor of the page has shown he is not competent in his understanding of International law, the Law of Nations, or the proceedure of Nation States in the recognition of foreign States. This is evident in the fact that he/she sources "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States in their comments about the current status of recognition of the Dominion of Melchizedek. Those departments/entities have no authority to determine the Status of any foreign State. Such powers reside exclusively with the State Department of the United States and similar high offices of other States.

Finally, the major source used, Quatloos has dozens of missing or dead links. To use Quatloos as the sole source of relevant, up to date, and fair analysis of a State is bias and arbitrary.

This is one way the introduction could read... It could be amended, however, the current introduction is not fact, unsupported, and should not stand if this page is going to be reflected fairly and properly.

"The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), Is a micronation formed in the 1990's and has undergone major transformations as the current Members continue to learn, understand, and apply international law so the State can effectively and peacefully co-exist among the Family of Nations. Former Members of the Society, including the founders have been removed by the current Members of the Body-Politic and although there have been reports of fraud perpetrated by the Dominion of Melchizedek in the 90's and early 2000's, there has been no such reports since 2012 under the current administration of the DoM."

Bssmith117 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * You are repeatedly adding a section to the lead which is both a promotional whitewash, and unsourced. You clearly have some COI with the subject of this article: your editing history spans several years, with no other edits.  Just what is your connection to this group?  Are you aware that WP sourcing policy applies equally to editors with "inside knowledge", and the rest of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * What aspects of the introduction do you consider "Promotional whitewash" and "Unsourced"? The Micronation was formed in the 90's (recognized that is), The removal of the founder of the Dominion of Melchizedek is sourced on the States Website, if you can find any allegations of fraud or illegalities of the State since 2012, then that particular statement would be proven false I suppose. The Statement about the current Members continuing to learn, understand, and apply international law to peacefully co-exist is based on learning and knowing the mindset of the current Head of State of the Dominion of Melchizedek, Prime Minister David Williams. His information is readily available on-line.

 * As for "Promotional Whitewashing" and "Unsourced" content in the lead, there is no proof which substantiates the current lead on this page. I have attempted to find where this statement is made in the Quatloos article cited. There is nothing of the sort. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you can proof that the statements made by me in the lead are in error, by all means, it should be updated to reflect the facts. Just as the current lead should be updated to reflect the facts. Accusations can go both ways, which is why it is important to stick with facts and reliable sources. Bssmith117 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Please note that, per the manual of style, the lede should introduce and briefly summarize the article. As it currently stands it does that quite well, and there is no need to defend any of the charges within the lede.
 * If there is consensus that we need to defend against some of the charges of fraud, or soften their blow, let's find independent reliable sources on that topic and write a new section about the current administration of the DoM, since 2012. Bradv  17:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Please Note, per The manual of style, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read". You state, the introduction does a good job with introducing the facts presented on the page, however, nowhere in the article does it state that 1) the individuals charged where not charged as Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek but rather, All individuals charged with fraud or other such criminal activities were charges as US Citizens (as they should be since those individuals were, in fact, US Citizens because they never properly naturalized into the State per the procedures laid out by the United States or international conventions. 2). The introduction is misleading because nowhere in the article cited does it make the statement which is being made in the introduction. Further, Quatloos is not an authority on which States/Societies are considered recognized or unrecognized. Quatloos is a website, not a government or an agent of the US Government or any government, regardless if they purport to be attorneys. Likewise, Other sources such as the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States have no authority to determine whether or not a State has recognition or exist. Per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Article 3) (which the US is signatory to); "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence" 4). The Dominion of Melchizedek has been recognized by multiple countries, some of which is even cited within this page.

 * ″According to the Washington Post, the Central African Republic extended diplomatic recognition to the DoM in 1993, but the Post article went on to remark, "...you get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."[4] An article in the Quatloos! the online anti-fraud site noted that: "Melchizedek has apparently obtained some sort of recognition from some smaller states ... all of which are notable for their corruption. Claims that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are pure lies.″

 * The Washington Post was correct in its reporting that the Central African Republic extended Diplomatic Recognition to the DoM, Everything else is an opinion of the editor of the Washington Post and the editors of this page. More importantly and to the point, those comments have no bearing on the political relationship between the two States. Further, the statements credited to Quatloos is also an opinion. The Fact is that the DoM has been recognized in various capacities by various states and yet, the introduction still leads with the statement that the Dominion of Melchizedek is "unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognized micronation" (which "unrecognized" is spelled incorrectly).

 * As for writing a new section about the current administration, That is preferable. However, this requires the willingness of the editors and monitors of this page to be willing to address the bias and double-minded opinions being perpetrated on the entire page and to update the entire page to reflect a more neutral and accurate history of the Dominion of Melchizedek (a video recorded history of the DoM by the two longest Members of the DoM can be found on its Official Website under the notice section). The fact is, that the Dominion of Melchizedek is recognized and since the current Head of State, David Williams has taken over the State in 2012, there has been no reports of fraud, deception, nefarious activities or the like. This should be addressed in the introduction if a reader is going to get a full picture of the micro-state and its current activities in the international community.

 * As for providing a reliable source, what do you suggest? Are letters from foreign Governments thanking the Head of State of the DoM for their assistance during a health crisis considered an independent and reliable source of information? How about the many websites, interviews, and articles that speak about David Williams and his years of educating individuals in the area of international law and the principle of the Right of Self-Determination? When you are not actively out seeking press, but focused on building a State, where do you find a reliable source? The website of the Dominion of Melchizedek is not considered a reliable source, yet I wonder how many other official government websites are likewise considered unreliable sources! Bssmith117 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't focus too much on the lede. As I mentioned, it is meant to summarize the article, and to do it well. We can't add any content into the lede that does not already exist in the article.

 * If you feel that there is a side to this that is misunderstood or underrepresented, gather some sources and put together a draft section. No, the government slash website of DoM is not considered a reliable source, but if what you say is true then there should be newspapers or books that portray the DoM in a positive light since 2012.

 * On the other hand, if such sources are unavailable, then it will be impossible to write such a section. In that case the article will likely remain as it is, a fairly accurate summary of the sources that are available. Bradv  19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * You say "I wouldn't focus too much on the lede". umm, the lede is the most important part! Why wouldn't I focus on it? Did you actually read my response? The DoM has been recognized. Yet the lead, as well as other information inaccurately reports the opposite. The section under recognition even states the DoM has been recognized not only by the Central African Republic but other smaller states! This makes the lede inaccurate; not to mention double-minded and contrary to the facts presented within the article itself!

 * When you say "fairly accurate", in whose opinion? I have been accused of having a POV conflict of interest, yet "fairly accurate" means nothing. Something is either accurate or it is not. With regards to recognition, I have added many links from various documents provided by foreign governments to the Dominion of Melchizedek on Treaties of Peace and Recognition, however, Those links are always taken down and I am told they are not reliable sources simply because those documents are housed on the DoM's website.

 * The problem, at the end of the day, is simple. The editors of this page and the public at large are highly ignorant of international law, the Law of Nations, and how this Planet actually operates. It is not understood how Nations recognize other nations or who in a government has the authority to take such action, most people have never heard of the right of self-determination or actually exercised said right, and most are completely ignorant of their own history. This page paints the Dominion of Melchizedek in a purely negative light. It does not keep the third party sources of foreign government documents when added. It does not keep in mind that all nations/states/societies all have had checkered past, including the United States. The Founders had to fight a war. They had to borrow money and go into debt. They had to trade and get recognition from the pirates in the beginning because they couldn't get recognition from the more notable states at that time (barbary treaties). Heck, they had to completely reform their Government because the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure. This is just the facts because creating a new society is not an easy thing to do. People make mistakes just like Societies do.

 * You can find documents from the DoM's website which provide sources of foreign governments recognizing the DoM. You can find Letters from Liberia as late as February of 2015 thanking the DoM for helping during a national crisis. These documents, whether Wikipedia wishes to acknowledge them or not, clearly show that 1) the State is recognized as a separate state by other governments, 2) the state is very much real, not a fantasy, nor an online phenomenon, and 3) the lack of news on the DoM and its activities is proof that the state, under its current administration is not involved in any activity which would cause government agents to go after its members or peak the interest of the media. It is well known that negative news is the best form of news and positive news is boring news.

 * At the end of the day, these dialogues contribute to the public record of the State doing what it can to correct the misinformation and the skewed bias nature of the Wikipedia page known as the Dominion of Melchizedek. I am still waiting for proper answers to the questions I have put forth over the past couple of years and still waiting to see who, as an editor on this page, actually have the credentials to discuss international matters with regards to self-determination and the recognition of states/societies.

 * @bradv, How much of the material, sources, and factual truths provided by the various sources which contribute to the contents of this page have you personally gone through and vetted? Bssmith117 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * It is not Wikipedia's job to decide international policy, and it is not the job of individual editors to argue about international policy. It is our job to go through reliable sources, summarize them, and gather the sources together into an encyclopedia.

 * From the statements you have made here and on your talk page, I'm beginning to think you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote the Dominion of Melchizedek, and convince people that it is a real country.

 * It is not, and even if we say it is on Wikipedia, it still won't be. Bradv  20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I can't speak for Bradv, but in my case 100% of the existing cites and can state that they accurately support the points made in the article. I've also had a quick look, for the purposes of this discussion, at DoM's mentions in the online press 2012 onwards:
 * In the context of scams:
 * Tangential:
 * So there's no ability to add anything about the current activities of DoM as, at best, it's morphed from an entity notable for being involved in scams to a non-notable entity. That morphing, should it be the case, does not mean the article needs to be deleted, as the historical situation is still notable.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Bradv, you mention "it is not the job of Wikipedia or the editors to decide international policy" I agree one hundred percent. You nor this site, have that authority or knowledge base to make such determinations (it is evident in your responses). Yet, almost immediately after your statement you follow up by making an assumption on international policy by assuming the State doesn't exist, which is an opinion not substantiated by any reliable and verifiable source. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and procedures! You don't have the right to voice your opinion. You only have the permission to add verifiable information.

 * Furthermore, you are making assumptions and presumptions to my motives for engaging in the correction of facts and verifiable information presented on this page. You have proven, based on your off hand comments that you do not have a neutral point of view on this page because you keep interjecting your bias assumptions and opinons. I have maintain one firm position which is that the lede to this page is unverifiable and inaccurate not only because of the source that was cited, but because of the source presented within this article by other editors which state that a "reliable" source; Washington Post, indeed adminted that the DoM has received diplomatic recognition. Regardless of the opinion of the editor of the article sourced about the reasons the Central African Republic or any other state would engage in recognizing the DoM (diplomatically or otherwise), this is a factual event. Two facts are verifiable as cited in my previous response on the Rights and Duties of States..."The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence". This is international law and is agreed to by all states. Furthermore, Article 6 of the same International treaty states "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable". I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty straight forward and specific to me. Considering the State has received communications from a foreign Government as late as February of 2015, and considering there are numerous documents from other states engaging in Treaties of Peace and Recognition, your comment that the state "still wouldn't exist" or any editors comment that the State is unrecognized is a complete lie! It is something you want to believe but does not fit the reality at hand.

 * You can make whatever statement of assumption you wish about my motives, but it should be clear to any neutral party that reviews this dialogue, I am pointing my responses and my focus of facts presented on this page with third party source material that Your Government and every other Government know, understand, and abide by. I am also pointing out violations of Wikipedias own policies regarding verifiable sources. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.".

 * @Bromley86 - This also includes @Bradv; Just because someone writes and article and they are considered third-party from the Subject of the page and Wikipedia, does not mean that the Source is accurate in what they present. Bromley86, you cited numerous articles that were posted after 2012, yet all these articles merely mention the name Dominion of Melchizedek! Seriously,

 * your first Article references a woman who has had no affliation with the DoM prior to 2006. Anything she has done personally, does not automatically tie to the State! Who knows why this particular individual decided to write this article in 2013, 3 years after the event allegedly occured?

 * Your Second article is a blogger who decided to write a historical peice on other micronations because of an indivdiual trying to claim a track of land for his daughter! (more than likely her source for the DoM was this page). It is a one paragraph, mentioning facts she found interesting!

 * Your Third article has got to be a joke if you are including this as a reliable source. The only mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek is the fact that this man "Alleged to have ties to the Dominion of Melchizedek". Ok. People alleged things all the time. Doesn't mean they are true! That is why in a court of law, allegations must be verified by facts!

 * Your Fourth article again has only a mere mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek in relation to a group attempting to exercise its right of Self-Determination, unfortunately, they are following the path of the DoM early on which is the lack of understanding "naturalization of citizens".

 * Your Fifth article only has this mention "scams (like the Dominion of Melchizedek, which sold fake passports at inflated prices)". Of course, this allegation is address in the history of the DoM put out by the State itself. The man who was arrested for creating fake passports was not only caught creating fake passports for the DoM but multiple nations. He was not a "member" of the DoM nor any other state he was selling passports of! Criminals don't care about things like that! There are thousands of people who sell fake passports of any state to any person dumb enough to pay for them.

 * Your Sixth article only states this..." In addition, he is said to have shares of a fictional bank in the "Dominion of Melchizedek" ok. where is that proof? Again, people can and will say anything. Just because something is said, does not make it true.

 * Your final two articles 7 mentions the DoM in passing and 8 is a link that goes to a subsription page which is a violation of wikipedias external link policy..notabley number 6.

 * Bottom line is that I keep hearing about reliable sources, crediable sources. yet you present these articles which are a joke at best. If anything, it shows that people who write about microstates will continue to write about the Dominion of Melchizedek based on its history because they have no other information to go by. By and large, it is due to the information on this page since anytime someone hears about the Dominion of Melchizedek, they will look it up on Wikipedia.

 * I see you took the citation down off the lede. That is the first step. however, per the policies on Wikipedia and lede to pages, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." As the Lede stands, it is one blanket statement that has no verifiable source. The lede should also "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". Since there is no reliable, published source verifying the lede, it stands to reason, it must be changed and updated to reflect an accurate discription of the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssmith117 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I wasn't providing them as references in articles, merely pointing out that there's been no mention in news sources of the DoM in a manner which would support the sorts of changes that you would like to make. Thank you for making my point in detail!
 * Regarding the Lead, it's fine as it is:
 * The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), is a unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognised micronation - all mentioned in the Body and referenced, with the exception of the actual word "micronation". I'll have a look at making sure that's in somewhere.
 * known for facilitating large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world during the 1990s and early 2000s - again, covered in the body and reffed, although I see none of our current refs/points relate to the naughties, so I'll remove that part. Bromley86 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fraud
Just visited DOM's website. A purported "photograph of Melchizedek" looks like an island in Fiji! (Cannot identify which one it is — but I'll try to find out) David Cannon (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnski Redux
It appears once again Johnski and his meatpuppets have started to push their propaganda on the DOM article. Please be aware this went through arbitration many years ago and the result was the banning of of Johnski and ALL of his known meatpuppets. This page can be semi-protected by an administrator and new meatpuppets can be banned. Davidpdx (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm not sure what you mean. Davidpdx (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DIFF
 * Where are these "meatpuppet edits"? Who is "Johnski"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are the edits being done by unregistered users. Johnski was (is) someone who is directly involved in DOM who along with other people are making a concerted effort to add unsubstantiated claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek


text: User talk:198.81.26.70

title: User talk:198.81.26.70


text: File:Soy Cuba film poster.png

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: File:Soy Cuba film poster.png


text:
Upplands storregemente

Upplands storregemente or Landsregementet i Uppland (Uppland Grand Regiment, Regiment of the Land in Uppland) was one of the nine grand regiments organized by Gustavus Adolphus in the late 1610s and split into smaller regiments in the 1620s.

History
Raised in Svealand from smaller units of 500 men called fänikor, more specifically from the provinces of Uppland, Dalarna and Västmanland, in 1617 and counting 3,000 men. The regiment had six fänikor in 1617. The grand regiment was in turn organized into three field regiments (fältregementen) and a cavalry regiment, thus actually being more like a brigade in spite of the name.

The regiment did not take part in any campaign during its short lifetime. The grand regiments of Sweden where reorganized during the early 1620s to consist of three field regiments, each of eight companies of 150 men, thus making the total number 3,600 soldiers per grand regiment. It is unsure whether or not the cavalry regiment was included in the total number.

Between 1623 and 1626, the regiment was split into four smaller regiments, Uppland Regiment, Västmanland Regiment, Dalarna Regiment and Upplands ryttare.

Campaigns

 * None.

Organization
Before being split, the regiment was organized as follows:

 * 1:a fältregementet (1st Field Regiment)
 * 8 companies from Dalarna
 * 2:a fältregementet (2nd Field Regiment)
 * 8 companies from Uppland
 * 3:e fältregementet (3rd Field Regiment)
 * 6 companies from Västmanland
 * 2 companies from Dalarna
 * Kavalleriregementet (Cavalry Regiment)
 * 8 companies from Uppland

title: Upplands storregemente


text:
User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 4

European Commission President
Hi. I see you have added a template to the "European Commission President" pages, nice work! I added a Period parameter, as it's a pretty useful thing to have. However, it seems that mediawiki has a problem with | in templates, see Walter Hallstein for instance, where it has to say "Jean Rey (politician)" instead of just "Jean Rey". This has been reported as a bug however, and hopefully fixed. See under MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports section "Markup_Precedence_and_template_syntax". --Vikingstad 22:56, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

AP image?
Where are you getting the information about that image? Who took it? What is the license? anthony (see warning)

The information you added said that it was AP, linked to a derivative of the work in question, didn't give any information about who took it or of the license. anthony (see warning)

Top-notch
Love the top-notch new political articles. And the speed, good heavens! The mind boggles. The jaw drops. Don't mind my hard-nosedness on FAC; most people think their own writing is NPOV genius and as such week-old nominations should face a canonical bit of h.-n. before acceptance. +sj + 00:07, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Input on Earl of Lucan
Your input is requested on Talk:Earl of Lucan Mintguy (T) 20:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona
I see you've been going through pages on counts of Barcelona, changing the format of the succession box. In the case of Ramon Berenguer III this resulted in dropping the Counts of Provence line altogether. Could you please somehow put it back in the format you seem to be favouring or I'll have to revert to the March, 14 revision. Thanks --apoivre 07:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Same goes for William III of the Netherlands, who lost the Grand Duke of Luxembourg part of the box. -- Jao 10:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Emsworth, i have congratulate you for your patience of substituting all those boxes. They are indeed nicer and i have saved the template in order to use it in other ducal-articles i may create. Cheers, Muriel G 08:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England
I've made the changes to this page as requested. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Extinct Peerages
Do we have a table listing extinct peerages of Great Britain, England, etc. Or are they going on the regular tables. The text on the tables says "comprises all peerages" yet at least two articles created today are not on them. (Viscount Sackville, Earl of Middlesex) Rmhermen 14:18, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Peerages again
My Lord, I draw your attention to Lord St John of Fawsley, which is incorrectly titled. It seems to have been created by a new User. Perhaps you could politely explain the peerage conventions to him. Adam 00:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom
I have made the changes re: The Right Honourable and also tabulated the Republic of Ireland cities. I would be gratified if you could have a look? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 20:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"-ise" vs. "-ize"
Regardless of what you, or even the OED, consider to be preferred and/or correct (and I could go on at length about how the OED considers itself a non-perscriptive tome, and so doesn't claim anything 'correct' at all), use of "-ize" is generally considered an Americanism, and, certainly, to switch to it (an action, rather than a usage, IYSWIM) can be considered... unfavourably.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prince-elector
Nice work expanding the article - I went through and proofread and made some additions (some rather awkwardly inserted, I fear)...not sure why that article wasn't on my watchlist, as I'd written most of the previously existing article. john k 22:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Egyptian dynasties
I see you renamed the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt to make them fit Template:Pharaoh. The standard with the names of kings & nobility is to identify ambiguous names by the country: in other words, people seeing, say, "Eighteenth dynasty" will wonder where this 18th dynasty belongs -- but "Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt" is immediately identifiable. Since I understand your reasons, I left redirects from the various simpler forms -- & hope they don't become disambiguation articles too quickly. -- llywrch 04:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There probably isn't an 18th dynasty for any other country, at least in common usage. Dynasties are more often given names names instead. But numbered dynasties do appear applied to ancient Mesopotamian cities, notably the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dynasties of Ur. Jallan 14:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peerage
Due only to the fact that most of the great prose you wrote has been moved to other articles, I've nominated peerage on Featured article removal candidates. But I think that the FA status could be kept if an older longish version could be pared down a bit (sub-30KB) to serve as a survey article for the whole series (with 'Main article' links below each section heading that has a full article on that sub-topic). That way people who are not interested in reading the whole series can still get a great summary of the whole topic by reading just one article. In the meantime, I think that Hereditary Peer will make a fine addition to the FA list. So I've supported that nomination. A couple other articles in the series also look featurable (which is no surprise since much of their content was once at peerage). --mav 06:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Olympic Games
Emsworth, I've gone through the remarks on Olympic Games you left at WP:FAC. I have some questions/remarks regarding these, notably on the topic of naming the French baron. Could you take a look? Thanks, Jeronimo 08:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you updated the article on these issues; does that mean your objections are now resolved? Jeronimo 10:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Earls of St Germans
Greetings. Many thanks for correcting the titles used in the various Earls of St Germans articles. One quick additional question: I thought the correct 3rd person description was 'The Earl of St Germans' and that 'Lord St Germans' was the 2nd person? Thanks, Ian Cairns 14:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dukes of Richmond (and Lennox (and Gordon))
I notice you've been moving them to "Duke of Richmond and Lennox". I'd moved them all to "Duke of Richmond", because the Lennox title is invariably not used to refer to them. Plus, for the later Dukes, the Gordon title is used (as in "the Duke of Richmond and Gordon"), so to have those article titles include the Lennox title but not the Gordon is just weird. I'd say the simplest would be to just have the Richmond title in the article title, and list the other titles in the first line. john k 17:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne
Hi, I'd be really grateful if you could cast your eye over Wycombe Abbey School which I have just heavily edited, the available information on the ancestry of 2nd Earl of Shelburne is very contradictory, I have put in what I understand it to be, but would be grateful if you could correct, when you have time, if I have misunderstood it. Regards Giano 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I was getting a bit lost there Giano 17:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coleridge
Hi, why'd you remove the fact that the Baron was the nephew of the poet? I think it's interesting to find the relationships among people of different walks of life. Cheers, Marj 19:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Olympics
I saw your objection to Olympic Games on Featured article candidates, but the page is listed as uncontested. I wasn't sure if I should promote it; has your objection been dealt with? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Life peers
Hi. Can you please temporarily stop these movings whilst the matter is discussed? I strongly dispute the moving of Dennis Healey, Geoffrey Howe and Cecil Parkinson. They simply aren't referred to by their peer names at all. 80.229.39.194 14:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why are you moving all the life peers? Has there been a policy change!? Mintguy (T) 16:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We've been bantering about with changing policy for a while, nobody objected, so boldness has been been. Basically, the idea is to include the peerage title for people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton who are mostly known by their peerage title - obviously the edges are still rather rough. john k 17:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, but I've been away on holiday for a fortnight. What you've changed it to seems good to me, and I agree with most of the moves you've made. (And Jeffrey Archer seems in a strange twist to be an exception to the normal way things work in that he is now normally referred to by his peerage as it allows the press to insert "the disgraced peer" before his name every time they mention him.) Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-

Hello Lord Emsworth,

I noticed the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I believe that the page currently at Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare should be an exception, since the man is generally referred to as "Jeffrey Archer". I'm interested in your thoughts.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 22:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...he's certainly called Jeffrey Archer a lot. But he's also called "Lord Archer of West-super-Mare" a fair bit that I've seen.... john k 22:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmm...perhaps as a compromise we should move the page to "Jeffrey Archer, the liar".

 * Acegikmo1 18:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Captions
Hello sir, Ive noticed you have been reverting some of the new captions, you should check out and discuss it on WikiProject_Writing_Captions if you really don't agree. --GeneralPatton 22:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the project! I'm sure you'll make better captions for your articles than I will ;-) The 1st Amendment looks great!  -- ke4roh 15:17, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Emsworth, you've started writing really good captions. I'm very pleased by those in hereditary peer and Royal Assent, for example. 81.168.80.170 21:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

layman elected pope
You removed this sentence from papal election:

 * If a layman is elected, the Dean of the College of Cardinals immediately ordains him a bishop.

You said it was a "repetition". But I can't find the sentence in the article as it now appears. Where is it? It seems to me it should be right after the part that says a layman can be elected, since otherwise the reader might think it says an unordained layman can be pope, and that's not true. Michael Hardy 18:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In the section "Acceptance and proclamation," it is asserted: "If he [the elected individual] is not a bishop, however, the Cardinal Dean must first ordain him a bishop before he can assume office."

That explains why I couldn't find it: it wasn't where it seemed to be needed. It does seem to me that if it's not included in the paragraph where I put it, it will lead some people to erroneously think a layman can be pope. Michael Hardy 18:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article names for press barons
We seem to have a lack of articles on British 19th and early 20th century press barons. So, I'd like to at least start them but looking at the relevant section of our naming conventions is giving me a headache.

I wonder if you would help?

I'll try and list here what I know about people I know to be the same person but can't disentangle the correct article name for:
 * Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) helpful link:
 * Harold Harmsworth (aka Lord Rothermere? because he appears here: Viscount_Rothermere as the top entry - Viscount?  Lord?... is that link in the correct naming style?  Certainly appears long enough to be ;o)  Useful link:.

Hmmm. And we already seem to have Lord Beaverbrook. Oh. I thought I was going to be writing about 4 articles, but it turns out they're all names for 2 people!

So, yes, it would be great if you could tell me the two titles I need for those articles (I can do disambiguation and redirects later). Regards, --bodnotbod 19:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you... er... my liege. I'll start on those articles some point, um, this month. Thnaks also for having that post a comment link on your page which I've now stolen to put on mine too. And, yes, I have changed the coding so that the comments (and sometimes insults) appear on my page, not yours. --bodnotbod 19:49, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

FAC page screwup
Earlier, you nominated Order of the Thistle to the FAC. In the process, the page got screwed up. I reverted and then re-added your nom. Just thought I'd let you know. →Raul654 01:47, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, re: having more than one nom at a time - the articles you nominate are always of high quality and (as a result) generate very few objections. The objections that do get generated are fixed in short order. So I really don't think you have to worry about causing too many problems with your noms - you aren't really the one I'm concerned about. →Raul654 01:50, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Bravo
For fantastic writing. Keep it up! Exploding Boy 15:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Lady vs. The Lady
Here's a thing I never got with the peerage titles, and I know you're the one to ask. When should it be "The Lady" as opposed to just "Lady"? For instance, in the intro paragraph of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, she is presented as having been known as The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, while at, again for instance, Lady Davina Windsor, there's no sight of a definite article. I haven't found anything in Courtesy title about this. Please help an ignorant Scandinavian. -- Jao 08:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * "The" should always be there, and if it isn't it's simply been missed out, and isn't a sign of some deeper pattern. (The only exception is Lady Marion Fraser (no "The"), who is not the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl but is a Lady of the Order of the Thistle (all other Ladies of that Order and of the Order of the Garter have higher styles), since her style of "Lady" is equivalent to "Sir" and is not connected to the similar style of "The Lady" given to the daughters of some peers.) To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it, along with courtesy peers, who are referred to in the Court Circular as, for instance, "the Lord Seymour", a practice condemned by the CoA. So, with even the experts in disagreement, there's not much hope for any of us to know for certain what's right and what's wrong. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ranulph Fiennes
Hi. I'm trying to figure out the honours afforded Sir Ranulph Fiennes, and I hoped you'd have some better honours-lists (etc.) to which you might direct me. I'm confused severally: Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * it seems he was awarded an OBE in 1993 (lots of places say this, but I'd like to confirm it's true)
 * I can't for the life of me find out when (and why) he was knighted (is there such a thing as an hereditary knighthood?)
 * he's sometimes referred to as "Sir Ranulph Fiennes Bt OBE" - I've never heard of that "Bt" before.

U.S. Constitution
I've rewritten and expanded the Bill of Rights section, and other users have gone over the rest of the text as well; I believe we might have dealt with your objections. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks very much for your help, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:06, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Useless fan mail
Lord Emsworth, I have been meaning to tell you for quite some time that I am an enormous fan of yours. Jimbo Wales 02:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My Lord
Hmm, it seems I have an "Obscure Peerage Copyediting" committee following me, composed of you and User:John Kenney... y'all seem to have edited, in turns, every article on every peer on this website -_-. And I thought I had no life....... (just kidding)

But there is a point to this -- what do I do about prefixes and suffixes. i.e. should it be The Right Honourable John Doe, 5th Duke of Whatever, KG, PC or The Rt. Hon. John Doe, 5th Duke of Whatever and not mention the post-nominals, or what? I've been a bit confused on that point. Thanks, ugen64 22:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Monopoly
Hi M'lud

Surely, monopoly cannot be the best-selling board game in the world, excelling chess — it might be. I don't disagree about downgrading Monopoly to 'one of' the best-selling board games, but if the Guinness Book of Records accepts it as the most played board game, it also stands a good chance of being the most sold game. Admittedly the average Monopoly game has four players whilst the average Chess game has just less than two players, but that just means that Monopoly has to outsell Chess by 2:1. Although chess has a much longer history, because of population growth and an increase in available free time, any comparison is going to boil down to which game is more popular in the western world today. Chess is often regarded as rather elitist, so I can quite believe there are more than 2x the number of Monopoly boards than chess in America today. -- Solipsist 20:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I am almost certain that chess is the most played game in the world. It would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to determine the number of chess boards sold in the world. Perhaps Guinness only counts those games under the control of individual companies. If, however, you deem fit, I would not object to reinstating the phrase "best selling game." -- Emsworth 20:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I'm not that bothered, except for the general stance of avoiding weasel words. I think the objection is probably valid. Guinness isn't a terrible source of facts, but it is not one I would like to stake my life on. It could easily turn out to be like the 'Best selling book', ignoring the Bible and any other example which might be hard to count. The 'most played game' is actually most likely to be the Mancala family of games - which is cheating a little, but is basically the same game with regional dialects and most boards are home improvised rather than sold. -- Solipsist 20:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Advocation
Hi Emsworth,

In your capacity as a Members' Advocates, could I ask for your advice on handling a mini-edit war I appear to be involved in. It largely concerns User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), who from what I can tell has been making many valued edits for quite some time but clearly has some fairly firm views when it comes to categorisation.

A couple of weeks ago, I started removing some articles from Category:Painters where it looked like they had been mis-categorised. Notably Bill Oddie, Winston Churchill, Charles, Prince of Wales and Tracey Emin, all of whom have painted but wouldn't ordinarily be considered Painters. What I hadn't realised was that it was Andy who had put these articles into Category:Painters in the first place. In particular it was unfortunate that I had started with Bill Oddie, who appears to be one of Andy's cause celebre. Most attempts to remove or change the categorisations on these articles have been quickly reverted.

As much as anything, the dispute appears to be a problem with agreeing on the scope of categorisation. I'm clearly taking a narrower view of people who might be classed as a Painter than Andy does.

The discussion starts at; Once I realised the problem really concerned the nature of classification, I tried to broaden the discussion and bring in additional views at and although neither has generated much additional input.
 * Talk:Bill Oddie
 * Talk:Tracey Emin
 * Wikipedia_talk:Categorization
 * Category talk:Art

It rather looks like Andy has stopped responding to any of the discussions, although he was quick to revert my latest attempts at categorisation this morning.

My question is what should I do next? I'm considering Requests for comment in the 'Article content disputes' section. A previous category dispute Category talk:Birmingham, England which largely involved Andy seems may have been resolved that way. However, looking at his Talk page, he seems to have been involved in quite a few disputes and rarely gives more than rather curt replies. So perhaps 'Comment about individual users' would be more appropriate - but I can't think that personalising an issue further can help and the majority of his edits look good. -- Solipsist 13:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * From experience, I know that Andy Mabbett is a user who holds firm opinions and defends them vigorously, though not always through discussion. For example, he ignored comments on the talk page and arbitrarily reverted to his chosen version on Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, without so much as a reply to the comments of others. But at present, I advise you that your dispute with him is not personal: it only concerns a particular category. Therefore, I think that "Article content disputes" would be the correct venue for dispute resolution. "Comment about individual users" concerns general user conduct, rather than conduct relating to a specific article or category. Therefore, it would be, in my opinion, inappropriate to use the individual users section. If Mabbett still ignores consensus, one may personalise the dispute, moving either to "Comment about individual users" or to Mediation. -- Emsworth 14:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'll give it another day to await replies, then try "Article content disputes". -- Solipsist 14:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry
I would very much like to know why you have chosen to reopen a contentious issue by moving Derry to Londonderry? The situation until recently was a sensible compromise, having Londonderry for the county, and Derry for the city.

Please note that use of EITHER name is not NPOV. Saying that Londonderry is official actually just makes it worse. Besides - Derry is the official name in the Republic - it's what on the road signs, it's what's used in government policies. Derry is the name used by the city itself for the city council, airport, and most other purposes. The solution previously was fine, as the county name doesn't particularly have the name Derry attached to it except by nationalists.

Who are you to take such unilateral actions?

zoney █ █ █  talk 19:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Exactly - the previous situation was to keep everyone (reasonably) happy. The official situation is quite clear from the articles. There are plenty of situations in Wikipedia where "official" terms are not used in order to remain reasonably balanced. Try enforcing the official plural for "euro" at Euro. While you're at it, please move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. The former is only an official description of our state by an act of parliament. The latter is the State's official title. Your reasoning is absurd, and can lead only to the conclusion that your personal preference is to use the term "Londonderry". zoney █ █ █  talk 20:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The article should be reverted to "Derry" this decision was made previously after a similar dispute and was a closed issue, see Talk:Londonderry - we cannot reopen these types of issues every six months - either that or wikipedia would come to a halt. The article can be used to make it quite clear as to the official title of the city. Djegan 20:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Having a bias towards one side or the other does not make one ineligible to participate in achieving compromise. I am not, for example, attempting to insist on removing all reference to Londonderry, something that believe me, from my POV, I would very much like. I make no apologies for standing up for my views, but I entirely support the NPOV policies here, and attempt merely to ensure balance, including my POV. The whole NPOV thing would collapse were it not for those standing up for their side! (Most articles would be written from the US POV if non-US wikipedians just shut up!) zoney █ █ █  talk 20:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cricket
Please could you delete the Cricket/temp page and its corresponding talk page. Work on it is over. Thanks ¶ nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Mary I of England
Thanks for your additions - I've removed my objections from WP:FAC (you probably noticed that I changed a few minor things in the text myself).

You reverted some of the links I addded to dates to avoid more than one link per article. I think house style is (contrary to the usual position for other links) for all dates to be linked so they can be formatted according to personal preference - so 16 August or August 16 would both display as "16 August" or "August 16" according to personal preference. (I see you've also reverted the changes I made to Prince-elector; again, I think "'n'th century" is house style but I won't quibble.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speed of light
Have you had had a chance to reconsider your objections to speed of light? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prince-elector
I don't mind all that much (though I find the numeric forms a little easier to read), but what's with changing all the 15th, 16th etc centuries to their word forms? — OwenBlacker 18:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my Talk: page, though feel free to move it all here, if you prefer to keep it all together. — OwenBlacker 19:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration proceeding
Thanks for your support on the Rex071404 arbitration. We had an unusually large number of people joining in the request for a temporary injunction, which may have been part of what persuaded the ArbCom to take that step. (I've been told they don't often do it.) For that reason, I'm glad to see more people joining in the underlying request. Your intervention may be especially valuable because you came into the dispute after it had been rumbling for a while. Your evaluation is that of someone who hasn't been involved in the revert wars or in the sometimes acrimonious exchanges with Rex, like the rest of us. Instead, you've noted, as an unbiased observer, where the problems came from. Thanks again! JamesMLane 03:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex071404 arbitration
If you were present for the dialog which led up to the "baby Jesus" taunt, you would not be so quick to dismiss out of hand that it was intended as anti-Christian bigotry.

Even so, the editor who posted that quip now tries to say that it was a "joke".

But no, it was not a joke. A joke is intended to be funny and can reasonably be expected to be received by the target audience as such. Instead, this was a taunt which was directed at me and it was a snide one at that.

The editor who posted that taunt now says "Nevermind that I am a Christian who has taken his user name from the New Testament". I don't know what kind of Chistian Gamaliel is, but the word "Christ" means "Savior". Certainly, if Jesus is Gamaliel's savior, he would consider 1st that others who claim salvation through Him, might not find it funny to make a taunt with the name of one they revere.

While the Bible does say "Cast out the mocker and you will be free of quarrels", it does not say "make jokes and taunt people using Jesus's name".

Also, Gamaliel has yet to retract the taunt or say that he is sorry and ask for forgiveness.

Rex071404 06:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are mistaken. One of the points which Gamaliel and others accuse me of, is using harsh invective. Therefore, to make sure the Aribtrators know this is not all one sided, I intend to press a charge of inter-editor misbehavior against my acccusers, where appropriate, as well. For example, one of the other editors swore at me on a talk page. Is that appropriate?

Rex071404 15:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not contact me about this again
You obviously have not read Gamaliel, et al's complaint against me. For if you had, you would see that they are indeed complaining about my inter-editor comments towards/to them. I am now doing the same, back to them. Why you only single me out about this is troubling. Please do not contact me with any more inquires along this line.

Rex071404 17:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed I did - after you improperly interjected commentary on the Arbitration evidence page. Also, I never said don't contact me. Rather, I said don't do it with any more inquiries about the self-evident nature of the Arbitration complaint itself. Rex071404 17:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mutt/mixed breed
Would you like to take another look at featured-article candidate Mutt (dog)? Elf | Talk 00:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

George III
Your edits on the George III have ruined this article. There is no need for a full descipriton of the style and banner, no need for a full list of titles in the introduction. You have changed the list of children from a readable table format to a long list of links.

If you want to list these things, you should do so on a seperate article.

OK, agree to keep the style and arms, although I think it looks out of place versus the text on George III himself. I think the introduction is too long and complicated versus the other Britsh monarch pages. Astrotrain

title: User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 4


text:
User talk:69.198.125.208

Proposed deletion of List of postal codes in Italy

The article List of postal codes in Italy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete 'just a list of postal codes' articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. asilvering (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.198.125.208


text:
Freienhagen

Freienhagen may refer to the following places in Germany:

 * Freienhagen, Thuringia, in the Eichsfeld district, Thuringia
 * A locality in the city of Liebenwalde, in the Oberhavel district, Brandenburg
 * Freienhagen (Fuldabrück), part of Fuldabrück, in the Kassel district, Hesse
 * Freienhagen (Waldeck), part of Waldeck, in Waldeck-Frankenberg district, Hesse

title: Freienhagen


text:
Rugosa

The Rugosa, also called the Tetracorallia, rugose corals, or horn corals, are an extinct order of solitary and colonial corals that were abundant in Middle Ordovician to Late Permian seas.

Solitary rugosans (e.g., Caninia, Lophophyllidium, Neozaphrentis, Streptelasma) are often referred to as horn corals because of a unique horn-shaped chamber with a wrinkled, or rugose, wall. Some solitary rugosans reached nearly a meter (3 ft 3 in) in length. However, some species of rugose corals could form large colonies (e.g., Lithostrotion). When radiating septa were present, they were usually in multiples of four, hence Tetracorallia in contrast to modern Hexacorallia, colonial polyps generally with sixfold symmetry.

Rugose corals have a skeleton made of calcite that is often fossilized. Like modern corals (Scleractinia), rugose corals were invariably benthic, living on the sea floor or in a reef-framework. Some symbiotic rugose corals were endobionts of Stromatoporoidea, especially in the Silurian period. Although there is no direct proof, it is inferred that these Palaeozoic corals possessed stinging cells to capture prey. They also had tentacles to help them catch prey. Technically they were carnivores, but prey-size was so small they are often referred to as microcarnivores.

Morphology
Rugose corals always show tabulae, horizontal plates that divide the corallite skeleton. The corallites are usually large relative to different types of coral. Rugose corals will sometimes have dissepiments, which are curved plates connected to septa and tabulae. The symmetry can be distinguished by the orientation of septa in a transverse section of the coral. Rugose corals always display bilateral symmetry whereas tabulate and scleractinian corals show radial symmetry. Initially there are only four major septa; later minor septa are added in the four resulting spaces. The complex arrangement of septa is diagnostic of rugose corals. Rugose corals will also always have a columella, an axial rod which supports the septa running up the center of the corallite. It is present in rugose corals because they were mainly solitary and so required the extra support. Tabulate corals have no columella because they were always colonial and relied on the support of neighboring corallites.

title: Rugosa