User talk:Ugen64/Archive 2

Political spectrum

http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Political spectrum has alot of alternates, and more info, etc.. Sam Spade 18:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't used one of the Talk pages before, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I looked at your recent Gettysburg edits and I have some issues with a few of them. [Overall, you've put in a number of good things, although I wonder where is the tipping point between a concise encyclopedia entry and a lengthier article.] I believe the ethic of this effort is for me to make the mods and then we can discuss. OK? I'll do the edits later today.

Hal [hlj]

Thanks for replying on my page. I did forget the magic signature. (I haven't done editing recently and these things fade. :-))

big_hal 14:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AMA co-ordinator election is now on

You may now vote for user:Ed_Poor or user:Alex756 in the first ever AMA co-ordinator election. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure for more details.

AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent.

To clarify anything before voting, ask user_talk:Zanimum or user_talk:Jwrosenzweig on their talk pages.

AMA members have until April 30, at 11:00:00 EST to vote. -- user:zanimum

Your vote has been counted. Jwrosenzweig 15:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My comments on talk page

I'm sorry but why you deleted my comments [1] and [2] when it's obvious that they cannot be considered to be any attack by anybody? Tkorrovi 03:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why you archive this talk page so frequently? And you never discussed it with anybody before doing that, maybe this is not what others want? Tkorrovi 03:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RE: Holocaust and Talk Pages:

"1) Person editing in mentions of Palestinians is an anti-Semitic troll."

My mentioning of the Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide hardly makes me "anti-Semitic", which is a misnomer and adding this truth does not make me any "troll", and both are nothing but slanderous "personal insults", and no more and no less.

"2) I am not opposed to discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am largely sympathetic to the Palestinians. However, this is not the appropriate article for that issue."

It is "very appropriate" because this is "the lesson of history" that MUST BE LEARNED by all, or another "Jewish Holocaust" is VERY LIKELY to happen again.

"3) Even if it were the appropriate article, the information being added was non-encyclopedic and not suitable for the position in the article in which it was being placed. Considering the aforementioned anti-Semitic troll nature of the author, I did not feel particularly inclined to waste my time revising it for them. Snowspinner 00:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

The article section is "quite appropriate" for the reasons I have just given, what information, specifically, was "not suitable" and "why" for the position in the article? HOW DARE you personally insult me with falsely and personally insulting me and calling me any "anti-Semitic" or "troll nature" because you do not understand just how relevant and important that section within the article actually is? You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!

Hi ! Double thanks for the support on steward, and for the fun on irc :-) Hope to make limited abuse ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Ferret ? Hu; but I never had a ferret on my shoulder :-(

why are you being silly

? Sam Spade 02:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. paul isn't exactly a valued contributer, he is an ornery anon w pushing an unpopular POV. ;) Sam Spade 02:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Abkhazia/Incumbents

Abkhazia was an independent principality between its independence from the Ottoman empire (1500s) and its annexation by Russia in 1864. It currently claims independence from Georgia (since 1994), but this republic is not internationally recognized and so for now I will only consider the principality a separate state. -- Jonel 03:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Glad you like the heads of state pages. John Kenney came up with the idea of separate pages after we decided that we couldn't be fair to all states and keep them all on the main year page. See the 1876 page for his template. I have been doing the XXX of Abkhazia because I've seen that monarchs in general have that, while presidents and prime ministers do not. Some of the later Abkhazian princes have names that could be confusing, so I would like to keep that convention. -- Jonel 03:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You call those 1816 ones obscure? You beat me to the general idea, but I'm working on different year and throwing in the Maronite Catholic Church. That seems to be what the trend on those pages is going towards; I would have liked to have a nice neat Heads of state list, but it seems that is not to be. -- Jonel 02:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, we seem to have ironed out at least the formatting issues on the lists of leaders by year stuff, and I've started a wikiproject on it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year if you want to join in. So far we've mostly just summarized the stuff that's already been hammered out. john 06:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

I have nominated you for adminship at sep11:Wikipedia:Administrators. --"DICK" CHENEY 16:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

message

Please don't edit inside that text-but where it says "leave a message". Especially when the page is protected-not cool. GrazingshipIV 01:03, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

If you could sign on this page where it says

"Other users who endorse this summary (~~~~):"

That would rock. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You should read everything on the page before signing anything :) AndyL 08:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If you are joining Sam in certifying the dispute, you will need to sign the page as indicated by Sam. Otherwise, the dispute will not be considered certified and will be deleted after 48 hours. --Michael Snow 17:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He did, have you looked? Sam Spade 17:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked initially, I missed that this had been added. --Michael Snow 17:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was never very good at rules-lawyering, but isn't the requirement that two users certify the dispute, not that one user should certify and the other endorse? (And hasn't this come up before on another RfC page?) Anyway, ugen64, if you do in fact certify the dispute, would you make that clear? If not (if you endorse it, but don't want to certify it for whatever reason), we'll just take the page down at the prescribed time, eh. —No-One Jones 23:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Sam Spade has altered the summary quite a lot since you endorsed it; would you be sure to reread it before you sign again? Thanks. —No-One Jones 00:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augusto_Pinochet#CIA_poll

FYI, User:VeryVerily is now claiming that you had no role in editing or contributing to the page, visibly no understanding of the issues, and were voting ideologically [3].

So, I guess that renders your comments irrelevant- or maybe not. 172 09:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

172 is smearing me [4]. P.s., pleased to meet you. - V V 10:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll. 172 14:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Request for AMA assistance

We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Looks like I found another 'kid' on wikipedia. Or at least I heard you were a kid Hello. I'm 13 years old...and I live in Illinois. Ilyanep (Talk) 14:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous note

Sorry about the anon conflict, but that's bound to happen from time to time. I actually don't think I've seen it happen before, but I guess it's more likely at a University. – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to your comment

User talk:Ilyanep#Stuff

Peerage

Generally, articles should begin simply "John Smith, 1st Baron London" (or whatever)—"The Rt Hon," etc., is not necessary. The full style would, especially for Dukes (who tend to have numerous titles), be extremely long, and would be ugly in bold font. Post-nominals should not be included here, I believe, because they are not usually used to refer to the individual. Instead, one might have a complete listing of all of the individual's titles elswehere in the article (see the example Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, which lists his numerous titles in the second paragraph). -- Emsworth 23:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gt Officers

It seems to be that the Great Officers have precedence over Secretaries of State, and are therefore categorised first. As for article titles, I would suggest that the article title always be used for collation. Even if one collates as "Germain, Lord George," the category will display "Germain, George, 1st Viscount." To consider the example of the second Marquess of Londonderry, it would be unusual to look under "L" and find "Castlereagh." -- Emsworth 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 00:05, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You had listed yourself as interested but unable to attend this weekend's meetup. I just wanted to let you know that I cancelled it for lack of participation; it would have only been User:TheCustomOfLife and me. But we should all get together on an informal mailing list or something to plan some activity for the future. Jimbo Wales 12:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting my userpage! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship. Jayjg 16:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cabinets

I do not think that eighteenth century cabinets should be placed at the pages of the monarchs. George I and George II tended not to influence the composition their own Cabinets as much as the Prime Minister (the latter, for example, could not prevent the appointment of William Pitt the Elder). George III tried to influence the appointment, but failed. Lists after 1783 should be noticed on prime ministerial pages.

As to your second question: I'm not a university student (though I would hope to be one soon); I am now fifteen years old. -- Emsworth 01:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Man, all you young 'uns...at any rate, as I said, I wouldn't mind having the 1721-1783 period listed on the monarch's page, but I think it still ought to be divided up by ministry. That is to say, for George I, you'd have the initial Whig ministry dominated by Townshend (1714-1717), the first Stanhope/Sunderland ministry (1717-1718), the 2nd Stanhope/Sunderland ministry (1718-1721), the Walpole/Townshend ministry (1721-1727)... then for George II you'd have Walpole/Townshend (1727-1730), Walpole (1730-1742), Carteret (1742-1744), Pelham I (1744-1746), Bath/Granville (1746), Pelham II (1746-1754) Newcastle I (1754-1756), Pitt (1756-1757), caretaker (1757), Newcastle/Pitt (1757-1760). From George III on one might want to list by PM, I'm not sure. I think one advantage of listing on the monarchs' page is that you then don't have to worry so much about who is "really" prime minister, which is often a problem in this period. Wilmington was 1st Lord of the Treasury 1742-1743, but Carteret was running the ministry. Same with Devonshire and Pitt in 1756-1757. And then you have joint-premierships like Walpole/Townshend, Newcastle/Pitt, Newcastle/Bute, the whole weird business of Chatham's quasi-ministry that he never actually directed, and then Fox/North/Portland...Anyway, I'm open to either of way of doing things. But I think Emsworth is minimizing the amount of monarchical control. Sure, in 1746 George II couldn't keep his preferred Granville/Bath ministry in power for more than a couple of days. And sure, in 1756, he had to call on Pitt, even though he didn't like him. But at the same time, I'd venture to suggest that the king really was still head of government at this point. The king still presided over cabinet meetings, for instance. And he really did have influence over the choice of ministries. Thus we see Granville (that is, Carteret), for instance, serving as Lord President from 1751-1763. I doubt this was because the Pelhams and Pitt had any fondness for him. Bute's appointment was also due to this. Also note the dismissal of Townshend and Walpole in 1717...

On the other hand, the PM couldn't always control who his ministers were at much later dates. Thus, Russell had to include Palmerston in his cabinet, even though he hated him. At any rate, I could go either way. Certainly from Pitt the Younger on, we should have it on the PM page. john k 02:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about not including cabinets on anybody's pages? Instead, there could be a page such as List of British ministries or some such thing. In this manner, the articles on the Kings and Prime Ministers do not get too cluttered. -- Emsworth 19:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That would make sense, so long as we insure that there are links from the appropriate PMs' pages, and that we don't lose any information. john k 19:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "See also" section would address the issue. It remains to be determined how we are to structure the ministerial lists. One notices several possibilities, with their attendant disadvantages:

By reign (This method is currently used for the historical lists of Privy Counsellors. But the pages for George III, Victoria and Elizabeth II could become extremely long.)
By ministry (This method does not show changes from ministry to ministry. But it does permit one to keep all information associated with a particular ministry on a single page.)
By Parliament (The proposition that ministers stay in office even whilst there is no Parliament—that is, that they do not automatically leave upon a dissolution—is not taken into account. On the other hand, changes in ministries as a result of such things as no-confidence motions could be indicated.)
By year (This method could be very tedious; furthermore, it does not show the evolution of a particular ministry over a number of years.)

-- Emsworth 19:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The table seems fine, except perhaps that there could be some border within the table (see the new table just implemented on Robert Walpole), and the years could be linked. -- Emsworth 19:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that each ministry could have its own page, with a link from List of British ministries. -- Emsworth 23:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of British Ministries

Thanks for creating this page. I've been looking for a way to add information on the ministries/cabinets under the later Stuarts, and this list also provides an excellent opportunity to recognise the problems common with the early sections of lists of Prime Ministers (all except the Waldegrave issue). I've extended the list back to the start of Anne's rain. This already goes beyond the 1707 start for the UK, and I'd like to go back to 1660, but I'm not sure how to handle Scottish government during that period (and only have a few pointers on the seperable Scottish ministries). I'd suggest only running it up to Pitt's ascendancy in 1783 - Portland being the last contentious identification of a PM. After that cut-off, I think a pointer to the list on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would suffice. Perhaps the list of PMs could be seperated from that article onto its own page, then the various cabinet lists seperated from the PM articles (as has been done with Thatcher) and linked seperately from a fifth column on the PM list. (On that last point, I'm wondering about the possibilities of working cabinet lists into full government lists. The information is out there for PMs since at least 1924, but it would be a lot of work.) -- Gregg 17:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was suggesting - that the lists of cabinets be moved off the PM's articles onto their own pages (one for each PM). But I also think we could seperate the list of PMs from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom), and then link to each seperated cabinet lists from there (by adding a fifth column to the table). If we have that, I think the Ministries list need only run to 1783, then send one on to the list of PMs - after 1783, a list of ministries is just going to duplicate the list of PMs. -- Gregg 18:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marlborough was the most powerful member of that government even though he did not hold one of the Great Offices; Godolphin only held his position by virtue of their friendship. Marlborough and Godolphin were both responsible for the conduct of government (and in 1704, Harley joined them, forming that Triumvirate). (It should probably be Godolphin/Marlborough. Or maybe even Marlborough/Godolphin.) I'm taking the names from either the most senior member(s) of the ministry (in terms of actual power and in respect of office), or (in the case of the Cabal, the Junto's and Anne's Triumvirate) the commonly given name for that government. The exception is the Temple ministry - I've picked the name of the de facto head of that brief government, but he did not hold ministerial office and excercised power as a member of the Privy Council and the King's closest advisor. The alternative there would be The Triumvirate although Rochester also intially formed a Triumvirate. -- Gregg 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I changed the name of the first one in respect of what had been done elsewhere in the list (the two Stanhope/Sunderland ones, which reflect the shift in power at the top). But I notice now that you've done one for my original title, Coalition Ministry, and it might be best to go back to that. However, Marlborough should be listed either first or second - he was the key figure in that government - and Harley should be third from 1704 onwards. -- Gregg 20:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works well. Churchill was a Whig. The Queen had strong Tory sympathies, but her best friend and (effectively) closest advisor, Churchill's wife, was stridently Whiggish. Godolphin had fallen out of favour with the Tories and was somewhat independent - he stayed on as leader of the second Whigh Junto. The most senior, unabashed Tory in the government was Nottingham. Harley did enter Parliament as a Whig, but by 1704 he'd become a moderate Tory, and indeed was the leading Tory in later years. Some individuals' attitudes to how much power the monarch and church should have, changed depending on the monarch - so there was some flip-flopping between Whig and Tory. -- Gregg 20:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

more: I think it's safe to describe Godolphin as a Tory, but he didn't have the support of the rump of the Tories. Harley was elevated because, though he was voting with the Tories, his Whiggish roots made Churchill and Godolphin think he'd be more amenable than Nottingham. He was also a favourite of Anne's. He was thus given much more power than Notts had had, leading to the notion of a Triumvirate. But he became increasingly Tory as the coalition wore on, and was eventually excluded, along with the rest of the Tories, in 1708. Godolphin and Marlborough continued in the Whig Junto, though Spencer became the main policy-maker in the government. -- Gregg 21:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Duke of Wellington

As I read, I have the following suggestions:

In the third paragraph of the section "Early life," one finds the sentence, "The next year, his elder brother, Lord Mornington, was appointed Governor-General of India..." But in the first paragraph of the entire article, one finds "He came from an established family of noblemen – his father was Earl of Mornington ..." Although I can conclude that the second-mentioned Lord Mornington inherited the dignity of the first-mentioned Lord Mornington, the uninitiated might not leap to the same conclusion, and might begin to founder on "Lord Mornington"'s actual relationship with the subject of the article. Thus, I suggest that each sentence specifically refer to one or the other Earl: in the first case, Garret Wesley, 1st Earl of Mornington, and in the second case, Richard Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington.
One could explain the progression from Viscount to Duke with more details: currently, one only sees a mention of his Viscountcy, followed by "Returning to England hailed as the conquering hero, Wellington (by now advanced in the Peerage to the rank of Marquess) was created Duke of Wellington." The Marquessate was created in 1812; the article should explain why it was granted.
The sentence "Officers under his command called him "The Beau", thanks to him being a fine dresser or "The Peer" after he was created a Duke" does not seem accurate. He was a peer when he was a Marquess, as well.

But the article is a very good start, and with more work could become a featured article. -- Emsworth 13:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Invisible Pink Unicorn

You placed the {protected} tag on the Invisible Pink Unicorn article. When do you plan to remove it? According to the Protection policy, pages are supposed to be protected for a few days only.

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systemic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And Thank You For Your Support

Thanks for your vote on my nomination for administrator. Since there is great opposition, I've asked for it to be withdrawn. I've posted an explanation of frequent edits on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there this is the Sandboxer

umm, I was wondering how to delete the sandbox that I created. Also, if this is not the appropriate means to contact you, how should I do it?

Well, you see, I created it so that I could determine the differences between the two texts that I had written, so do you have any suggestions as to how I might accomplish this other than to create such a page?

p.s. How did you become an administrator?

Ok, last question, how do I upload images? Also, do you think that it might be feasible to allow users to delete their own pages, rather than asking an admin? Ummm 01:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) What about special pages? Also, is it possible to do the tilde thing and have it leave a talk link, like neutrality did, only not using the link method? 01:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (that was just to see what would happen) umm, also, who exactly "hands out" administratorship? Ummm 01:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and Bush

Just to fill you in, I want to note that I've been having problems with Gzornenplatz for months now. My previous attempts to resolve issues with him were dismal failures, to say the least. That might put the present conflict in context, in addition to what is (and isn't) on Talk. V V 01:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Masters of the Horse

I have access to a fairly good source (although one that irritatingly leaves out peers' ordinals) that, I think, would give Masters of the Hourse up to 1890 or so. If you have access to a university library, you could perhaps find it as well. Haydn's Book of Dignities, or some such, is the title. It provides lists for pretty much every British office up to when it was written, which was during the second Salisbury administration. After that, unfortunately, it becomes difficult. The lists of Lord Chamberlains and Lord Stewards, for instance, remain incomplete. When I get the chance, I'll try to fill in the material up to 1890, though. john k 22:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lady Louise of Windsor

Thank you for your contribution to the debate. I hope this can be resolved amicably.

I've responded to the factual elements of your comments on the talk page. I haven't referred to your comments that I should put my concerns into the article. I am puzzled by that - how am I meant to put in the article 'ignore what it says at the very start of the article as it is very misleading. What we say is her name is not and no-one has ever actually in any context referred to her by that'???? Ok, I'm demonstrating my point by reductio ad absurdum but I don't see how you can sensible use the body of the article to argue that the very start of that article is wrong.

Also, why do you agree with what john and FearEirean and proteus are saying? Their position honestly sounds like legalistic nonsense to me. Jongarrettuk 22:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I advise you not to support other users' personal attacks. Do you even have any idea what the dispute on that article is about? And even if he's right, does that make those sorts of attacks "okay"? V V 23:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What would I have good "reason" to say to you about now? Would that make it okay? V V 04:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. Saying what you did to me on RfA is arguably fairly provocative. I could respond with all manner of personal attacks, but it so happens that might be wrong. I was hoping pointing this out might make you rethink that kind of comment, which appears to me to reflect (a) ignorance of the issue and (worse) (b) snap judgement against another editor. V V 07:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hey ugen

piss off. i haven't touched that page in 3 days now; i've been blocked over it (against policy); i've acknowledged i displayed poor judgement. i'm tired of taking shit repeatedly over a minor edit dispute. so, piss off my self-righteous friend. Wolfman 05:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

logic

I noticed this statement you made on VV's page:

"I did not say his remarks were warranted, nor did I say they were correct; rather, I merely stated that he had good *reason* to make those... statements. Agreement with previous reasons does not necessarily indicate agreement with the statement following those reasons. ugen64 02:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)"

Firstly, to me, "warranted" and "having good reason" are the same thing. I don't see how you can mean one and not the other. You can pretend that there are subtleties that differentiate them, and that those subtleties are important - but in this context, not really, they don't constitute the brunt of what's being communicated.

Secondly, agreement with previous reasons do not neccessarily indicate agreement with statements that chronologically follow those reasons, but they do neccessarily indicate agreement with statements that logically follow from those premises. Saying that "he had good reason to make those statements" clearly disambiguates: you were using "follow" in the logical sense. See logic. Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ugen - many thanks for supporting my adminship! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trolling

Sam Spade IS a troll, and nobody can convince me otherwise.

As to your other question, the revert rule should be enforced, by everybody, no questions asked. Rick K 22:49, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Star

I thank you very much for the most kind award of a Barnstar. I see that I am now both a fictional Earl and a fictional Knight :) -- Emsworth 23:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)