Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 20 July 2005

UK CotW: Licensing laws of the United Kingdom

Hiya, just to let you know that the article you nominated for UK Collaboration of the Week has been made the nomination. The scope is now the entire United Kingdom (from just England and Wales). I've created a stub but your contributions are of course welcome! The article is at Licensing laws of the United Kingdom, the nomination is at Misplaced Pages:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/Licensing laws of the United Kingdom. Talrias | talk 17:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legacy Currencies

You say "legacy implies the currencies will be phased out". That is exactly the case. Not sure why you are removing the word legacy.

Hi there, this isn't the case for the Pound Sterling or Danish Krone, both countries have special exclusions from having to adopt the Euro, and therefore there is currently no requirement for them to be phased out, there is also no movement towards voluntarily changing over to the Euro. Furthermore, Sweden has no plans to phase it's currency out either. Ps: you really should sign your name! -- Joolz 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, we could have footnoted the currencies of the two countries that have opt outs. The governments of both of those countries are committed to joining the Euro. The last opinion polls shows that a majority of Danes would vote to adopt the Euro. Parmaestro 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting would mean we include them in the legacy definiton and then exclude them. It's misleading to say they're legacy currencies. The governments are only committed in so far as 'when the economic conditions are right' (UK) and when they've had a successful referendum on the issue. It's much better not to have any confusion of mis-information by simply having the word 'other' used in place. In the currency section you can explain that (as I have done) 13/15 of the non-eurozone states are legally committed to joining the eurozone. -- Joolz 22:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hadn't seen that before. Just read that section.

European Union

Thanks for all your contributions. It's been great. I don't know if you are also interested in cultural and education aspects. I started some work on some stubs that hopefully can be used for a Culture in the European Union and Education in the European Union articles. Some of these articles are Culture 2000, Media Plus, EU Integrated programme, and the Socrates programme.

Thanks :) I don't have any particular knowledge on the EU's culture or educational programmes, but I'm willing to help out wherever I can. Have you considered a WikiProject for the European Union to help keep everything co-ordinated and organised? -- Joolz 12:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

Hi Joolz,

thank you so much for your work on this article. I haven't yet looked at the article itself (lack of courage...) but from its history and its discussion page it looks like you're doing a more efficient job that I have done, and probably could do. Specially as i've grown tired of discussing with jvb... as you wrote, these discussions where mostly not fruitful. Also, it's hard for me to discuss (and to want to discuss) with someone whose positions look to me so outrageous and often just despicable. I'll probably stay away of for a undetermined period of time for my sanity's sake, but I appreciate your contribution.

--FvdP 22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang II

Dear Joolz,

I’d like to thank you too for your work on this article.

On the other hand I think it’s better, for the time being, not to make any personal remarks about --FvdP . I would have hoped that he had done the same about me.

If you see things that can be improved (language, choice of words…) or private views that must be made neutral, please do so. Otherwise I would propose you to remove the not-neutral tag. I don’t think there is a factual dispute.

--Jvb – April 27, 2005

Hi, thanks, I agree that the article has definately improved, Ideally I would have liked to bring all parties round (including FvdP) so we can reach a consensus. Since there's no dispute about the article's neutrality I agree that the message should be removed. (Posted to your talk page too). -- Joolz 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed much more neutral this way. I am still not happy with the links, see Talk:Vlaams Belang. --FvdP 18:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Portal

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiportal/European_Union

Are you interested in updating this page ? Parmaestro 10:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Constituency maps

The up-front reason for doing them the way I have is that the county maps are already there to be slotted in without any additional work, or cluttering up Wikimedia more than the subject, perhaps, warrants. I feel it makes a degree of sense in reflecting the way the boundaries are reviewed, on a county basis (at least where there are county councils, and "sort of" even where there aren't). As you say, some constituencies would be very small on a national map, those in Metropolitan areas would still be pretty small on a regional scale - and dragging regions in seems illogical to me as they pay no part in the review process or any other aspect of Parliament. Can we leave this as an open question until I've completed the details maps? - that's enough to have on my plate for the moment!--Keith Edkins 14:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fairtrade categories

I like the idea of Category:Fairtrade settlements, but I don't think that there is a need (at the moment at least) to have the other categories you created with it. As such I have proposed that they all be merged into the one category. If you want to express an opinion on this you can do so at Categories for deletion. Thryduulf 20:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

CCF

Are you sure that CLS has a CCF? Seems a little odd...

James F. (talk) 23:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for a sense of completeness, I'll answer here too ;) The list I worked from is located at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010206/text/10206w01.htm#10206w01_wqn7 -- Joolz 00:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, Welsh people arrive(s)

You beat me to it. User:Deb and I were talking about this page and what to do with it earlier (see our talk pages) as a consequence of trying to disambiguate the link to Welsh, and I have been making drafts off-line. Have you immediate plans to extend the article yourself or do you mind if I wade in? One thing I particularly wanted to do was include not just Welsh-as-an-ethnic-group but mention when the Welsh as a people might be said to have begun to form (When was Wales? and all that sort of thing; the various tribes we know about; Gododdin; Offa's Dyke -- I have been wading through Norman Davies' The Isles and John Davies' History of Wales too) and go on to some of the definitions these days: Grannygate (Welsh rugby and eligibility rules) seemed a very obvious thing to mention to me, for example. But before I plunge onwards, is this alright, or were you set on the "an ethnic group only" approach? I do personally feel there is room to say more than just that, but is that alright with you? --Telsa 17:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't work on it today as I am inbetween a rock and a hard place on another article but I will edit as the week goes on. Falphin 18:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re; MPs order

It was in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies style guide, but I just noticed you've changed that too. Maltaran 10:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Thank you for your help; I was unaware the category tags were for articles only.

Collaboration of the week

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Joolz, thanks for your kind comment on my user page regarding my RFC, I have since ceased all copyviolations and I have held my tongue quite considerably recently with regard to being goaded with words like "pig thig" and a "wikipedia tumour" by Ray Girvan who has been advised not to use such words but has yet made no compromise, see User talk:pigsonthewing, User talk:Raygirvan and User talk: Brumburger, I am wondering if you would kindly take a second look at this RFC as I have admitted my wrongs and despite continual accusations nothing is sticking and yet I am still getting hassle, I understand if you do or don't want to get involved further or even if you agree with the comments of Ray etc, I just thought you might see a different side also with other comments now relating to this subject. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard All the best, Nick Boulevard.

Thank you, not for your edits but for taking the time to read the page again. Nick Boulevard 3 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

UK geography COTM

Hi all, July's collaboration of the month is Northumberland, which needs quite a lot more work than last month's. I've listed some basic places to start on Talk:Northumberland, and will get to work looking up the statistics this week. (If you're not interested in further COTM updates, amend your listing in the table on WP:UK geo.) Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)

EU project

Hi there! I am new to wikipedia and would like to contribute to the E.U. section. I've already contributed an article on the Open Method of Coordination. Comments would be welcome (no one has bother so far - don't know if that is a good sign or not). Also, the article does not appear if I type open method in the search box - is that normal?

Generally I could contribute something on EU research policy and information technology. Hope to hear from you, --Daniel Spichtinger 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

List of MPs

I found the basic data on http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge66/ge66index.htm, and with a bit of sorting and formatting was able to load it fairly easily. Did the same for 1970 too. Data for other years does not seem to be so accessible--George Burgess 8 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya Joolz,

As I mentioned on IRC, we're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments in article talk pages

Joolz, do not revert my removal of personal comments from article talk pages. Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal comments have no place in articles talk pages. Any personal comment on any article talk page is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Furthermore, those remarks with personal accusations qualify are personal attacks. Read the personal attacks talk page. Nicholas Turnbull's remark "your are nothing but groundless attacks on Prof. Touretzky's name" is a personal accusation. Nicholas wrote "Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?" If the critic doesn't like my sources then that should be discussed without personal remarks or comments. His personal comments should have been sent to my talk page, not posted to an article talk page. --AI 21:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop removing "personal comments" from discussion pages. The people who have written those comments do not appreciate it, nor does it create a hospitable environment to discuss the article in. There is no policy, as far as I'm aware, that states that removing personal comments is allowed. For instance, on Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks (which is a disputed guideline, not a policy) clearly states "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed". It can be considered quite rude and uncivil to keep doing this. Regards, Joolz 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Will you please refrain from any further revert-restoring of personal accusations? His personal accusations are not simply "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule..." as you claim. I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If I am acting contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Misplaced Pages policy regarding personal attacks. We have spoken... --AI 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)