User talk:Chrisjj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there Chris welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump or my talk page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

Hi. Obviously you're an expert as you live in St Neots. But why did you change the link on the St Neots page from Saint Neot back to St Neot (which is a redirect page). The page for the saint is at Saint Neot, just like Saint Andrew and Saint George and all the other saints. Mintguy 07:22, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy. Thanks for helping with this. I changed it because I'm a Wikipedia newbie and didn't realise that the saint entries should follow the Saint George style; 'St' seemed more natural. I'll change it back to 'Saint' in a mo. Can we get rid of the redirect page or are we stuck with it? (I guess it does no harm!)

Chrisjj 6 Sep 2003

Is there an official policy on "St" and "St."? Since it is an contraction, I would have thought that the version with the full stop is the correct one, since this punctuation mark represents the missing portion of the word (similarly Mr., etc.). 80.255 01:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy I think (though I, myself, haven't checked). It seems that the full word, 'Saint' is standard in Wikipedia for the names of the saints themselves, and 'St' without the dot is the standard for place names in English. Unless someone else knows different!

And it seems to me that Mr and Mrs don't usually have dots either in standard modern English. They seem to have faded gradually from use in the 1980s. Most of the business letters I get today are to 'Mr CJ Jefferies' whereas when I was young they'd have been to 'Mr. C.J. Jefferies'. Language usage evolves, dictionaries, encyclopaediae, and books on grammar just try to keep up!Chris Jefferies 12 Dec 2003

Whenever I see Mr. it always has a dot; there's a fine line between people's being lazy and language's changing! The dot can certainly be officially absent in some place names, used extensively without it, however, whether or not it is technically correct or not. The same applies to genitive apostrophes - I daresay your town was once St. Neot's. 80.255 03:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, it would have been 'St. Neots' until, perhaps, the 1970s, and in 1500 it was probably 'Saint Neots'. But as far as Mr/Mr. goes, check some recent business letters - utility bills, car service invoices and receipts, I think you'll find I'm right. It's easy to see what you expect to see instead of what's really there.

Of course, spelling and grammar are not created by business letters, but they do evolve, often through laziness or by common errors taking hold. 'Correct' spelling and grammar are defined by common usage. As in most aspects of life (dare I say even county definitions), people mean what they mean, not always what we'd like them to mean! That's why dictionaries, grammars, and encyclopaedias have the role, not of defining meaning but of recording it. Chris Jefferies 08:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the convention is that if a contraction uses the first few letters of a word (like 'Prof.' for 'Professor'), then you put a dot. However, if it uses the first and last letter of a word (like 'St' or 'Mr'), then no dot is necessary. This can also help to differentiate between 'street' and 'saint' - 'St.' is street and 'St' is saint. It could be that this is more of a matter of personal opinion that actual correctness, but this is the system I follow.

---

Hi Chris, I just noticed that you deleted my little joke under the Cirencester page (e.g., "people who are resistant to change like lawyers"). Did I offend someone? -- llywrch 23:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

That's probably my fault. I noticed your edits around the area, and decided to write a little article about this town, if only to note it has a funny pronunciation. Should have realised you might be doing one yourself. ;) Morwen 13:01, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Chris, just so you know, the counties issue is a real hot potato. 80.255 is a contibutor I've clashed with more than once: he's fought on this before and the current usage (as exemplified at Godmanchester) though awkward and desperately unclear to the average reader, is the furthest compromise he will allow. I personally feel that 80.255 is probably not willing to discuss this, but I wish you the best of luck. Frankly, I think that 80.255's insistence on this issue is harmful to WP, because it leaves us with a multitude of confusing articles that desperately try to keep afloat a county scheme that is long forgotten, something like converting all prices into the old system in a London cafe--"that'll be 10 of the traditional shillings (or just 50p from the coins in your purse)". And I say this as an Anglophile who loves the old counties and old English pound as much as anyone...possibly even 80.255. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and we'll both hope for the best, eh? Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never refused to discuss this matter - on the contrary, in fact; I have many times requested that it be discussed, to no avail. I've noticed an increasing number of allegations floating around that I'm "not prepared to discuss" this matter - none of which have any basis whatsoever in fact, as far as I can see...

Secondly, the C/county system is inherently confusing, and this confusion is expedated by inexact references to and lack of deliniation between traditional Counties and administrative counties. More to the point, however, ask yourself this: what is more important in an encyclopaedia - avoiding "confusion" at all costs, or providing correct and factual information? No doubt all articles would be far less "confusing" if the latter weren't abided by!

Thirdly: you comparison with 'old money' is false. The £/s/d system was abolished; this is not debatable. The Government issued no official, categorical statement that it was not abolished - whereas exactly such a statement was made with regard to the traditional Counties. As I have said many times before, this is a point of fact and not an opinion.

My apologies to Chrisjj for posting what is in effect a third-party discuession on this talk page; there seems to be a lot of whispering going on against me 'behind closed doors' and I'm not prepared to allow such whisperings to go unchallenged! 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the hot potato. To give 80.255 due credit, he seems to me to be discussing the subject in a perfectly sensible and civilised way. And also, he's responded to my request to stop changing county articles - I'm grateful to him for leaving alone the articles I was working on and have changed back.

Until proved wrong I shall assume he means well and is prepared to join the debate and abide by whatever policy may be agreed on at the end of the process. Thanks 80.255! BTW, I hate to refer to you by half an IP address, would you like to share your given name, or do you prefer anonymity? Chris Jefferies 12 Dec 2003

I am, as I have evidenced several times, quite prepared to abide by a reasonable compromise whereby true and factual information prevails. I'm not prepared to allow misimformation, however, which is what some people seem to want (nor will I submit to tyranny of the majority view if this view is plainly at odds with the facts). However, the question seems mainly concerned with how information is systematically organised, rather than the facts themselves (although some people have a tendency to ignore facts when it suits them!). It is clear that unnecessary confusion can result when a single article attempt to deal with 3 or more different entities all known (in some form or another) as 'counties'; the only solution I can see to this is the creation of seperate articles covering each distinct meaning (as occurs in virtually every other case in wikipedia), and as can be seen at Gloucestershire, and several of the Welsh Counties. I have consistently suggested that this obviously successful system be put in place for all other counties (see my talk page); unfortunately, some people have again opposed this without offering arguments against it nor agreeing to discuss the matter in a sensible manner.

I'm quite happy to make no edits to the articles that you've mentioned for the time being; you strike me as being a reasonable person, so I'll assume this isn't simply a stalling tactic! However, to resolve those matters in particular, I'd like to know your reasoning on reverting.

Thanks, 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To deal first with your last paragraph, you and I simply don't agree on what is correct. You claim that logical argument demonstrates a once and for all correctness which Wikipedia should adhere to. I claim that Wikipedia should take current common usage as its guide. We need to find a way to agree, or failing that a way to agree to disagree. Meanwhile we'd both be foolish if we indulged in an edit war.

On the more general points I think there may be some misunderstanding about the governance of Wikipedia. If there is to be a policy on placenames it will come through open discussion, possibly followed by some sort of vote. But first we need to agree that there should be a policy, otherwise no policy can ever be put in place!

So I'm worried when I read about the 'tyranny of the majority view'. Surely tyranny is when a minority view (or even the view of one person) is forced upon multitudes who disagree. That's what a tyrant is. The majority view, whether correct or incorrect, is not tyranny, it is democracy! A tyranny depends upon the one or the few having some kind of power which enables them to force their view (correct or incorrect) on the majority.

Best of all is full agreement. Everybody is happy. Sometimes no amount of discussion achieves this happy state and the best that can be managed is agreement by all to accept the majority view, which may include a record of the remaining points of difference.

If we don't begin by accepting that consensus is best, that the majority view is second best, and that tyranny is worst, we will get nowhere. And this is often the point at which the majority feel the best and only way is to block further contributions from tyrants. Surprisingly, the main objective with Wikipedia is not that it should be correct, but that it should be realistic and as correct as possible. Where we can't agree what is correct, we need articles that explain there are two or more points of view, say what they are, and set out the main arguments for and against. But this should be done once and in one place. Other articles can refer across when necessary.

So can we begin by agreeing that consensus and the majority view have priority over correctness whenever parties disagree over what is, in fact, correct? If we can't agree that point, we do have a bit of a problem. Chris Jefferies 10:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This discussion has been copied to the Naming conventions Talk page - please continue it there, not here! Thanks, Chris Jefferies 11:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello Chris, Please don't post comments on my (or probably anyone else's) user page; I've moved them (and replied) on my talk page. Thanks, 80.255 01:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Talk is where I meant to put them. My mistake - DOH! Chris Jefferies 11 Dec 2003

Contents 1 Counties policy 2 Wittgenstein 3 Unverified images 4 Thanks for the note 5 Owain 6 UK geography COTM 7 Counties argument 8 UK location tool 9 Shipston 10 response to you comments 11 Counties, etc.: A suggestion for consensus 12 UK geography COTM 13 Changing subjects 14 Khao Lak / Solitaire Meissmer 15 Chew Valley Lake FAC 16 Chris's Test Area

[edit] Counties policy

Hello I have added an explanation note to the counties naming policy at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places). I have done this to make it clearer because certain people have insisted upon mis-interpreting it (see Shipston-on-Stour and Talk:Gloucestershire). I dont think it has changed the policy just explained it better.

It has already been OK'd by User:Angela and User:Warofdreams, is it OK with you?. The reason I'm contacting you is because you voted on the original policy. G-Man 17:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wittgenstein

• Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg - A declaration concerning the copy right would be appreciated. -- Simplicius 00:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Thanks for uploading Image:KingsCollege.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 04:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a Creative Commons Share alike licence. Chris Jefferies 13:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

Hi Chris - thanks for the note - I do have a tendancy to jump in with two left feet - must curb that - it's hard being bold but not daft! All the best - kind regards :) Brookie:A glow in the dark 13:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris - thanks for the further note - best not to understand - just follow it! :) Brookie:The grass on the hill 19:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owain

I've noticed your spat with Owain. From my experience he seems to be intent on completely ignoring the policy and adding "X is in the traditional county of" to just about every Welsh town (look at the history of Cardiff, Porthmadog, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Welshpool) I've tried arguing with him but to no avail. He doesn't seem to understand that he cant just ignore the policy because he doesn't agree with it, and keeps arguing over old ground.

Frankly I'm fairly exasperated with endless reverts, I dont know whether you have any ideas to deal with him, as arguing seems to get nowhere. G-Man 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a problem. I'm still not happy with the St Ives article. Owain has a way of laying off for a bit and then sneaking back and reintroducing a traditional county when he thinks no-one is looking. I am exasperated too. Chris Jefferies 23:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 22:58 (UTC)

[edit] Counties argument

See the argument going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. G-Man 5 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm in the middle of writing a contribution as I reply to your note above! Thanks for pointing it out. Chris Jefferies 5 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

---

Take a look at what Owain has been doing at Middlesex and Herefordshire. He has also been adding a traditional counties infobox to numerous counties. Which looks suspiciously like a subtle attempt at POV pushing. G-Man 19:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And I see you've been having a bit of a battle over Herefordshire. I've been out of circulation for a while, but I'll put a watch on both these county articles now. Thanks for letting me know and thanks also for your hard work on everything from articles on UK places to naming policy discussions. You are much appreciated (by me at least)! Chris Jefferies 09:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK location tool

Hi Chris, Could you direct me to the really easy Wikipedia mechanism for adding an outline map of the UK with any chosen place marked by a dot you mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places), please? --Cavrdg 20:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've just checked it out and it's not as easy as I thought :-( Looks as if I made some faulty assumptions. The syntax below works (open this page in edit mode to see the code), but someone has generated the images in advance. I'd assumed you passed it co-ordinates as parameters and it generated the map image on the fly. But no - so it'll only work for places that have been set up already.

Chris Jefferies 20:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll read all the stuff about it at User talk:Lupin ... tomorrow, I think. --Cavrdg 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shipston

Take a look at Shipston-on-Stour the history and the talk page. G-Man 22:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] response to you comments

As it's sometimes considered bad form to get into 'third-party' arguments on other users' talk pages, I'm responding to your comments made to me on User_talk:Owain here:

'twist', 'unique interpretation', "policy", 'silly', 'libel', 'hell'? Wow, that's quite a lot of strong language and hardly chosen to calm things down so we can come to a consensus.

I didn't consider that G-Man's activities on the Shipston article were in any designed to 'calm things down'. Although the article was completely in compliance with current policy, he insisted on repeatedly adding a piece of completely unsubstantiated POV for, as far as I could judge, the sole reason of peeving me and starting an edit war, despite repeated attempts at compromise on my part. Yes, I do believe he is 'twisting' the policy, although he has accused me of exactly the same thing, using exactly the same word, so I don't feel that your criticism of my using the word 'twist' is very even-handed!

[Note: I provided extensive evidence to back my statement up which 80,255 dismissed, see Talk:Shipston-on-Stour G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) ]

I agree with G-Man's view of the policy and that alone demonstrates it's not a unique interpretation.

Several people can hold the same unique view - it is unique because it differs from all other views.

By the way, I don't see how he can have libelled a county, what a very strange idea!

I was speaking figuratively, of course. I felt (and still feel) that he was attempting to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to his own POV.

It would be good if we could all approach this difficult issue calmly and politely. That's the only hope any of us have of reaching a resolution and avoiding harm to this wonderful project called Wikipedia. Please, take it easy.

I agree that calmness and politeness are indeed needed. Tell me, do you think that the following comment is constructive?

"I have absolutely no desire to have this argument again" [reference to discussion attempting to find a consensus] - G-Man 21:06, 22 July 2005.

[Note: Quote taken completely out of context G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)]

Or his recent comment to User:Owain (3 July 2005 11:26):

"Yes Owain, as I suspected you really are out of touch with reality."

Or his recent ad hominem attack on me, completely behind my back:

"[..] there are a few people who dont, and are quite fanatical. And unfortunately we need a relatively prescriptive policy to stop them from wreaking havoc [..]" (G-Man 19:42, 1 August 2005)

[Note: See the talk page above, 80,255 has done exactly the same thing to me and several other people G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)]

— not exactly calm and polite! And whereas I grant you that I do use strong (piquant) statements from time to time, I do not feel that it is fair to characterise me as being the sole perpetrator of such statement-making. Although you, differing in your own POV, probably don't notice it, I do get an awful lot of provocation from some people on this matter and, believe me, I excercise a great deal of restraint in my responses to it! 80.255 00:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This was originally posted on your user page by mistake.

Hi, don't worry about the accidental post to my user page, and thanks for tidying it up and reposting here. It's a mistake I've made myself in the past and easily done.

You wrote, 'I didn't consider that G-Man's activities on the Shipston article were in any [way] designed to 'calm things down'. But you're not responsible for G-Man's actions, we are each responsible for our own. There is clearly a deep, deep division between the way G-Man and I understand the history of UK counties and the way you and Owain do. The rest of the Wikipedia world will have opinions of their own or (in many cases) just won't care. If you and I can be polite and tone things down as much as possible, that will set a good example. Thanks for your post here on my talk page which does set an excellent example. I appreciate it. Feelings can run high when we can't agree, and sometimes we all say things we later regret (I know I have :-(

'Several people can hold the same unique view - it is unique because it differs from all other views.' By this definition all views are unique, no matter how many people hold them. I thought you were implying that G-Man was alone in his view.

'I felt (and still feel) that he was attempting to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to his own POV.' Apart from the word 'disparage' I agree with you. And of course you and Owain are attempting to deliberately emphasise the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to your own point of view. That's natural, of course people want to support their own point of view, who wouldn't?

'I agree that calmness and politeness are indeed needed. Tell me, do you think that the following comment is constructive?' Well, I'm not going to discuss G-Man's actions or motives here. We all need to be calm and polite, please tell me if you think I cross this boundary in future, I will try hard not to. If you have problems with G-Man's approach I suggest you discuss those with him yourself.

Let's hope that as Wikipedians we can all come to consensus, if necessary improve the policy document, and then all abide by it. Several of us have declared in advance that we will abide by the current policy or any future one, even if we disagree with it. If I feel the policy is faulty I'll work to get it changed again of course, but meanwhile I will abide by it. Can I ask you, too, to make the same declaration? It's on the policy talk page.

Thanks. Chris Jefferies 13:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in, but I've added the above notes, to set the record straight. But if people are going to make accusations against me, I feel it is right to have my chance to answer them.

And 80,255 no I am not trying to to deliberately downplay and disparage the historic county for reasons solely pertaining to my own POV. I am merely attempting to ensure that the WP adequatly reflects the de facto reality, and does not display misleading or confusing information. G-Man 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

G-Man, you are most welcome to comment here on my talk page. I don't regard it as butting in at all. Chris Jefferies 10:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counties, etc.: A suggestion for consensus

I've posted a suggestion that should help resolve this dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Suggestion for consensus. Please have a look. Thanks, 80.255 18:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you have been a little disingenuous in your example of Huntingdon, well written as it is. "Huntingdon is in [the Anglo-saxon Kingdom]] of East Anglia" is hardly useful. "Milton Keynes is in [the Kingdom of] Mercia" is just silly. Bedford is in the East of England Region but was (probably) in Mercia too. Eaton Scocon doesn't bear thinking about - the Ouse has probably moved in that amount of time! But I'm not convinced that it is a swing issue to the debate, hence posting here rather than on the Naming Conventions page. --Concrete Cowboy 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is addressed to me, please reply on my talk page. I have not touched the Huntingdon article recently. The East Anglia business was between Owain and Chrisjj. Personally, I agree with you about anglo saxon kingdoms (especially nonsense terms like 'northumbria'!); however they are commonly used to refer to vague areas. Perhaps it might be better to have an East Anglia (geographic area) article seperate from the article that deals with the ancient kingdom? Either way, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up with me, because I had nothing to do with this! 80.255 16:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK geography COTM

OK, so I finally found time for some Wikipeding (after about five months of Northumberland!) and have picked Nottinghamshire for the next COTM. I've added a to do list to the talk page and have already started work adding some of the basic data. Joe D (t) 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. To stop receiving updates, unsubscribe at WP:UK geo.

Hi, the new COTM is Norfolk! Joe D (t) 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this month's COTM is Dartmoor. I have added some suggestions to Talk:Dartmoor to get things started. Joe D (t) 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)

[edit] Changing subjects

Could you please take a look at a couple of pages related to the term gates? I am writing you because you have edited a few times the Sluice article. I was looking for some technical information about gates and found: 1. in architecture 2. other uses, amongst which was not the engineering use. So I complemented this latter page and wrote a stub on the engineering usage. After that I found the article that you edited. The word is used there quite a bit but is not a link. Anyway, I shall be most thankful if you would take a look at these pages, I surely will notice any changes you make. Vale, Lcgarcia 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khao Lak / Solitaire Meissmer

Hello Chris,

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and have an interest in Solitaire Meissmer's page. I noticed you edited the Khao Lak entry a few times. As Solitaire was swept away from Coconut Bungalows on Bang Niang beach at Khao Lak, and as the search for her continues despite a positive DNA match with a victim, I was wondering if you could link back to Solitaire's entry? Being new, I'm not sure whether that would be accepted as an appropriate link, nor how to write up something new like that onto the Khao Lak page...

Thanks if you can help out (with either just answers and/or an update to the Khao Lak article). I think Solitaire's article does not link to Khao Lak at the moment either, so I will expand that page shortly.

Cheers,

Chris.

(PS - am I supposed to use four tildes, youcantryreachingme 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme thus?) ok. yep :)

youcantryreachingme 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme -- ok, I've found a way to put the link in; it wasn't that big a change :)

[edit] Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you started this page back in 2004 I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rod, I've added a 'support' entry to the FAC page. And congratulations on a wonderful page. I might have started it (about two lines worth) but you picked it up and ran with it. You must have put in hundreds of hours to get it to this fine state. Nice work! Chris Jefferies 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris's Test Area

I suspect you meant that as a user subpage... Regards. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We all maek misstaiks :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)