User:BritishWatcher/1

Is Northern Ireland a constituent country of the UK?

You seem a little confused! The phrase 'constituent country' is a noun, 'country' and an adjective, 'constituent'. If you agree that Norther Ireland is a 'constituent country', you agree that it is one of the countries that together constitutes the United Kingdom!

Please look at the evidence as to which terms are most used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland - a table exists in 'Countries of the United Kingdom' that should help with you research. 86.147.45.207 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your response to the IP, seems to suggest you've been on Wikipedia before. Is that a correct observation on my part? GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your not under suspicion (at least by me). What was your previous User-name. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. I became a registered user 3 yrs ago, this November 17. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could try to remember BritishWatcher. You would be a lot more credible if you can remember your previous ID(s). The history of these pages includes far too many one time IPs and newly created users for some suspicion not to be justified. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BW, I've noticed you're at Scotland article. Do yourself (and that article) a favour & depart it (trust me, I know what I'm speaking about). GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As ya wish BW. Hold on to your oars, rough waters are ahead. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

got you...Refreshments (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope BW; I'm through with those articles. IMHO, they've a devolutionist bend to 'em. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotland? No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland

Hiya BW. I had to leave those articles & corresponding discussions. List of countries & List of flags by country (aswell as Scotland, England, Northern Ireland & Wales etc) have IMHO, a Devolutionist bend. Basically, I've outlived my usefullness on those types of articles. Anyways, just wanted to let you know, I'm not a devolutionist. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll get burnt, BW. Look at me, I got beaten down & I've been around here for 3 yrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion of using Country of the United Kingdom in those articles opening sentences, certainly makes sense. But, it won't be adopted (IMHO). Ahhh, to be a young Wikipedian again; full of life & optimism. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock speculations?

There is a way to end such speculations. Ask Snowy to request a 'check-user' on you. That'll show you're clean & end any nagging doubts. Just a thought, it might help. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet GoodDay, aside from scattering lots of opinions but few facts over too many pages it looks from the edit history as if BW is otherwise clearing up vandalism on other articles. Our other socks have generally not done that sort of work. So, as I've said elsewhere I am suspending judgement for the moment but you know the history of these pages and the failure to "remember" the prior ID remains suspicious --Snowded TALK 10:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

country of the uk

I've changed your syntax to small c - I assume it's what you intended. Change it back if it isn't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Digital Library Production Service

In this AFD debate you said:

Delete- Little content and clearly nobody plans to add to the article. What little information contained belongs on the University of Michigan Library article rather than its own page.

That last comment sounds pretty sensible, but why don't you follow that up by a vote to merge the material. Your vote and comment don't seem to fit together. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

National Anthem

Ok, ill change the "Die Stem" to the new anthem. (if i can manage!!)

National Anthem

Oh, someone just changed it !!

Your revert on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

You reverted my edit saying "Info box does not list ALL countries troop contributions, only major 1s", but please note that my edit was accompanied with the comment "Information in summary duplicates International Security Assistance Force#Contributing nations". I was referring to redundancy with what is in the main ISAF article. My comment also said "50,700 figure repeated 3 times in summary section." Again, no mention there of the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.230.8 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Who suspects ya?

From (Spainton's page). Hiya BW, who suspects you of being Nimbley6? -- GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If its any comfort I have never thought you were Nimbley, but your inability/refusal to remember prior names places you under suspicion so I would attempt to remember again - traceability is one of the basic features of Wikipedia --Snowded TALK 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If i could remember i would, the trouble is i wanted to be honest in the first place which is why i didnt just say i had never registered before. As i said last time, i registered over 3 years ago and used the account only a few times to make small edits to certain pages. (one of the pages being the capital punishment page) some american kept trying to remove a table which showed the US as one of the main world executors. Over the past 5 years i have registered on dozens of forums, had quite a few email addresses, its just impossible for me to remember just one username. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Request an Administrator to run a CU on ya, to clear the air of any suspicions of you being Nimbley6. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is ever lost on the WIkipedia so some detective work should reveal your name. --Snowded TALK 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a long time to go back to check and i doubt it would prove much, i am also using a different internet / computer than 3 years ago. I would request the User check thing, but can that be requeste by the person being checked?BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A check user isn't going to help much as (I think) it has to relate to a suspect user. If you don't want to I would just carry on editing. As far as I can see, while I disagree with you on several issues, you have behaved properly. New editors with obvious knowledge and experience editing on controversial topics will always, and rightly so, arouse suspicion. You went there, hence the suspicion. In your shoes now I would wait it out. --Snowded TALK 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou snowded, i can understand how people thought i might be one of those people such as nimbley when i first started posting, but i hope others who formed certain opinions of me dont just hold onto their original thoughts of me.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's an idea, ask for a CU on Spainton to see if he's Nimbley6. That should help clear your User-name. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you go through the edit history of the capital punishment page, which isn't too long, you should come across your old name. I'm sure it will jump out at you when you come across it. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ive found it. Talk:Capital_punishment/Archive_4#Removal_of_important_information_due_to_bias This was me and after reading that i remembered a name i registered with around that time. It was user:live I only made one post with that account on a talk page and it was 2 years not 3 years ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There, everything is Okie Dokie. Aren't ya happpy I suggested checking that article's history? Giggle giggle, just kidding Titch. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago I requested a checkuser on a group of Nimbley6 SSPs; sorry, BritishWatcher, I didn't include you in the request - I don't believe you're a Nimbley6 sock! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kibblesworth

I liked his/her constituent country edits; too bad he/she didn't have a consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i understand why people do it though. When i first looked and just saw the word country i was pretty stunned it had been changed and wanted to change it back too :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I aplogise for the changes, i didn't realise their was an established consensus :S, it's only the definitions that were used in poltics at the class I am taking defined England as a constituent country, due to it, as I'm sure you know, being united with Scotland, Wales and NI. I was under the impression that the correct term was either Home Nation or Constituent country as the Country itself is the UK, which has a one monarch, one overrulling Parliament and one international representative, as well as other factors that make it a country. I thought that the states of England and Scotland had ceased to exist following the Act of Union. Sorry again :Skibblesworth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

List of countries articles

Hiya BW. Ya see why I've left those articles? They continue to list 'England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland'. IMHO, they've a devolutionist bend. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I reckon the histories of the UK & Canada, has something to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At one time, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland (as part of an independant Ireland), were independant. Quebec however, was never independant, they went from a British colony to a Canadian province. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GD, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland don't have a devolutionist bent, they already have devolution. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(res to BW) In his French version 'address to the nation', PM Harper was careful to avoid the word seperatist. He used the word sovereignist. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(res to TT) I know they've got devolved parliaments. It's, the fact that England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland continue to be kept on all those country lists; that bugs me. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

In the old days, that article actually had nation, in its opening sentence. Anyways, you're correct, the current opening is pathetic (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just be careful, around that article. I hope Jza84 is caution, too. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats BW. You've managed in 'bout a week, what I couldn't after 'bout a year (getting Scotland in sync with England, Wales & Northern Ireland articles). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Was a team effort and commonsense prevailed, although still have to see if anyone objects to the change made and reverts it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC) :)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Hi there. I added the Soviet Union, per your points. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Puns

I strongly feel that we should remove reference to the Star Wars film entirely, lest the presence of original research (for that is what it is, both the claim that it is a "pun" and that it is taken from the movie) ruin the FA nomination. This [1] and this [2] mention the phrase but do not link it to the Star Wars film. What do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland edits

There is only one way to deal with that sort of extreme sectarian comment (see also the comment on the edit itself with the old "six counties" words). I've done that and your responses went with it. I'd suggest (and its only a suggestion) that you let one of us who is clearly not a unionist deal with this sort of extremism otherwise wars can escalate. Rest assured that someone will deal with it. Of course you should also be aware of the 1RR rule on Northern Ireland at the moment --Snowded TALK 11:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks snowded, will do in future. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire FA Review

Hi BritishWatcher. In your "support" statement you said that there are still some problems with the article. Would you be able to elaborate so they can be addressed, or if they have now been dealt with, ~~strike out~~ that statement? Thanks! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All those countries lists

Hiya BW. Just curious, are England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland being gradually excluded from all thos countries lists? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in helping with Iraq?

I've been trying to systematically add content to address (politically charged) complaints, link out to other Iraq articles, provide international context, and add citations. I know you've previously critiqued some statements in the article, and the article could use another pair of critical eyes. Once I've addressed all of the glaring content deficiencies, the next task will be moving extraneous content to related pages such as History of Iraq, Iraq-United States relations, Iraq disarmament crisis, Iraq war, summarizing the condensed residual, and then a final stylistic rewrite before nominating it as a "Good Article." Got any time to help me out in this endeavor? Bagsc (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem with flags?

I don't see why you object to me adding flags - but there again, judging form you user page, maybe I do! Political opinions should not influence editing 86.150.206.234 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have flags for those places that have flags, and I'd be happy to add for other places as well. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that other articles with 'lists by country' already have flags added in the way I tried on this article. I don't really understand why anyone would object when it is adding to the article! Anyway, thanks for the advice. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice you are not editing the main article contents

Hi British Watcher. I notice that you are not editing the contents of the main article, except to raise the POV warning at the top. For the sake of Wikipedia, it may be better to edit the contents of the article to improve it rather than just contributing to the talk page. No one understands the issues you feel the article has than yourself. WP:BOLD --John Bahrain (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Equal status

Hi there. I thought I would ask you this directly rather than post it on the discussion: If we added, for example "Scotland (part of United Kingdom)" as an entry on a list, why should that give Scotland equal status to a sovereign country? It seems to me that we should seek to include as much detail as possible, but to avoid confusion, included appropriate phrases to clarify.

Why not have "Kosovo (disputed status)", "Abkazia ((disputed status)" "The European Union (supra-national body)", "Greenland (part of Kingdom of Denmark)" etc as a way of making clear areas that have undisputed sovereignty, and areas over which there is dispute?

In terms of lists of countries, entities that are "part of.." need not receive a ranking.

A way forward? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

I've made a compromise to solve our differences. Please don't revert it. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know...

User:Yorkshirian's commons account implies that you and I are one and the same. See here. It's not a problem - he's the most distruptive sock puppetteer even (so quite hypocritical), but thought it courteous to point out that he thinks this is the case. Of course, you and I know it's nonsense.

I suspect then that you've found yourself in conflict with one of his socks somewhere. --Jza84 | Talk 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, no clue when i clashed with him and i dont recognize any of the names on his sockpuppets list. Im upset he didnt come here and wish me a happy new year as well :)

Re: UN Security Council presndency

could you please epxlain what was wrong with my ediTt? All of the sources that ia dded indicated that Jean-Maurice Ripart is the President of the securit y council. Mr Ripert is the haead of the French delegation and when he is on the news he is referred to as the SC president. What's the conflict here?? Smith Jones (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

potential sources

Smith Jones (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

British people

It's actually against wikipedia's content policies to synchronise sources like that. Whether you agree or not is pretty much neither here nor there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My deletion

I just came here to assure you that I really am not trying to antagonize or censor you, although I would understand if you felt that way. I decided to delete half of another post of yours, along with the ensuing answers by two other editors. Please don't take it personal; I really have to make it clear that this will not be the repetition of the same old same old discussions that have worn on everybody's patience. I explained more about this at WT:IECOLL#Good night. — Sebastian 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I just saw that your comments were in the middle of the section I just deleted on Talk:Barack Obama and I wanted to say sorry that your comments got deleted along with the section. With IP editors like that, don't even comment and feed the troll, but instead just delete it before it gets more out of hand. If they persist on ranting, defaming, spamming, etc, then just report them to AN/I and they'll just get themselves blocked from editing. Brothejr (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Can I suggest the compromise of putting Scotland and Great Britain under his country? Scotland is a nation, Great Britain is an island, the United Kingdom is a multi-national state. Obviously is a point over which we strongly disagree but in my opinion my changing the nationality to Scottish is fact and just because somebody changes it to British, that is still only an opinion, not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.167.245 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

intransigence

Copy of message to User:Bretonbanquet:

Apologies for being so short at Talk:Scotland. My view of your argument was that, firstly, you claimed that confusion could be caused from country being a fixed term (your statement "The home nations are collectively unique in their status in that respect, being described as countries but not being independent - which easily causes confusion in people not familiar with the make-up of the UK."), then, after I made an attempt to show that the term country was not unique and not a fixed term, your second argument was that it could led to confusion as it was such a lose term (your statement " "Country", as Czar Brodie points out, covers a lot of different things, and as such is open to confusion"), was my reasoning behind my thinking the conversation was becoming intransigent. I did note your compromise, but I noted that User:BritishWatcher was now becoming more entrenched, with his statement "...should remain in the opening sentence which is why I strongly oppose any change to it". Under these circumstances I judged it judicious to back away. I did enjoy the talk we had, and look forward to probable future jousting with yourself and User:BritishWatcher some time in the future. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxing

Hello there BritishWatcher,

I've been putting together some ideas at User:Jza84/Sandbox4. Could you take a look and give me some pointers? If you have ideas and (even better) sources, please feel free to share with me. Hope you can help, --Jza84 | Talk 14:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Retirement postpond

OK, ya'll convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for consensus

There is no need for consensus. The fact is it's not true, so I will be changing it back. Why don't you take it to talk? Jack forbes (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this is about Scotland: Personally, I prefer deletion of Brown from all 4 UK countries articles Infoboxes. However, until England creates its own administrative apparatus, they'll be resistance to the deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Sorry. I added another option which might have messed up your vote. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hiya BW. I recommend ya delete the s-word, from your response to Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice goodday however i do believe it is a stupid move, The British isles is a location just like the continent of Europe. An attempt to have an article renamed or Britain removed from it just because we dont like something is just crazy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the article to remain at its current title. However, Britain and Ireland is an acceptable alternative. Anyways, here's to a solution. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We can not go around redrawing and renaming maps just because some people have a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Politics & Geography tend to be intertwined, as we all know. PS: See ya tomorrow, my 2-hours have expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cya Goodday, how u finding the 2 hour limit anyway? Glad u didnt retire full time? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher. Don't get too carried away by my comments. I was simply pointing out that Sarah777 is quite happy to force her Irish agenda down everybody's throats and trample over other nations in the process. The comments about the SNP administration were refuting her comments about Scotland's "failed independence referendum". If it is ever held, it probably will fail, but it's not up to her to decide the result. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And didn't she bite! I had a suspicion she would. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tut tut. That wasn't very nice, trying to get Sarah to bite. Jack forbes (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it was getting late, and it's been a long day and it's work in the morning..... Skinsmoke (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire map

Hey BritishWatcher,

In reference to your reversion of the edit of the text below the map at the top of the British Empire article, you stated in the edit summary that you did not see how the previous text (which you have restored) is misleading. The text in questions reads:

"The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire."

As explained in a previous edit summary, this is incorrect as not all of the countries colored in pink on the map were actually part of the British Empire. Specific mention was made of Egypt, which though de facto independent from 1805 to 1882 was officially part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914. When British forces first occupied the country in 1882, the British Government explicitly recognized and undertook to protect the legal status within Egypt of the Ottoman Sultan and the Egyptian Khedive. Even when the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty was terminated in 1914, Egypt was declared a British Protectorate, not colony or dominion. Note that the British monarch was never said to reign over the country, and that the British Parliament's writ never extended to the country. Though British forces occupied the country, and though the British High-Commissioner in practice had greater power than the actual Egyptian Government, including the Khedive (and later the Egyptian Sultan from 1914 onwards), Egypt was never formally annexed to become part of the British Empire. Indeed, the status of protectorate lasted for less than 10 years before Egyptian independence was recognized.

For this reason, the text was changed to:

"The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire, or otherwise occupied and governed by British forces."

Though the status of Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq (also colored pink on the map) is not identical, I believe that the status of League of Nations Mandate which applied to each country necessarily precluded them being part of the Empire. Once again, they were occupied and ruled by British forces, but never annexed to become part of the Empire.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you, and I would be interested to know what lanaguage you could suggest to improve the accuracy of the text in question. I will refrain from further editing in this instance pending your reply.

Thanks 81.143.30.137 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Breach of WP:3RR on British Isles

Be careful you don't fall foul of WP:3RR (not sure if you're aware of the policy, but you *can* be sure that every other editor on British Isles is). A trigger-happy admin might block you - although it would be much more preferable to agree the changes on the Talk page first. --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon

I'm a strong believer in WP:BRD, so, rather than edit war over the issue, I'd like to invite your comments at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon#Handling of Swine 'flu outbreaks.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and BOT's

The legislation relating to the British Overseas Territories seems to define the territories without the ambiguity you imply and without the term British Isles. As things stand the clear implication is that the reference uses the term British Isles, which it does not. If the synthesis is unintended then another formula of words is required or another reference. RashersTierney (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

BI

Make your mind up. Do you want that edit or not? Anyway - blocked again eh! and with the bad version as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.65.106 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with that whole paragraph, including the bit you removed. There is no consensus right now to make the change, so it should of been undone i just didnt like high king simply claiming it as vandalism and warning someone for making a perfectly valid edit. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irelands

Republic of Ireland to Ireland (republic) - to appease one group. Then, we leave Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) as is - to appease the other group. It has possibilities. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Id be fine with that, it is a reasonable compromise that most would be happy with i think. Although i do agree with Mooretwin that an agreement also includes the rights on certain articles to say Republic of Ireland in the text where confusion is possible like on matters with the UK and the other side accepting just Ireland pipelinked to the country article is fine in all other cases just to help prevent future conflicts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could pipe-link British Isles as Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, damn dont give people such ideas GoodDay :|. The trouble is Britain and Ireland doesnt actually equal the same area that the British Isles does. Britain is one Ireland and Ireland is another, the British Isles includes many smaller islands which are simply ignored with the definition people claim is becoming more widely used. Sadly some people on the British Isles article just refuse to accept that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the Ireland naming dispute & the British Isles naming dispute as inter-twined. Both alleged sides (British & Irish), should try giving up something, to gain something in return. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont, i see the two things in a very different way although i notice alot of the people involved are the same. On the Ireland naming dispute, i totally understand why people have a problem with it being at Republic of Ireland and it does lead to confusion with it being in the title but that is a problem with wikipedia. The British Isles thing is totally different, i understand why some Irish people hate the term "British Isles" just as many Brits would hate being called Europeans but that is not because of a wikipedia policy or decision. People may not like the unfair real world, but we cant change history or reality.

Anyway midnight here now.. Night Goodday, peace =) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be a mad man, but I see a link. PS: See ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay. I think your mad. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite possible. I've been juggling these British & Irish disputes (inside my mind), for years. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey BW, here's more (to "enjoy")! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of this...

[3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comments such as this are not acceptable. It could constitute a personal attack against another editor. If you continue to make such comments, in jest or otherwise, I will have no option but to give you a temporary block for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Military History of Britain

I have complained to the admin who made this most inappropriate move. Are you aware of any redress there might be? Could the situation regarding the external canvassing (almost certainly carried out by one of the editors who was contributing to the discussion - I have a good idea which one) be reported somewhere? LevenBoy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool

There's really no need for you to give gratuitous offence in your comments - I'm surprised at you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressions

British Watcher. Why do you give the impression that you are a BNP supporting racist who hates the Irish and anything to do with the break up of the "British Empire". Over to you. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made my feelings clear on wikipedia on several occasions about the BNP, i hate that party and most of the things it stands for. They certainly do not represent British values and the vast majority of British people would never vote for them, myself included. If the BNP ever came to power, im moving to Scotland and voting SNP =).

Im not a racist and i dont hate the Irish. On Northern Ireland i am happy for the people there to decide their future. If the majority clearly wants a united Ireland then that must happen and i respect their choice, however right now that is not a majority held view. The majority wish to remain British citizens and there for those who seek to impose their view of a united Ireland (in the past with terrorism) must be stopped and those who seek to push one view of history need correcting.

On the British Empire, its over i have no problem accepting that and infact its a good thing because i also believe in democracy. The Empire helped build that democracy which now exists in many places around the world so we should take great pride in the British Empire , which is todays featured article funnily enough. :)BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The British Empire helped to build democracy? Jeez, read your history will you! Am I talking to an educated person here or someone who has been brought up in the English education system? 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well India appears to be a more democractic country than China im sure British rule in India had nothing at all to do with that. How about Hong Kong because of its time as a British territory, it is now one part of China which has a limited amount of democracy and far superior human rights / free press compared to the mainland. The British Empire did many bad things, but you can not ignore the fact it helped spread technology, a legal system, a language (which u are using now), trade, science and yes democracy. Australia and Canada didnt fight to break away from the UK to become democracies, they were granted more and more autonomy as the Empire evolved over time. As for the English education system, yes sadly i am a victim of that. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls...

...don't feed them! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being able to respond to him is more annoying than his comment lol. Congrats on the BE getting on the front page today by the way. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was very surprised by that, as I thought "today" featured articles had to be nominated and go through a points system. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So it wasnt chosen today for a specific reason then? was trying to think if anything happened on the 13th of June. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How sad is it that the both of you still pine for the British Empire. Honestly, you should both get a life, there are more important things in life. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be sleeping now if u hadnt left a message on my talkpage, do you not have better things to do as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now? Nah, not really. I'm just trolling according to TRHOPF. Actually, my question was quite sincere. You do come across that way whether you do think like that or not. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. G'nigth Mary-Ellen.RashersTierney (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

G'nighth John boy. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Im proud to be British, but that doesnt mean i would support the BNP. They would destroy this country if they ever came to power but thankfully the British people have more sense and will never send such people to the British parliament (even with the awful education system in England). If i come across as hating Irish people you have misunderstood me, i dont hate a group of people just because of their nationality, i dont even hate some of the editors on wikipedia who push their agenda like trying to wipe the British Isles off the map, i just hate that agenda. As for the Empire, people take pride in their history im sure you do too where ever you are from. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a tosser. Go back to bed. RashersTierney (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell your friend not to call me a tosser. Oh, and by the way, it's she, not he. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wonderful, anyway i answered ur questions so now i think its time we all get to bed. night BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And good night to you. I would though like you to remove the insulting language used against me just as you removed my inappropriate response. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BW - some of the language here sounds like Wikipiere back again, may be a sock. --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh nooooo, Nooooooooo!!. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What i

actually mean is that an article should start with a definition. Where is it?Phanar (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont quite understand what you mean by "where is it"? it was an empire, the intro makes clear it was governed by England and later the United Kingdom. Most were granted independence after WW2, several places remain as overseas British territories. lets take this to talk thougn, dont just add a section to the article (especially when its on the front page) to put none. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you.

Hi BritishWatcher. I appreciate your measured comments. Best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, ive seen you make alot of good edits to different Brtish politicians articles recently, i have alot of them on my watchlist =). night BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

"Run by a dictator" is not terribly WP:CIVIL. Could you hold it back a bit, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BW. Clearly Domer has decided this is the way he can achieve the outcome he wants, despite the fact he is obviously in a tiny minority. The way I see it, if Domer wishes to spend to time stage-managing his own outcome then leave him to his own devices. The only sanctioned resolution is going to come from the STV process that is being developed, not this sideshow. Lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction. Rockpocket 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i really take offense to the kind of censorship taking places on those subpages. Domer has no right to impose his will in the way he is doing, its for one of the elected moderators to do or not at all. Unless he wants to place it on his talk page, where ofcourse he can do what he likes. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But you obviously don't take offence with incivility. BigDunc^Talk 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was very civil the first time i raised concerns about this matter days ago. However nothing seems to of been resolved and reasonable comments are being removed from a wikiproject subpage by someone not elected or given the authority to act in the way he is by removin any comment he dislikes without justification. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I find his process arrogantly overbearing towards others too (indeed, I apparently "abused" my tools in reverting his attempts to alter the meaning of my own comments!) but there are many ways to skin a cat. If there is no-one for him to impose his will on, then there will not be much harm done. Keeping our eye on the goal is more important than getting sucked into further needless drama. Rockpocket 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not condoning the actions of Domer, I make no judgement on them, and as for RP you know you abused your tools you edit warred on on a page with PP on it and when pulled on it you resorted to personal attacks that Sarek had to pull you on so don't come the whole Mr Innocent. BigDunc^Talk 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So Domer wishes he can speak for me and you wish to think for me? No. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't presume to dictate to me what "I know". Rockpocket 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish issues

Hello Britishwatcher- just a message here. It appeaars that our political beliefs and ideas are at opposite ends of the spectrum and we overlap in interests. All too often this leads to antagonism and aggression, but let's look at it the other way, differing viewpoints can be productive too. Even if we might get hot under the collar at times, I hope you appreciate that I mean no malice to you or your work and hope the same of you. We may be "enemies", :), in a political sense, but we can still show respect for each other too. As for recent issues, I am still very new to Wikipedia and have probably made the same mistakes that everyone makes when they first try to contribute so give us a hand now and again. You come over too abrasive with people at times, if I may say so- and that leads to antagonism and all the crap we can find all over every blogg post on internet. Anyway, happy editing. Brythonek (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I often use sarcasm in my comments and it occasionally comes across as a serious comment- Hmm... point taken, I know what you mean. Written text is not the best way to convey the subtleties of spoken dialogue unless we write everything as "if it were a play", he said smiling :)

Your second point does intrigue me however. However the issue of Cornish independence is a different matter, i view it as an attack on England and the United Kingdom. 100,000s of men have died fighting for this country, i find it very difficult to show any respect to someone who seeks to do damage to this country from within let alone destroy it all together.

Why do you view it as an attack on England and the United Kingdom?
England and the United Kingdom, let's say Great Britian for argument's sake, are not synonyms. My own forefathers were all proud Cornishmen who fought in both World Wars for their respective Kings.
Cornish nationalism is not per se anti-English, less so anti-British. Ignorami and bigots can be found everywhere I admit but that is not the raison d'etre of the Cornish movement. My own view, which I believe to be fairly moderate is that I am quite happy for Cornwall to be part of Great Britain, as Wales, Scotland and arguably the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands- just not part of England as I find that unfair in it negates my own history, language and culture. I am no more anti-British than a proud Welshman, Scotsman, Manxman or Channel Islander-none of whom would be described as English. Even Northern Irish loyalists, who are proudly British, do not consider themselves English do they?
As for damaging this country and destroying it from within! Don't you think that is bit over the top? We are talking about Civic Nationalism in Cornwall here not the Irish Republican Army- whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, and one which I don't want to get into here! I know there were a few nutter who had a go at Jamie Oliver and Rick Stein a while back, but I think even Dick Cole of Mebyon Kernow would agree me with on that one!

I know this is not a blog, delete it if you like, but I am curious as to the terminology you use.Brythonek (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to their own point of view, i dont support bringing back hanging or something like that for anyone that disagrees with the state, free choice is important but we should not pretend seeking independence is anything but an attack on the state, and i take that threat seriously.

If Cornwall broke away from England, then is there not justification for Wessex to do the same? There are strong local identities all across England. Many people in Newcastle view themselves as Geordies, now do they have a right to suddenly decide they want to become an independent state? If a campaign started to encourage people to write Geordie as what they identitfy themselves as in the next census, would we have to upgrade the Geordie article to a "Geordie people" page like English, Welsh, Scottish etc??? Where do we draw the line between what is and isnt acceptable in the global attack on sovereign states status because of Self-determination?

I can accept that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are nations and countries, im sorry but whilst i can respect people from Cornwall considering themselves as Cornish like an American from Texas thinks of himself as a Texan.. the people of Cornwall are English and part of England and i view any method to take away land from England as an attack on England.

Although i should point out after going on about the English, i dont really identify much with being English myself either. I always think of myself as British and thats what i care about the most. Now the Scottish national party seeks independence from the UK, that would destroy the United Kingdom, and there for would destroy my country. Im a British citizen, if the SNP get their way i will no longer be one. Whilst the SNP may not use violence, i do infact view them as the greatest threat to this United Kingdom today and i think its about time the government took the matter more seriously.

You support Welsh independence and i presume Scottish independence too, i think thats rather counter productive to your own goals if im honest. If the United Kingdom breaks up, England will swing to the right and after facing such a humiliation of seeing the UK split up its leadership will ensure that separatism is crushed within England itself. Devolution would be party to blame for the nightmare scenario, so you could kiss goodbye to Westminster transfering any more powers to any part of England.

I honestly think all of you separatists underestimate just how radical a policy independence is and what impact it would have on millions of people and every part of our United Kingdom. I accept that if the UK breaks up life will go on, but its a pretty depressing future as far as im concerned if that did happen. If you have 10 minutes Brythonek, take a look at this video on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os4p8MfAqQY . The handover of hong kong to china, a good thing but still very sad after 100 years of shared history, its so clearly British and not just "English" as some like to claim, look at all the different bits of Scottish culture / people in that video. The raw emotion there is so clear for all to see, and yet that is just one small colony the otherside of the world.

Imagine such ceremonies to mark the end of the United Kingdom. As the union flag, is lowered from the Palace of Westminster and Edinburgh castle for the very last time, to some people that will be something they have dreamed of for many years, for millions of others its going to be painful very painful which is why i view attempts to make that happen as an attack on my country and a threat. Anything and everything within the law and without violence must be done to prevent that day ever coming. Anyway sorry for the long reply hope i explained the reason why i feel the way i do about those matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about seeing yourself more as European? The effect of accumulating culturally cohesive groups into larger nation states has produced more wars, suffering and imperial aggression that I care to think about. Imagine a Germany that stayed as Prussia, Bavaria etc. THe Catalans and Basques as themselves rather than split between France and Spain. Think of a Europe which is a union of small nations with a common defence and economic policy. The history of the world would have been and good be a better place on that basis? I do understand the patriotism, but I think its worth looking at other options without seeing them as that much a threat. --Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think of myself as European and as Europeans we have a huge amount to be proud of, im a strong supporter of the EU which alot of people are surprised about and disagree with me on. I get called a traitor and all sorts of names because they see me as backing something that takes away our national sovereignty but i see membership of such a group as strenghtening the UKs economic and political position, something ofcourse the union between England and Scotland was in its day and continues to be in my opinion.

But i think of myself as British first and i wouldnt support the EU at the expense of British interests. Id like a united Europe, but id want one with our view of the world and not others. I trust Scotland and Wales and feel closer to them than any other European country, now i know many think England only acts in its own interest but do people really think that Germany or France are going to look out for our own interests the same way the United Kingdom can as a major european and world power. Whilst i support the EU and feel European, we have far more in common with the English speaking world.. the USA, Canada, Australia and i would trust those countries more over European ones any day of the week.

Lets say Scotland joined the euro, it would make up about 1% of the eurozone at the moment it makes up about 10% of the United Kingdoms economy so clearly Scotlands interests are going to be less important to the eurozone. At the moment the UK has its own seat on the UN security council, this is something that many countries would love to have and yet breaking up our United Kingdom would put that at risk. Whilst oil makes Scottish independence far more debatable on the economics, i see a break up of the UK as bad for every part of the UK including Scotland not in any of our interests. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It does seem like we have some issues here, and I don't mean that in any kind of patronising way. Snowdad does make some very good points too. I think you tend to look at the most dire possible outcome of everything and I don't see how you can feasibly compare the handover of Hong Kong with the self-determination of the "Celtic" nations.

If Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, etc were fully independent they would still be part of the EU. There would be free movement of workers, and no barriers as such, no discrimination and no limitaations on property, trade and commerce, again, within the framework of the EU. However, I do not think that Irish style "home rule", i.e. full independence is not on the cards for Cornwall at least. I don't think it would work, not for Conrwall, not for Wales and not for Scotland because economically speaking we are far too connected. I think, that self-governing nations within Great Britain, and that includes England is the best way to go- again within the framework of the EU. You have to accept the fact that multi-national nations don't work. They never have done and they never will...There is always a "them and us" mentality and there is always the factor, perceived or real that one lot lords it over the other lot. People don't like being governed by those perceived to be "foreign". Just look at the track records of Spain, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Yugoslavia, most countries in Africa and so an so on.

The problem with the United Kingdom and UK-British identity is that whilst it may have worked in the heyday of the British Empire, it is obsolete now, it doesn't work. It's time to move on. This is no disrespect for those who fell at Verdun or Normandy. It's just the forces of history kicking in. Europe is now the commanding force, whether we like it or not, and we are going to see, I am sure, a Europe of the peoples emerge with time. Would it not be better to have a United Europe with all her peoples happy and responsible for themselves than a Europe full of ethnic conflict and grudges? Brythonek (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a break up of the United Kingdom itself united for 300 years and in the case of England and Wales about 800 years would be far worse than the handing over of Hong Kong to China. Hong Kong was never considered part of the same country, where as the UK is a country even if some people dont like it being one and we are so are clearly much closer together.

The European Union and the end of the British Empire are two major points yes. With one hand the end of Empire has taken away something that has united us in being British. (If America lost its status as a world super power i think theyd take a major knock to their pride and identity too) at the same time as we have now got a peaceful Europe where we see small nations being full members with equal status (although not truely equal) to the major European powers. Also ofcourse the rise in freedoms here has allowed people to voice their own opinions on these things and to top it off we have created national parliaments / assemblies which strenghten Welsh / Scottish identity. Now all of these things are not bad, but its understandable why there is such a "British" identity crisis right now. It still just comes down to your own point of view. You can view yourself as just Cornish as someone can view themselves as just Scottish but that is only because of external influences, not enough has been done to promote British identity to counter all of the above problems mentioned.

Id be happy just being a citizen of planet earth living in peace with everyone. Id be happy being just a European citizen living in peace with the rest of Europe but we do not live in a perfect world. Everything seems so wonderful now, but things can change as they have so radically over the past few decades and it isnt always positive change. A year ago i would never of thought Russia would invade Georgia and occupy large parts of its country for months. I support NATO, but i dont see Germany and France doing all they could to help our soldiers in Afghanistan. Most Europeans sit back and do nothing so it falls on America and Britain to play a major role in these things. Iran poses a great threat to the west, a couple of years ago they kidnapped some British troops, a hostile act. Yet the European Union is still Irans biggest trading partner and certain European countries refuse to impose tough sanctions to bring Iran back in line on its nuclear program.

You guys may be prepared to sumbit our future to Brussels, but i still see the need for us to help shape Europe and an independent England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall just doesnt have the strength or status to bring about the change we want. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Before the EU it wasn't viable for either Wales or Scotland to seek independence, post EU it becomes viable. I'm happier submitting to Brussels than to London. Legacy obligations of the UN seat actually may do the UK more harm than good. It places obligations on us in respect of military expenditure which we might be better off without. If you look at social attitudes Wales and Scotland are closer to parts of Scandinavia than they are to the UK (look at expenditure on Health and Education post devolution). The world be a lot better place with smaller nations, and without any harking back to an Imperial past whose value is disputable. I think it would be easier for the current UK nations to influence Europe if they weren't acting as a weak back up to the US. If you look at the record of European nations on UN PKO then its at least as good as the UK, and they also don't "game" UN resolutions. All of that aside (and I realise all of this is nothing to do with the WIkipedai) it's good to hear your "voice" BW. I disagree with what you say, but your position is honestly put --Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, was busy all day yesterday. The EU certainly makes it easier to argue for independence although it is also one of the SNPs weaknesses. I come across plenty of SNP supporters who hate the UK but equally hate the EU as well and whilst Scotland is more pro European than England, theres plenty of people there who would strongly oppose joining the Euro, but in reality joining the Euro is the only way forward for an independent Scotland. If the SNP said they want their own Scottish currency it would weaken their case so they support the euro but it wont be hard to play on peoples fears about surrendering huge amounts of an independent Scotlands sovereignty straight to Brussels. Im pro European but i strongly oppose the UK joining the euro, that is simply a step too far. Control of monetary policy is a vital part of national sovereignty that I dont want given away. You mention the benefits of "smaller nations", and yet having one huge single currency hurts those smallest nations the most because they are overlooked. The European Central Bank cares far more about the German / French economies than it does Irelands.

On the United Nations it is costly to keep that seat however it is worth every penny. To have a seat at the top table in the UN is a great honour and allows us and France to remain major world powers despite a huge decline in our influence and strength in recent decades. The ability to use our VETO to defend Britains national interests is something we must never surrender and if thats at the expense of a few extra teachers here, so be it. Smaller nations may contribute to peace keeping missions but it is the United Nations Security Council that has all the power, and we really would be foolish to give up that seat.

On Scandinavian countries, sure they have greater health / education spending than here in the UK but its not the only thing that makes them different. A lot of our problems stem from family values, a bit of extra spending doesnt radically change the culture of Scotland or the UK. There is also alot of differences, for example Norway, Sweden and Denmark all have conscription (or did until recently as far as i know) yet that is something the UK stopped decades ago. Plenty of people say that national service is what the awful youth of today need, if they are right or wrong is debatable but it does impact on culture.

On the USA, alot of people do see us as blindly following them too much and in certain cases thats true, but this is not just done to make them happy. Its in Britains national interest to have a strong and close relationship with the USA, in many ways they are carrying on the job we started. They help spread the English language and whilst i have strong disagreements with their internal policies, international ones are usually pretty good. Finally on wed be stronger as separate nations when trying to influence the EU, i just can not see how that is possible. As the UK we are at the top table of the EU with France and Germany, Destroy the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland certainly wont be at that top table and England would have to sit next to Italy after being seriously weakened. Anyway thanks for the comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is turning into a very interesting discussion as it does raise a lot of issues about what people perceive as their identity. Just to set the record straight I would classify my identity as Cornish, British and European. I have English, Welsh, Scots and Irish blood too- as do most people in Britain along with a good measure of Breton too! But my identity is not only down to my genes, I don't like the genetic argument as it always leads to some form of racism- I have witnessed this in North Wales and Scotland unfortunately. I was also at an event in Cornwall when the English were "booed" by some during the ceremony welcoming people to the event- it didn't impress me! It's not the right way to go, and you can hardly complain about being treated badly and then go around treating people badly yourselves, can you?

What I also gleen from this is the ambiguity about Britishness- what exactly does it mean to be British. It does bring to mind Jugoslavia. The Serbian-Montenegrans desperately held onto the name Jugoslavia when the Slovenes, Bosnians and Croats had all gone their separate ways. Of course, I don't think it will, and I certainly pray it doesn't, ever come to a Jugoslavia situation in Britain. Indirectly, however you have hit a nail on the head here with the problems of the Cornish movement. Very often it is not clear to many people in Cornwall who wants what and what it is all about. Comapare this to the embarassing farce of a debacle about the spelling of the Cornish language- something which left many would-be Cornish learners behind and, in my opinion, did great damage to the revival. Back to the point, we have:

Full independence of Cornwall, not part of any UK or London based government whatsoever, the Irish model if you like. Personally, as romantically attractive as it may seem, I do not think this would be workable or feasible and the arguments about San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein etc that some propose in support are, to my mind, unworkable and false comparisons.
Autonomous Cornwall within a British State of some sort- This is where I stand. For this I am a fringe looney to the English and a fence-sitter to some sections of the Cornish movement! Sigh, no place for the reasonable man in this world! Eh? :)
Regional Autonomy for Cornwall based on what is now the situation in Wales, Scotland and to a degree in Northern Ireland- although the N.Irish issue is very complex and not necessarily comparable. This would be a step in the right direction however I fear it would only ever be a halfway point that would end up pleasing no one.

Oh well, I think that's all there is to say for tonight, what I would say to you Britishwatcher, I know that there are some real anti-English "Celts" out there who use Celtic nationalism as a form of excuse to hate all things English, confusing the people with the actions of governments and kings of the psst, but I don't think you should necessarily see all forms of Celtic "determinism" if that is the right word as implicit attacks on the United Kingdom, England or Britishness. Brythonek (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This question of "What is Britishness" really annoys me and the fact the government has been trying to ask it simply undermines it. This mostly comes down to stereotypes, you could ask an American what it means to be American, and they would say things that could apply to every western country in the world like Freedom, Democracy etc. As if the American Dream isnt something shared by people in all countries we just dont have a fancy name for it, or that theres nobody in France that cares about the French Constitution the way some Americans do their own? Many Americans feel very strongly about their right to own guns, thats certainly an image of an average Texan but plenty of Americans dont share that love for guns.

Whats Scottish culture? Do all Scottish men wear kilts, play bagpipes and speak Scottish Gaelic? These are some things we think of when thinking about Scottish culture, but Gordon Brown is Scottish just because he doesnt do those things (as far as im aware) doesnt make him any less Scottish than Alex Salmond.

In a way British identity is weakened by its own success. The fact many countries and large parts of the world now speak English takes away the special bond formed by our shared language within Britain. The fact we share our monarch with other countries Canada and Australia takes away the idea she is a British Queen, and yet monarchy was something that united our nations (first under a Scottish monarch who took the throne of England i might add). What about sports, Britain invented many of the popular sports in the world today, when the USA beat Spain last night in a shock Football result, do we view them as taking part in "British culture" as Britain invented football? ofcourse not. It seems people can only claim ownership of culture if its success is limited. We use things like Google and Wikipedia, we dont view these things as American yet if i see bagpipes played somewhere in the world, i automatically think of Scotland.

The difference between English and British culture because England forms the overwhelming majority of the British population is not an easy distinction to make. Cricket is one of the only things i can think of thats "English not British". Ive seen someone say before the problem is not what is British identity, but the fact the English are missing their own and there is some truth to that i think. But take that video of the handover of Hong Kong, that is quite clearly British. What about Doctor Who? Until recently it had a Scottish Doctor, it was filmed in Wales it cant be described as an English show, its a British one.

Anyway i dont view celtic culture as a threat, although i do think that as Wales and Scotland continue to strenghten their celtic culture it is done along side strenghtening British identity and unity to ensure the union goes on. I dont view the culture as an attack on Britain.. only independence which seeks to divide and destroy. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet you show such hostility towards Cornish articles on Wikipedia, even when Cornwall is the least independence-minded of all the "Celtic nations"! Hasn't it dawned on you yet that the Cornish identity, culture and language is part of centuries of British identity, culture and heritage?

And before you go claiming that it's a "modern phenomenon", let me quote to you Henry Jenner, written in 1904, 105 years ago:

"But every Cornishman knows well enough, proud as he may by of belonging to the British Empire, that he is no more an Englishman than a Caithness man is, that he has as much right to a separate local patriotism to his little Motherland, which rightly understood is no bar, but rather an advantage to the greater British patriotism, as has a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Welshman, or even a Colonial; and that he is as much a Celt and as little of an “Anglo-Saxon” as any Gael, Cymro, Manxman, or Breton."--Joowwww (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Norman Stronge murder

You may be interested in ths! [4] --De Unionist (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

James I of England

I've tweaked the title of the Infobox & reverted the opening content, both to James VI & I. Considering the name of the article, it's a fair compromise & I'm sure we'll have Tharky's support. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Still doesnt seem like a reasonable compromise to me. The wikipedia naming policy applied to that article really bothers me. Should be James VI of Scotland not England. Ive also just noticed that article doesnt even point out that it was James who issued the royal decree that created the union flag, seems like an important part of his legacy to me. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It didn't help matters, when James packed his things and moved to London. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

But hes always "of Scotland" even if he was only ever the King of England. James I, King of England i could understand but i hate this "Of England". It makes people think hes from England, or atleast thats how i read it. But ive given up even hoping that they will fix their crazy naming policies here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless & until the naming convention for 'monarchial bio articles' are changed, little can be done. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan

~~I think you should withdraw your accusation that he was canvassing.~~ -- Evertype·✆ 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt me BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. It was Tfz. -- Evertype·✆ 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem, u had me worried for a second i had to go back and double check what i said :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said DrKiernan was canvassing, it was a reminder that it might appear so, as Kitty has put out his stall on this before. This[5] is much much more frightful and mean-spirited, chiefly involved DrKiernan, Bastun and Everytype, and is against the "essence" of a 'collaboration page'. Tfz 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

He withdrew from the Project because he believed you had accused him of canvassing here. If you did not, and he was mistaken, it would be kind of you to tell him so on his Talk page. Will you do that, please, Tfz? -- Evertype·✆ 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moaners

Good comment. -- Evertype·✆ 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello again BritishWatcher, I hope all is well,

Just wondered if you'd be able to pop across to User:Jza84/Sandbox5 again and give me some feedback? It's about 75% finished as a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article, and I suppose I'm looking to see if I have left any gaps or made any errors/questionable statements. What I was wondering too in particular is if you'd be able to find a reference that would support the highlighted statement in the Classfication section? - If anyone can, I'm confident it is you! :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, i will read through the article tomorrow morning and let you know what im thinking, heading to bed shortly. Make sure you get User:Joowwww to take a full look at it and give feedback, he seems to know alot on the subject of Cornwall / Cornish people. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nm i see Jowwwww is already there, and yes alls well here =) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pennants

Yep. You are correct. I'll correct my mistake. Thanks for the heads-up. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pennant number if it's, for example, K384 but pennant (commissioning) if it's talking about the actual flag-like object that the ship is flying. Correct? --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I just don't want to have to correct myself twice. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I got them all. If you see any I didn't catch, let me know. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on UN Map

Hi. We might be getting somewhere with this and there's now a Proposed caption at the bottom of the talk page if you'd care to look. Adell 1150 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) states that:

“

The opening paragraph should give: [...]

3. Nationality –

1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)

2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

”

Therefore I will accept the term "British" being used on Cornish biography articles. As per point 2, where Cornish is relevant to the subject's notability, such as Cornish nationalist politicians or people who have explicitly expressed their desire to identify as Cornish, then "Cornish" should remain in the intro. There is also a long standing consensus that articles about Cornish people do not use "English", to avoid edit warring. Furthermore, there is another long standing consensus that places in Cornwall are to be presented as "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", not "Cornwall, England", also to avoid edit warring. That you complained about people using just "England" on the first version of your user page, it reeks of hypocrisy and damages your credibility as an impartial Wikipedia editor. As Wikipedia primarily operates on consensus, I hope that you will not break these consensus. --Joowwww (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see where this consensus was formed that "Cornish people do not use English to avoid edit wars" because i strongly reject such a pathetic attempt at appeasing vandals. Also id like to see where consensus was formed that "places in Cornwall are to be presented as "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", I dont have a problem with that really as i think UK should be used in info boxes after Wales,Scotland,NI and England all the time, but id be interested to know.

I stand by my original concerns that British citizens are being listed in many cases as just English or Scottish for example. I dont mind it stating they are also English or Scottish but i still think British should be stated in their info boxes because they are British citizens.

However i accept there is consensus on that matter and i follow that consensus, despite vewing it as an awful policy that needs reforming. But that consensus / policy is only regards English,Welsh,Scottish and Northern Irish, ive yet to see where it states Cornish people must be described as British Not English and where Cornish should be listed as someones nationality. My edits to Nick Nieland were in line with the policy (despite disagreeing with it), Nick plays for England and Great Britain, his greatest success was at the Commonwealth games for England, which is why i put English. But as he is part of team GB im ok with it saying British, its certainly acceptable unlike the previous wording in that intro. Had this been about someone from Cornwall who plays for the English Football team, there is no alternative but for the intro to say he is English.

On mentioning Cornish, i have no problem with it being placed as their ethnicity provided there is a source where they state they consider themselves Cornish or proud of Cornwalls culture / heritage (along those lines but just because someone was born in Cornwall doesnt mean that Cornish should be added. I had a quick look through the nationality page which ive read previously.. it gives an example of a Cornish person Richard Trevithick where it calls him British in the intro and infobox and says his ethnicity is Cornish.. i have no problem at all with that. Its Cornish in the intro instead of British / English or listed as their nationality that i consider incorrrect.

Anyway the current Nick Nieland article is fine with me now so i think we are in agreement on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to discussions at WP:CornwallGuideline, and there is more about nationality/ethnicity at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and that page's talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the CornwallGuideline link although i find even the need for that rather disturbing. The links on that page are helpful, it was interesting reading the UK Geography project, and seeing some of the characters involved in influencing the outcome of the current system for talking about locations. I see the fact many were ok with Cornwall being treated as an exception and in future i will make sure ill add both England + UK when i come across an article that needs it.

On the Cornish issue though ive looked on the talk page / main page but still cant see it. I accept they recognise that cornish should be mentioned as an ethnicity as they link to a British inventor of Cornish ethnicity but i can not see anywhere on there that says "Cornish" should be treated the way we treat nationalities in introductions. This policy on British citizens from what i see only applys to saying English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.. not Cornish. So i still think even in the case of a Cornish councillor who only considers himself Cornish and wants independence, should be described as British in the intro.. not Cornish. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of being informative. Politicians from Cornwall who are involved in national politics, like sportspeople from Cornwall who compete nationally, should be called British. But it would be ambiguous, but not necessarily misleading, to describe some Cornish politicians as British, when their entire career, actions and notability centre around their being Cornish. Their nationality would still be described as British in their infobox. As you can see the page says there is no consensus on how nationality in the UK should be described, this also does not clarify the very meaning of nationality, be it meaning belonging to one of the UK's consituent countries (for which there are no legal nationalities), or belonging to a nation in the sense of having a shared history, culture and identity in a particular area. Nevertheless, please take note of where it says "do not enforce uniformity". This situation may never be resolved, and I think trying to find a solution that pleases everyone would be impossible. --Joowwww (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the article on what to call UK nationals across wikipedia is clearly only talking about English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.. not Cornish. I see no reason at all for starting an article saying someone is cornish, infact i think it would lead to greater confusion. I think the only middle ground is to say British not English if that is more acceptable to people, although in cases where someone is only notable for playing for England.. like the England football player it must start by saying they are English not British. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You say English people that are notable for being English should be described as English, but you don't think Cornish people who are notable for being Cornish should be described as Cornish? The UK nationality page give no definition of "nationality", and your interpretation of it as meaning the constituent countries is exactly that, your interpretation. --Joowwww (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not contradicting myself at all, Cornish is not a nationality even if you think it is. People from Britain are British even if they do not like that fact, now the current consensus is to allow people to be described as English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish rather than British if the sources permit and it obviously makes sense like in the case of Sean Connery, always known as a Scot.

Cornwall is part of England and the people there are considered English. There for the intro of such people need to say they are English (or British) as does the nationality in the info box, but under no circumstances should it say Cornish. The only example of someone Cornish mentioned on the UK nationality policy page is someone whos described as British in the intro / infobox but simply has Cornish as his ethnicity.. now im perfectly fine with that, providing sources back up that he considers himself Cornish.

It is standard policy for articles on people to state their nationality in the intro, that is NOT Cornish. Im sorry but Cornish is not equal to English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or British. That may not be fair but its reality. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are seeing policy where none exists. The nationality page clearly states that there is no consensus about how UK nationalities should be handled, and it gives absolutely no definition of what is meant by nationality. It also clearly states that nobody should enforce uniformity, which you are attempting to do.

English, Scottish and Welsh nationalities are not defined in law. People born in the UK have British nationality. That is the only nationality recognised by law. All other "nationalities" are a choice. You seem not to understand the ambiguity of the term nation. Cornwall being in England is not in dispute here. --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We are never going to agree on this. If or when i come across an article saying someone is Cornish in the intro or infobox (as their nationality) i will change it, with no hesitation because as far as im concerned its incorrect and misleading. It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading the "how to handle UK nationality" pages that they are talking about constituent countrys of the United Kingdom. The only example of Cornish is an article that has a layout i am fine with (British in intro / infobox and cornish as ethnicity).

In law every single one of these people would be labelled British, and that is something i would like.. but we make exceptions in the case of the Welsh, Irish, English and Scottish to use those nationalities instead. We do NOT make exemptions for Cornish people, or Geordies or Scousers. It is simply unacceptable and confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will revert you, for breaking the no enforcing uniformity guideline. I will consider it vandalism. Nowhere in that page does it define nationality, you are merely interpreting it in your own way, and nowhere in that page does it say that consensus is reached. And comparing the Cornish to Geordies is like comparing apples to oranges, the situation of the two differs greatly. --Joowwww (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will undo your revert and seek other peoples opinions on this matter if you continue to alter my edits. Cornish is not a nationality, English and British is. Putting cornish as someones nationality is grossly misleading and it should not be allowed on wikipedia. The fact people agreed that articles on British people can describe them as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish does not justify mentioning Cornish in the same way. Infact the only mention of Cornish on the talk page of that UK nationality page is by someone saying they are from Cornwall but consider themselves English. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that BritishWatcher is very much in the right here, I can't help but notice Joowwww and a couple of other people seem to be trying to manipulate Wikipedia to create Cornwall into a nationality separate from England. Not only through dubious, unsourced interpratation of history (there are various hit and run "myth maker" single purpose accounts which do this and never edit again) but also POV pushing on articles such as John Angarrack (real name John Wilton) a nationalist, conspiracy theorist... and washing machine repair man, obviously not a reliable source for article info. His website DuchyofCornwall.eu is pushed in many articles.

I don't think this sort of thing belongs on Wikipedia, I can relate because I used to do this with Yorkshire articles until I learned that this is very wrong and damaging thing to do. It makes Wikipedia look unreliable. We are here to write up in a NPOV manner realities for an encyclopedia, not create fantasies and delusional myths. Cornwall is in England, just like Shetland is in Scotland, Andalucia is in Spain, Provence is in France, Texas is in the United States and so on. Fringe worldview pushing (less than 6% of Cornwall voted MK in the European elections last month) belongs in blogs not encyclopedias.- Yorkshirian (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Atleast in the case of John Angarrack he clearly considers himself Cornish, although we should follow standard policy and state his nationality which is English of British. The biggest problem i have is on articles where people are getting called Cornish just because they are from Cornwall, with no attempt to provide sources backing up that they consider themselves cornish.. Yet Jowww earlier asked me to provide sources to back up the fact Nick Nieland is English, a slight double standard. As Nick plays for England + team GB, i dont mind his saying British although we certainly shouldnt be doing that just to appease nationalist vandals.

What makes it even worse is the fact being labelled cornish apparently usually means you are celtic because Cornwall is a "Celtic nation". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Yorkshirian's opinion an impartial one after seeing what he did to the John Angarrack article, clear violations of WP:BLP and WP:COMMON. Questioning my motivations for editing Wikipedia is a violation of WP:AGF, and I could easily make the argument that editors like you both are attempting to whitewash Cornish identity and nationalism as if it doesn't exist, rewriting both history and the situation just to fit your own opinions. The fact of the matter is that you both clearly underestimate the strengh of the separate Cornish identity in Cornwall, basing your opinions on what you think is true sat in your house possibly hundreds of miles away, instead of actually being in Cornwall and seeing it first hand. Even when the nationality page clearly states that you should not impose uniformity, you still threaten to do so, and even when the nationality page gives absolutely no definition of what it means by nationality, your own bias against Cornish people gives you a "la-la-la, I'm not listening" mentality, and you still threaten to impose uniformity. If that's not vandalism then I don't know what is. I won't appease unionist vandals the same way you keep stating you won't appease nationalist vandals, which I also ask you to prove that I am. --Joowwww (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How nice, English and British are a nationality.. Cornish isnt im sorry you can not accept that. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your extremist unionist viewpoints blind you to the established ambiguity surrounding the term "nationality". --Joowwww (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol but this has nothing to do with unionism or being a unionist. Cornwall is a county of England. People born in Cornwall are English. Like i have said i accept the agreed consensus on saying, English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish on people articles instead of always saying British.. but that consensus does not exist for Cornish people.

When it comes to cornish nationalists then that in the intro is workable, but in the case of anyone else born in cornwall, it should say English or British unless there are several reliable sources saying they consider themselves Cornish and NOT English/British. That seems reasonable to me BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated many times, but which you seem unable to accept, as was the case with our other disagreements, that there is no automatic English nationality. A person born in England is automatically British. It does not make them English. A person born in Scotland does not automatically make them Scottish. Would you consider Tony Blair to be Scottish? English, like Welsh, Scottish, and yes Cornish, is a choice, either their own choice or a choice of their parents i.e. their upbringing. I was born in Cornwall, which yes is in England (something I have never disputed although you seem to be under the delusion that I have), but I am not English. I do not relate in any way to English iconography, traditional English culture, English sports teams, English nationalism, the English flag or St George's Day in any way. They have no effect on me at all. Was I born in England? Yes. Do I have English ancestors? Yes. But do I feel English? No, and do I choose to be English? No. That is my choice and my choice alone, you saying otherwise won't change anything about that. You don't have the right to deny people that choice, and considering that the UK government and even the Council of Europe recognises us as not being English, you are highly misguided in doing so. The right to that choice is what makes us British, and you of all people should recognise that trampling all over that right isn't what the soldiers of WWII had in mind when they were on their way to war.

And yes your last paragraph is reasonable, it's what I've been trying to aim for all along. --Joowwww (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony blair is half Scottish and half English so its right to call him as British. But you can not be half Cornish and half English. If they are "Cornish" they are English. Ive said im ok with calling Cornish people British, except where they play for England. So the guy we have talked about before if he had never played for team GB he would have to be classed as English. If someone plays for England they are English.. that seems reasonable. In the case of someone thats a cornish nationalist who only views themselves as Cornish, i think if the intro says "Cornish Nationalist" rather than just "cornish" then that is also ok with me. But there is no agreement anywhere on use of cornish, so following guidelines it should say English or British still in reality and i have not seen where the British government has said that Cornish people are not English, i totally reject that idea and if you have a source id be very interested to see it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, don't be put off by their dislike of User:Yorkshirian. You don't want to end up like TRHoPF, sacrificing the apologists for the sake of the polemicists, now do you? Just a thought, as I am now actively standing by the Tyke. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol you have been busy this morning.. everywhere i look theres ur name :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

God forbid wikisquatters should push me off of their digimountain. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

You may be interested in keeping an eye on my tally. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

wow thanks, thats very useful.. gonna have that as my home page for the next 42 days lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland as a redirect

Hi BW

Dammit, that'd be a shame if that's the case. Can you steer me towards where that's stated? The only parts of the poll page I can see that mention "redirect" are either you or me ;-) I suspect it's written on a sub-page - could you nudge me in the right direction?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Off topic

So you think a country that fought for their independence from the UK should give up their name to the people they fought against? Lets go into another scenario, one that obviously didn't happen. Germany invaded Britain during the first world war and after many years there was an uprising. Only thing is, Germany held on to the south coast of England. Imagine the uproar from people like yourself if you were told you could not call yourself Britain on wikipedia. You would be the first one to come here foaming at the mouth saying who do these bloody Germans think they are. Jack forbes (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not saying they should give it up or didnt have a right to use it, i am saying that it creates confusion having the same name as the island. If they can be called Ireland despite not having 100% of the island of Ireland, then its just the same as if we always just called Northern Ireland.. Ireland. Despite choosing the name Ireland for their country name, they saw the need to create a description "Republic of Ireland", it was obviously needed because Ireland is ambiguous and the Irish government continue to use the term today. If they really hated it so much as some of the Irish editors here like to make out why would their football team play under the name Republic of Ireland? they should of refused to compete. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer me this then, BW. Why did you not choose Ireland (state)? And you still haven't answered how you would feel if my scenario had come to pass. Look, BW. I don't know you, but I do. I live in Glasgow remember. There are people with your politics all over Glasgow and I know many of them. My next door neighbour for example even flies the union flag outside his back window. I don't hate the guy, I even get on along quite well with him. As I have said to him, open your mind up to others point of views and even try to understand them. I took a book into work many years ago that said that Scots originally came from Ireland. The unionists I tried to show it to just told me to "f**k off, yer talkin shite". You see! These people don't want to learn something or understand it because they don't want to believe it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap when your discussing Ireland topics, you seem to be too intelligent for that. Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have no problem with Ireland (state) if that is chosen just as i wont mind if theres a disam page at Ireland. The only thing i did not want was the island at Ireland (island) and the state at Ireland.. i think that option is totally unacceptable and as currently it doesnt look like that will come close to winning i saw no need for other options. Ive said on several occasions months ago that the two options ROI / state at Ireland should be dropped and then it would be easy to resolve. A few weeks ago i probably would of put Ireland (state) as my first or second option but that was before i saw that the Irish government and parliament use Republic of Ireland all the time. The claim people were making that this is a British only term and pushing British POV on Ireland is simply false and misleading.

As for the Germany / Britain i dont see how it applies. Britain is not a redirect to the state its a disam page because there is an island called Great Britain as well. Again it is the Irish government that came up with the term Republic of Ireland and made it a description of their country, they continue to use it and have their Football team play under the name. I probably would want my article to have the primary position and name, but i wouldnt be able to pretend it was a German POV if the government of Britain used the alternative name all the time when talking about itself too. Its not like Ireland is being treated different to all other countries. North Korea is the well known term in English for that country, but that aint their country title. China is known as China, yet its article is at Peoples Republic of China.

I can see things from the other point of view, it doesnt mean i have to agree with them or even accept that view as valid. For example i see no valid justfication at all for Ireland to be the state article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on many things BW, but I can't see how your position on this logical, even if you're coming from a unionist perspective. For me its more an ambiguity created on Wikipedia, rather than a real world ambiguity. Even in Great Britain, if somebody says "I'm going to Ireland" or "I'm Irish", most people would automatically think of the state which has its capital at Dublin, not retort "the geographical definition or the state which is described as the republic of Ireland?". Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland, its part of the United Kingdom.

By using the term "Republic of Ireland" as the state name instead of just Ireland it creates two issues; first of all it cuts off the national history by making it start at an arbitary point in the 1900s and it also gives the mope squad more reason to pout and moan about how mean the big bad Brits are. Typing in the words "Ireland" to Wikipedia and being returned an article where the map to the right shows an entity covering the entirely island is surely far more ambigious to the rest of the world, when geo-politics is more significant than geography? Whether from the perspective of a unionist, or an Irish citizen?

I can only think of two kinds of people who would want the state article not located at Ireland; fringe republicans, the sort of loons who do not think the government which sits at Leinster House is "legitimate" (which would be news to the majority of Irish citizens) and pray to James Connelly at night. And then a minority of unionists, just for the sake of getting one over people who live in the state Ireland. I agree in some cases the name could be ambigious, but only in articles specifically covering its relation to the UK and especially Northern Ireland; in such a case it could just be typed out as "republic of Ireland" instead. A merge of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles is for the best IMO; when people type the word "Ireland" into Wikipedia they should be greeted with a map which covers the modern 26 county state which is a member of EU/UN, not of the whole island. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be typed out as "republic of Ireland" and not "Republic of Ireland"? Mooretwin (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Yorkshirian, last time i had checked 4 voted for the country / island article to be merged and 4 voted for the country to be at Ireland. So does that make the 30 others fringe republicans and Unionists who want to get one over on Ireland? There is an island called Ireland and a country, the two things are different. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, its also part of Ireland. Just like if Scotland left the United Kingdom it would still be part of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about self-governing term in introduction of Gibraltar article

By popular request, I have started a discussion in the article's talk page. Please join if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish naming Final Poll

I do believe the ship is steady again, onto Day #3. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3 overboard today, lol only another 39 days to go... its going to be a LONG summer. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I wish my preference to be adopted. But, a group of editors who are continuing to cry 'foul' over the Final Poll (because the 'F option' is leading) are hurting its chances. They think they're helping things, but they're not. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange they are so quick to basically say the whole vote is void, F isnt winning by that much, its still far from clear if it will win. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, week #2 around the corner. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Off topic - STV

I think you're over-estimating the likelihood of votes changing towards the close of the poll - the joy of this form of voting is that it's unnecessary. Hypothetically, imagine there are three camps - Brown, Purple and Grey. Brown want option A, but would settle for B. Purple want option D, but would settle for C. Grey vote according to their interpretation of policy, so are all over the place. I'm Brown, so I voted A,B - A's going nowhere (Grey voters prefer B to A, and some Brown voters didn't follow the Brown line), but my "wasted" A votes get transferred to B votes. Likewise, you're Purple, and voted C,D. C is doing quite well, and pushing D out (Grey voters prefer C to D, and some Purple voters like you didn't follow the Purple line 100%) - so it's a race between B and C. Both Brown and Purple are broadly happy, and there's no point anyone in these two camps changing their votes - it wouldn't make any difference. Grey voters conceivably could change their vote, but since these voters voted according to their own beliefs, almost certainly won't change their vote.

Anyway... that's my interpretation of it! I guess time will tell, but I'd be surprised if there are many vote changes.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends how the votes stack up, it is possible for changes near the end to alter the vote. It depends how close the votes are to each other and which one makes it into the final round. If we are talking about 2 or 3 votes then changes could impact it alot, im hoping the winning vote is ahead enough not for that to matter. For example it looks likely F will make it to the final round, but at this stage it could still be E, C or B that make it into the final. Each of those at the final round have different numbers of votes. There for vote switching by several people could help a different option get into the final which can beat F. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that I'm saying that changes won't matter (you're right - they may well), just that I think (tactical) changes are unlikely since we can express a whole gamut of choices early on. Or, put another way, I've already voted for E, C and B - changing my vote to B, E, C won't affect the outcome. It's possible that someone's voted for E and C, and changes to E, B - this might well affect the outcome, but I think such a change (for tactical purposes) is unlikely - if the hypothetical voter didn't vote for B to begin with why would they later? (The options I didn't vote for are options I wouldn't vote for, and I'd imagine that's how most people would vote).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Line of succession to the BritishThrone

I don't quite follow the logic for keeping the title "Line of succession to the British Throne" if it is to be redone as a short list. On its face, the title should either be 1) an article about the list, its history, etc., or an article which is the (entire) list, or at least would be the entire list when complete. There is no such thing in British law as an "Extended line of succession," there is only the one line, you are on it or you aren't. There is another, much shorter list of people known as "British Royals" which may deserve its own article. If we want a short list and a long list, that's fine, but the long list should have this title and the shorter list should have another title, such as "Members of the Line of succession to the British Throne descended from Queen Victoria" or "First 40/500/2000 people in the line of succession to the British Throne."

Another option is to simply move this article to "Distant line of succession to the British Throne" and create a new article "Near line of succession to the British Throne" and make this title a redirect to Succession to the British throne or a disambiguation page to that article and the near- and distant-line articles.

In any case, "Line of succession to the BritishThrone" should not be to any article which is by design a portion of the line. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi BW. I might be showing some bad faith here, but I know that your demand for all editors to confess that British pov does not exist was not a serious compromise. You knew, and I knew it couldn't happen. Where you doing it to wind Sarah up? If you were serious about a compromise you wouldn't demanded that. I know your not daft, and I'm not daft, so why did you insist on this. I have a good idea, but it would be nice to hear the truth from you. Jack forbes (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not joking and it wasnt aimed at annoying Sarah, i said it because i thought it would make it ALOT easier for supporters of option F to compromise at this point when F seems to be in the lead. Some supporters of F had said they were prepared to compromise, but its clear certain actions and claims make that harder.

At the moment if theres compromise, supporters of F are compromising the most, it would soften the blow if it was possible to reject the claim that Republic of Ireland is British POV. It would certainly of made it harder for Sarah to claim victory and say that it justified her claim about ROI being POV and an unacceptable title. I know that would make me alot more willing to support compromise, it wouldnt of needed every person to agree but if the majority verdict of the project clearly stated Republic of Ireland is not British POV (which i honestly believe is the case anyway and some opposes of F have said so too). I didnt think it was too unreasonable a request, surely a name change and accepting ROI isnt British POV would be better for those against that option than being stuck with the name and a clear endorsement by the community for it.

But anyway, considering some of the responses from supporters of F to my post i doubt compromise is possible.. i think its too late for that now. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, I must know you better than yourself then. Even if you were arguing against me, who has never ever claimed British pov on this, I don't believe you would have come to a compromise. You won't say it but you know I'm right. Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, if it were you and me alone, do you think you could come to a compromise on this? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was seriously prepared to compromise, although ofcourse it had to be if other supporters of F agreed and with others accepting the certain conditions, i wouldnt unilaterally change my vote lol. Declaration that ROI is not British POV and that such accusations in the future should be considered a violation of WP:AGF with the aim of having Arbcom agree with that view, seemed like a reasonable outcome. Sure some would not agree that it isnt POV, but like i said before surely a name change is more important if the term really is such a problem.

I must admit it didnt take me too long after seeing some of the responses to change my mind. Sarah was the first to respond to my post and i was stunned because it sounded like she would accept it, but then 10 minutes later went on saying the same things again, which disappointed me. Strong responses by those who support F saying bad idea to compromise, also supporters of F getting called extremist by a moderate helped changed my mind. I certainly think now compromise is near impossible.

Also i get rather nervous with a live poll, F doesnt have this in the bag yet. A compromise to secure the second best option which i could easily live with would be better than a sudden change / surge in the vote which leads to an option i dont support winning. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was just me and you then quite possibly we could come to a compromise.

We agree that Republic of Ireland is not British POV and such accusations should be considered a violation of WP:AGF.
We try to get Arbcom to agree with this view to prevent future accusations or have accusers punished.
Move country article to Ireland (state).
Lock it for two years, problem solved.

Both sides are reasonably happy. One side gets the name change, the other side gets recognition that there is nothing wrong with Republic of Ireland and ensures that there are no future claims of British POV about the term Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I could agree with that. Depending on the second point (arbcom)
We try, but if arbcom don't go with it the agreement still stands
Agree
Agreed

Although we can't guarantee the impossible. That is, a rogue editor claiming British pov. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but i think if it was all part of a package to get a compromise i recon they would agree, even if it was just to get them to accept such claims cause problems and should be avoided rather than will result in warnings/ blocks etc. How to deal with all the other articles like Politics of Ireland is alot more complicated though.

But anyway like i said before i cant see compromise being possible anymore with everyone. I support F, i hope it wins but im not going to lose sleep if it doesnt. My main concern going into this vote was that A or B win, both of which i strongly oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask your permission to put this discussion on the collaboration page without your last point beginning "but anyway Like I said". Is that okay? Jack forbes (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no point, that is basically what i put in my post on the poll page and responses by the main editors involved (from both sides) showed little support for it. Some said its unfair or unreasonable to make people sign up to ROI isnt POV, u thought i was only joking at first. Several supporters of F showed little sign of backing down on those grounds too. Its certainly a bad time right now with Sarah blocked still and Highking walking the plank. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, BW. You will have to sue me. :) Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

lol BritishWatcher (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else is probably in bed right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's where I'm going right now. I do sometimes try and be a nice guy BW. Goodnight. Jack forbes (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You aint too bad for a separatist ;) night BritishWatcher (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, my 'Roi' humour got 'zapped'. I reckon, my funny bone won't be welcomed there for the next few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He should of deleted half the talk page, its mostly nonsense too. Atleast your post was interesting. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO He told Masem [6]. You going to be sent to the naughty corner!! BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tfz has been annoyed with me for awhile (he's declared me a troll & barred me from his talkpage), it sorta makes communicating with him difficult (I guess that was the idea). Oh well, I still consider Tfz my buddy (among buddies). GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Something completely different

To distract ourselves from the "name" debate, and see if we can agree on another issue, may I draw your attention to: ....

I am currently working on a new article Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II.. In linking ships with the U-boats which sank them, I notice that the term "victories" is used on the U-boat template.

Consider the neutral and unarmed trawler ST Leukos. The U-boat German submarine U-38 (1938) surfaced and shelled her, killing all 11 crew. The U-boat template counts that as a "victory". There are many similar examples.

What is your view and what should be done? - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

very interesting lol and very off topic. Id say "victories" should be changed to something like "Operational record" or just "vessels destroyed / damaged" so its neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably better at rectifying this sort of thing than I ClemMcGann (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the template its the standard term used for it sadly, I saw another template (not such a good one) which uses "successes" rather than victories.. i think thats a more appropriate header. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer your original "vessels destroyed". Here is another German submarine U-25 (1936) torpedoes and sinks SS Polzella (British). A neutral (at that date) Norwegian Enid en route to Dublin, goes to rescue the crew of Polzella. U-25 is now on the surface, they shell and sink Enid. The crew of Polzella are lost. Here on wikipedia - that is two "victories" ClemMcGann (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

The monarchy, is a hypocracy to democracy. PS: Rideau Hall would make a great residence for a 'President of Canada'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, that would be a great shame. I can understand Australia/Canada becoming republics following the Queens death but i certainly hope the UK doesnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia would be more likely (as they've already had a referendum). As for Canada? unawareness is the monarchists advantage. Most Canadians don't know that 'Liz' is 'Queen of Canada'. Some likely don't know what 'monarchy' means. Some don't know who 'Liz' is. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New Canadian citizens take the oath to Queen and country there in Canada, so hopefully the next generation of immigrants remain loyal to the crown.. Is kind of strange the way Canada changed its flag but has kept an oath to the Queen for new citizens where as Australia kept the flag but doesnt have an oath to the Queen for new citizens. Although saying that Australian flag was nicer than the original Canadian one. That Australian referendum was scaring way too close. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A Canadian referendum on the monarchy, I'd be highly surprised if one was held before the 22nd century. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive heard that many dont know shes Queen there, i dont quite understand how people can not understand the basic setup of their political system. Is the GG well known? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of my family & friends 'even' get the Federal & (PEI) provincial governments mixed up. A fellow has to explain it to them 'every time' a Federial or provincial election occurs. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

lmao ofcourse its compulsary for people to vote in australian elections so maybe that gets them tuned into politics / state matters more there. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who lived in Australia I can tell you that it's not quite true that they have to vote. They do have to turn up and receive their ballot paper, but what they do with that is up to them. I knew many who for some reason or another spoiled their ballot papers. Jack forbes (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Making them turn up is better than nothing, although if u have to go i dont know why youd not bother to vote. People not seeing the need to vote is something ive never been able to understand, no parties are always the same and the government of the day has such an impact on everything. Is ok for local elections or EU elections which make no real difference but national elections are vital. The election here cant come soon enough, we may all be in the bread lines by then though. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they have a better system and they do have a higher turnout (obviously). I have never not voted, but I'm afraid that of those who don't vote most do it out of laziness/disinterest. Those who spoil their ballot paper in Aussie must be doing it to make some kind of political point. Jack forbes (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Brewster's Millions and None of the above, but still seems like a waste. Especially here as u get some of the strange parties to vote for in protest like the Monster Raving Loony Party. I hope here in time that will change, here in England we only started having citizenship lessons in 2002 or around that year and thats now compulsary which is meant to cover things like elections, international organsations etc. They didnt bother teaching anything about those things until then. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They should have it on school curriculums at a relatively young age (Is that what you mean above?). Maybe then you wouldn't hear those words "My dad and grandad voted for them, so I will" which annoys the hell out of me. Jack forbes (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes in England its a compulsary GCSE subject now thoughout secondary school with an exam, pretty pathetic exam but better than nothing. lol @ "my dad and grandad voted for the so i will", why did that make me think of the Scottish Labour Party. Whilst im not happy about labours decline and support for the SNP, a single parties domination of politics is such a bad thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the SNP managed a major breakthrough in Glasgow and the West of Scotland it would go a hell of a long way to Independence. You won't want to hear that though. :) Glasgow is full of people saying my dad voted for them so I will. There is also the heritage of the Red Clydesiders and such. It's always been a Labour voting socialist city. Thats what the SNP have to crack. Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I recon they will hold on to that upcoming seat, the former labour guy martins seems popular enough there and should help get them enough votes, but will be another worrying night. Labour still aint as unpopular up there as they are here in England right now, i suppose thats because of devolution now.. here we have to put up with this governments failures at everything, most things aint run by them up there. People here are just sick of it. I had hoped Brown would turn things around and win next year as it helps having a Scottish / Labour PM in power to take on you separatists but this country is going to be broke if he remains in power much longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the last election result. If the SNP turn that around then Independence is in the bag. BW, I'll even invite you up for the massive party that would ensue. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

General Election 2005: Glasgow North East
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Speaker	Michael Martin	15,153	53.3	−13.8
	SNP	John McLaughlin	5,019	17.7	−0.5
	Socialist Labour	Doris Kelly	4,036	14.2	N/A
	Scottish Socialist	Graham Campbell	1,402	4.9	−3.2
	Scottish Unionist	Daniel Houston	1,266	4.5	+0.3
	BNP	Scott McLean	920	3.2	N/A
	Independent	Joe Chambers	622	2.2	N/A
Majority			10,134	35.7
Turnout			28,418	45.8	+1.9
	Speaker hold		Swing	-6.6

lol they survived in the Glenrothes by election they can survive the upcoming one, the glasgow east one was a nightmare but the SNP only won with a small majority. We also shouldnt overplay the SNP, its not like they got 100,000s more votes in 2007 to come to power.. they got more votes in 1999 than 2007 its just labour voters were all to drunk to turn up to the polling stations. SNP won power with 1 ONE seat by 48 votes and it was only because tony blair was too stuck up to let Gordon take over before the May elections, all just so he could have his "10 years in power". pathetic. The war is far from won. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If (when) we do gain Independence I may go on holiday for an after celebration party, and my first visit abroad will be to England. We can only wait and see, BW. Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The dream will die in time although the unionist parties up there better get their acts together and take action once the SNP is out of power to ensure this never happens again. Some progress has been made, this economic crisis has seriously damaged the separatist agenda, with the fall of the two major Scottish banks, the decline in oil prices and ofcourse the now infamous Arc of prosperity, two of the 3 are now in worse shape than we are. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The dream will never die. We actually increased our vote in the European election. It's all on the up leading to you know what. Don't worry, BW. England will survive without us. Oh Flower of Scotland when will we see...... Oops, sorry, I got carried away there. (:0 Jack forbes (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still the unionist parties got the majority, european elections dont concern me too much its MSP/MPs that matter. The world will go on but its going to be very depressing if there was a split. The union flag being lowered from Edinburgh castle for the last time :O, that cant be allowed to happen! Howd that alternative God save the Queen verse go about crushing those rebellious Scots hehee =) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Boo! Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent poll by the BBC of 1000 people on devolution is also rather comforting, although ofcourse all polls are unreliable. But it produced some interesting information, dont know if you saw them talk about it at all.. full details here.[7] BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A poll of a thousand people? Well, thats that then, no point having a General election. I've never looked at polls even if they said the SNP where miles ahead as they did before the Glasgow East by election. Jack forbes (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a reasonable size sample, certainly larger than many polls done. Provides a great break down by age/religion of how people feel about independence, devolution, salmond, brown etc. Was a good read although certainly not something to celebrate over. Speaking of celebrations, ill tell you something i did have a drink to the other week to celebrate. The Scottish Youth Parliament celebrated their 10th anniversary and they polled their members that attended on the independence issue. They asked Salmonds rigged referendum question, the result was 57% against and only 43% in favour of independence.[8]

Thats still alarmingly high but atleast the separatists are in a minority, considering many of these are Soctlands future MPs/MSPs and this is whilst there is a separatist government in power. Its good considering two years ago they almost had to include that Scotland would be better off as an independent nation in their manifesto because 48% supported the statement (luckly it needed 50% to get included). So on many fronts despite Salmond being in power, support is decling for his core policy. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to find some sources to back this up, but many neutral political analysts believe the SNP will be in power for the foreseeable future. That doesn't sound like a decline in support. Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline in support for independence, despite people liking salmond and the SNPs populist policies. Also just think of Quebec they have had many years of separatist parties running the show, they lost their 1995 referendum for independence by less about 1%, yet 15 years on its still part of Canada. Salmond is a very strong leader, he wipes the floor with all other Scottish party leaders with the exception of Annabel Goldie in my opinion but as a conservative she has a handicap. Once Salmond quits, the SNP will find it very hard to replace him.. the 2003 election results is proof of that (they lost 10000s of votes). Separatists always like to play on braveheart, Salmond always makes me think of a good line from the film.. "they're sheep, mere sheep. Easily dispersed if we strike the shepherd." lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one from a labour party insider[9]. Probably Gordon Brown. That's me for the night. Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol labour certainly has its problems, they dont need to swing to the left they need to swing to the right if they want to win the next election. ANyway night =) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

mediation cabal

Take a look at This as you are cited as an involved party, the editor taking it there should have informed you but has omitted doing so. --Gibnews (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, cant believe hes still pushing for self governing bit to be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

A feature of your writing style is really annoying to me. You wrote "would of" when you mean "would have" or "would've". To write "I would of voted X" is not correct; the preposition "of" has no meaning. It's "I would have voted X". -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree! ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

lol sorry grammar has never been my strong point, in school they never got round to teaching such things, but i will try and remember to use "have" in future. Punctuation and spelling can be pretty awful at times too, i was never a fan of English lessons. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try using capital I a bit more as well! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats just me being lazy rather than making mistakes ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration 24hr abstinence broken.

You are now officially addicted to wikipedia. I am thinking of starting an advice page for those editors who get sweaty palms and the shakes when too long away from their addiction. You will of course be welcome to sign up free of charge. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol i was trying soo hard, but i had such an urge to make a point on the Ireland. thing lol. couldnt resist :( BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That place...

...probably wiser. Took it out (and your edit too). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

lol yes BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

Could you put forward some suggestions on the talk for this article please? Certain editors keep randomly reverting progress, to wait for "community discussion", but after two weeks of opening up a section and waiting for any sign of such collaboration, no one seems to have come up with anything at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

lol I was having a quick read of that a little while ago when i saw the changes made, ive not looked through all the changes so i dont have strong views either way on it right now, but you certainly gave people the chance to discuss your proposed changes with no feedback. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shit-stirring

I brought your ongoing shitstirring to Masem's attention. See his talk page. Tfz 02:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that to be inappropriate too. I may believe that the State is the primary topic, but when I say so, I say it is my opinion. BritishWatcher was spouting absolutes again. Not the way to collaborate. -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard endless crap on that talk page with claims that a certain option is offensive and "British POV", a claim i find offensive. My comments were in line with other statements on that talk page.

Sarah mentioned an example and said the state should be at the prime spot. I disagreed and said i found it offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So others' bad behaviour excuses your own? -- Evertype·✆ 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

it sets the standard for the environment and comments so in a way yes. Sarah was recently blocked for 24 hours, which resulted in people from all sides saying it was unfair because others had made similar comments. This was not an attack or could not be seen as an attack on any individal, i simply stated my opinion on one option.. something some people have done about F since this poll began. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's cool

I don't mind - hosting a discussion rather than a rant is far better than most of the shovelling I get to do most days... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

lol im sure we can all find more productive things to do, i lost an entire evening because i was paying too much attention to the blocks last night. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Cornwall Talk page input

Your contributions can be an important element ensuring balance to articles. However, insulting those you see as your political opponents, including calling them "traitors" (as you did here) is bang out of order, no matter what the provocation, and only likely to inflame the situation. Further, I neither care for, nor about, your views, which are irrrelevant to this project. Please read WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a soapbox - and the banners at the top of talk pages, (the one that begins 'This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XXXX article.') for advice on talk page conduct, and follow that advice. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry im not sure what word i could have used there but traitors, i made clear that was just my personal opinion though. When i come under attack in such a way i feel i must respond, i can not just ignore the attacks and i have nothing to hide so i wouldnt want to remove the persons comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

You don't seem to understand the concept of democracy, a key tenet of which is that the people get to decide how they are run. If Cornwall ever voted for independence the UK government would be powerless to stop it. THAT's what our soldiers were/are fighting for, not territorial control. --Joowwww (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Its ashame that some people do not understand the concept of loyalty. I am all for democracy but where do we draw the line when it comes to self-determination and self-government? Can a small town in England declare independence? What about some cities which have larger populations than Cornwall, can they become independent? Its laughable to consider such things possible and i see no reason to think it should be any different for a county of England.

The United Kingdom is ofcourse different, with recognized "countries" of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland where clearly if the people want a break up of the UK it will happen, although you can be sure unionists will do everything in their power to make sure that day never comes. But a county of England is different, there is no way England itself is going to be broken up by this constant assualt on states we see in the 21st century. Such separatism is dangerous. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Monaco? Liechtenstein? Luxembourg? Malta? The idea that areas of a few hundred thousand people are too small to be independent is ridiculous. You mention loyalty, why should I feel loyalty to the British state? I did not choose to live here.

Cornwall is a recognised political entity within the United Kingdom, another political entity. Both political entities have democratically elected governments. If Cornwall were to vote for independence from the UK, the UK government would have no choice but to accept it. Were it to refuse that, it would face huge national and international pressure to respect the democratic process. The UK's reputation as a democratic stronghold would be tarnished were it to refuse Cornwall's independence. Any military action would only cause outrage in the liberal world. The ability to choose how you are governed is one of the fundamental ideas behind democracy. You cannot pick and choose which parts of democracy you follow. If you do, then you're not a democracy.

Why is peaceful separatism dangerous? --Joowwww (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have heard of those places, although you can be sure most people on this planet have never heard of them for obvious reasons :). I do not give a damn about other country sizes, im talking about what is reasonable to leave England or the United Kingdom to form a new "country". Im sorry but it is just not acceptable for a small village, town, city and yes even a county to "withdraw". It will never happen and military force would not have to be used to ensure that. A local council has NO authority what so ever to hold any referendum along those lines and westminster would hardly be supporting such ideas. Even the Scottish parliament doesnt really have the authority to hold such a referendum it needs westminster to rubber stamp it.

Cornwall is JUST a county of England, nothing else. England is a "country", the United Kingdom is a country and sovereign state. You can be sure that even the most liberal sovereign states on this planet would not allow a small village or town to declare its independence from the state without a very big fight, the idea is laughable. This concept is a complete joke and you know it will never happen. lmao @ huge intenational and political pressure, who the hell from? Sure in the case of Scotland if the UK refused to respect a referendum result wed have difficulties, but what can separatists in Cornwall do exactly? You can not introduce a referendum, so what if all of Cornwalls lib dem MPs "say" they want a regional assembly.. they are rightly ignored, most didnt vote for them anyway and they only say it to win a few extra votes and try for more regional power.

15 years ago 49% of the people in Quebec voted for independence, they lost that vote by less than 1%. Over 15 years later they are still part of Canada, Canada is a liberal respected democracy.

As i have mentioned before, a break up of the United Kingdom is unlikely but certainly more possible than Cornwall leaving England or the UK. Now if the UK did break up and an England government rose from the ashes, do you think they are going to support steps which may lead to a break up of England itself? Action will be taken to restore national identity and stamp out separatism from within. Thats actually the only 1 benefit i can see from a break up of the United Kingdom, England would be a far more conservative nation than it is now and for obvious reasons.

You have democracy and rights because of the state, sadly people are free to abuse those rights. Why is this sort of separatism dangerous? oh please. We have enough enemies out there in the real world, its shameful we have to worry about all our internal enemies as well. We dont live in a nice and peaceful world, we need sovereign states to maintain international order and security. This separatism and treason by British citizens is more dangerous and the biggest threat facing this country. We have our armed forces over in afghanistan fighting for our "security" whilst we allow traitors at home to spread separatist propaganda in an attempt to destroy the country just like those enemies overseas would do.

I respect peoples right to free choice, people cant be forced into supporting something and whilst in some cases i would quite like to see hanging returned for traitors, i dont support such radical methods. Education is the key, sadly not enough is done to promote and defend British history, identity and culture in schools in this country. Look at the USA, their text books are full of pro american versions of world history, kids there still pledge allegiance to the flag and republic. Many of our schools dont even teach kids the bloody national anthem, its no wonder we have these separatist problems in this country. One American i was talking to the other week was shocked when he found out we dont have flags flying outside all our schools as they do there.

Its not all doom and gloom though, progress is being made in certain areas. Whilst this labour government has blood on their hands with some of the failures over the past 10 years there have been some good things.

Compulsary citizenship lessons in English schools - Still needs improving but the perfect place to educate people about national identity, responsibility etc.
Citizenship ceremonies for new British citizens, with the oath to Queen and country (If only everyone else had to do such things lol).
Whilst Brown did fail to bring in some form of "British Day", something that would be pefectly acceptable considering theres an Australian Day Canadian Day and most nations have independence days, i see no reason why the UK shouldnt have one. They did manage to bring in Armed Forces Day, which whilst important for showing recognition for the troops is also a very good uniting tool, especially as the plans have now changed so main events are hosted by "national capitals", with Cardiff doing next year.
The olympics is also another big thing.. Whilst i was originally against the idea of hosting it and the waste of money we must pay for it the fact we have something the government has no problem in promoting and supporting which unites us as a country is very useful in these troubled times. Seeing Sir Chris Hoy and other Scottish, Welsh and English sportsmen and women with the union flag is a great thing, far better than the sports like football which divides us.

Cameron if he wins next year also has some interesting ideas, his proposal on a "National Citizenship Service" which is voluntary but may be useful and produce some good results if promoted and carried out in the right way.

Anyway the union will live on, there are so many things that can be done within the law and without violence to ensure victory against this separatist threat. The threat from Cornish separatists are a non issue, they are so small in numbers just like English separatists. The focus must be on other matters, again i hate to ruin your day but Cornwall will ALWAYS be a county of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"It will never happen and military force would not have to be used to ensure that" - I wish I had a crystal ball like yours.

"A local council has NO authority what so ever to hold any referendum along those lines" - What evidence do you have for this? Cornish independence is a little far-fetched at this stage but devolved powers is a very likely outcome for the new unitary authority.

"westminster would hardly be supporting such ideas" - Of course it doesn't, but support and being obliged to recognise the outcome of the democratic process are two different things.

"it needs westminster to rubber stamp it." - Which it will do, because it has to. This isn't China.

"You can be sure that even the most liberal sovereign states on this planet would not allow a small village or town to declare its independence from the state without a very big fight" - No, THAT idea is laughable.

"This concept is a complete joke and you know it will never happen" - No I don't, because I can't tell the future. Neither can you.

"lmao @ huge intenational and political pressure, who the hell from?" - Some rather vocal democracy activists. I hear there are quite a lot of them in the West. Some have even infiltrated governments!

"do you think they are going to support steps which may lead to a break up of England itself?" - They don't have to support it, but they will be forced to respect the outcome of the democratic process.

"Action will be taken to restore national identity and stamp out separatism from within." - Do you work for the Chinese government? All your rhetoric about soldiers and loyalty is a sham, you'd be quite willing to accept the dictatorship that those soldiers were fighting against if it meant keeping control of territory.

"its shameful we have to worry about all our internal enemies as well." - I don't see any Cornish people standing on streets with AK47s, or blowing up London buses.

"This separatism and treason by British citizens is more dangerous and the biggest threat facing this country." - Separatism is more dangerous than terrorism? You are living in a fantasy land.

"One American i was talking to the other week was shocked when he found out we dont have flags flying outside all our schools as they do there." - I would reject the kind of mindless jingoism found in America just as I reject your neo-unionist, borderline militant, viewpoints.

"They did manage to bring in Armed Forces Day, which whilst important for showing recognition for the troops is also a very good uniting tool" - Do you honestly think token actions like this are going to reverse the entire political opinion in Scotland?

"Seeing Sir Chris Hoy and other Scottish, Welsh and English sportsmen and women with the union flag is a great thing, far better than the sports like football which divides us." - Another token action that won't make a dent in Welsh or Scottish politics. People do not feel separatist just because they don't see enough Union Flags every day.

"The focus must be on other matters, again i hate to ruin your day but Cornwall will ALWAYS be a county of England" - Again, I wish I had a crystal ball like yours. Then maybe I could show you that there is no way the UK will survive into the next century.

You still haven't explained to me why separatism is dangerous, or why the democratic process should be ignored in the face of it. --Joowwww (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not need a crystal ball to know that there are many ways to reduce a separatist threat without the need for military force, its common sense although I know that is lacking in this whole Cornish separatism issue.

What evidence do I have they cant hold one? perhaps you could tell me what evidence there is that they COULD hold one that would have any legal standing or result in other nations demanding it be acted on. Westminster has supreme sovereignty over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the ability to void any international agreements or treaties, to withdraw unilaterally from any international organisation or court, even to suspend devolution. Westminster has the power to do all these things, a local authority has no power and if it held its own little “referendum” it would have no recognition. In the case of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales and even England of course the UK government would have to respect and accept a referendum, it has no obligation or need to do that for any other part of the UK, a unitary authority certainly doesn’t have any say.

“Cornish Independence is a little far fetched at this stage” lmao, I agree and because it is sooo far fetched we can ensure that this little separatism does not grow any further. There are quite a few unitary authorities in England, to think this is going to lead to “devolved powers” certainly is not a “very likely outcome”, perhaps you have been using your crystal ball there? lol. A unitary authority is a good idea, we centralise decision making in Cornwall from many smaller councils, some of which had separatists or the nutty lib dems with more influence to a single council where the conservatives who are the strongest mainstream defenders of the union / against separatism can block unhelpful things if needed, not that the council should even be getting into such things anyway.

You say the idea even the most liberal sovereign states would not accept a small village or city to declare independence is laughable, why? Can you name examples in western Europe where this has happened in recent times? Look at the way France / Spain deal with the basque separatists, Belgium was close to being broken up a year or two ago it is so divided. You separatists stick together, it is not in the interests of sovereign states in western Europe to see a separatist group gain independence and have victory which will simply inspire and encourage the separatists in their own county. Sovereign states really need to stick together against these separatists.

I can say the sun will rise tomorrow, just as I can say I am sure you separatists in Cornwall will fail. What was your vote count in the recent local elections? 7, 290 out of over 150,000 lol, I find that more of a joke.

International pressure groups like the “Celtic league”, yes they are very scary.

The fact Westminster wont support it means they will be doing all they can to ensure you fail, as I have mentioned before there is plenty that can be done.

No the Chinese government would not tolerate any of this nonsense and could have stamped it out long ago, I have never advocated the use of force. All I support is our government taking action to ensure the citizens of this country are loyal and have some responsibility. God knows how you separatists would feel if we still had national service in this country like many European countries still have (or kept until recently). I oppose dictatorship, but I also oppose the break up our country which puts us all at risk.

Sadly at times non violence is the more dangerous tool, at least violence can be condemned and met with force. You do not have to use violence to be an enemy of this country and do grave damage to it by pushing separatist or extremist propaganda and views which would not of been tolerated a few short decades a go.

Terrorism can kill individuals, a couple of muslims strapped with bombs blowing themselves up on the London transport system is not going to bring about the end of the United Kingdom. Separatism has that power to destroy everything, throwing away 100s of years of history for a pathetic little dream.

You reject them because we now live in liberal Britain, such ideas now seem totally unacceptable or radical yet other democracies manage with them somehow. What is wrong with people having loyalty towards the state that protects them and the monarch that represents them? For too long in the United Kingdom, we have been obsessed with rights and scared of responsibility. It is good to see the mainstream parties are starting to recognize this too.

A single act is not going to change everything, but every little bit helps. The Armed Forces unites the people of this country (despite strong disagreements over Iraq), feelings for the troops are strong. Its nice to see the union flag being waved all over the UK, or the Armed forces day flag which had part of the union flag on too. It helps remind people they are British when celebrating and honouring the British Armed Forces.

Lack of celebrating British identity, culture and history leaves a void. A void that can be filled with separatist ideals, and in the case of radical islam sometimes leads to extremist acts. Its important to plug those gaps in anyway possible. Of course a few flags are not going to radically change peoples views on independence, but its important people feel both British and Scottish or British and Welsh etc, It certainly does not hurt the cause when respected sportsmen like Sir Chris declare their support for both and celebrate being both.

Please tell me your time line of what you think will happen if the UK will not make it into the next century, that is very possible if the world ends, WW3 starts, or we all are prepared to support a United States of Europe or something along those lines. Do you accept that Cornwall is more likely to remain part of England than Scotland part of the UK? If so do you think that following a break up of the UK Cornwall is more or less likely to become an independent “country”?

Separatism is dangerous because it seeks to destroy this country. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a strong position on the world stage with a seat on the UN security council, membership of most groups such as the G7, G8, G20. How is the UK splitting up and dividing its assets (and debt|) several ways going to make us stronger? It wont, it will make us weaker, there for its dangerous and a threat.

Imagine if we all started having these separatist thoughts, perhaps England could be broken up into many of the old counties. Perhaps each state in the USA should become independent? The west weakening itself in such foolish ways is a very risky strategy and puts the entire security of this planets future in doubt. As I said before, where will it all end? What makes what you want for Cornwalls future more right than the majority of people in Cornwall who feel English and wish to remain part of England and the United Kingdom? I have said peoples democratic views should be respected but we can do a hell of a lot to change peoples attitudes on these matters in a peaceful way, and that should be done. Self determination and self government has its limits. A street can not declare independence from the UK, what makes a county or city any different? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you bother engaging in an intellectual debate with exponents of such fringe, primtivist, myth making ideologies BW. In Cornwall itself with the Cornwall Council, out of 123 democratically elected members voted in only this year, just 3 MK loons were elected. You're a democracy man Joowwww? Your thoughts on this reality? Such people who want to be victims as a hobby or form of twee neo-druidic escapism, desire to be talked about and make a lot of noise because that its the only way they can get any attention for their crankish ideology. When it comes to an encyclopedia, such as this, its better to just make sure their myth making propaganda is not allowed to damage Wikipedia's reliability. A rather weak ideology, especially when writing empirically about history, it collapses under the most tame enquiry. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, it gives me something to do. Although it was nice to see Jowwww accepting that “Cornish Independence is a little far fetched at this stage”. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take a look at these links and tell me why greater powers being granted to Cornwall is not a viable prospect. MK are not the only ones that support devolution. Perhaps you could also explain why career politicians would potentially damage their political credibility by doing so much for supposedly such a fringe opinion. Please don't bother replying unless you actually read them. (Also let's keep to one topic at a time!)

David Whalley (then Lib Dem leader of Cornwall County Council) says an Assembly is "inevitable": [10]
MPs found clear support for devolution of powers in Cornwall: [11]
Matthew Taylor MP says "The Minister has already reassured us that a unitary authority would clear the way for the real and meaningful devolution of power to Cornwall." [12]
Dan Rogerson MP: "All five of Cornwall’s MPs will be working with the County and District Councils to keep up the pressure on Ministers to deliver real devolution to Cornwall. No less will do." [13]
Dan Rogerson MP says the Cornwall unitary bid is "not just a bid on a par with existing unitary authorities", but a bid "for a new form of local strategic authority". [14]
Andrew George MP says new unitary could be "first step" towards a "Cornish Regional Assembly" [15] <- If you don't bother to read any others, at least read this one
Then-acting leader of Scottish Parliament Jim Wallace backs Cornish Assembly [16]

--Joowwww (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All of those are bloody liberal democrats who will never be in power at westminster thank goodness. I dont dispute the fact these people and some want greater powers, the same could be said for some people in every part of the UK who want local councils to have more say, but in the case of the lib dems they only do it for more power and control. Independence from England or the UK is a fringe view which will never become reality. The tories may transfer more powers to local councils and unitary authorities taking powers away from things like the regional development agencies, but they will not expand devolution and give Cornwall some form of assembly. There are far more important things to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why

BW. Why do you have to get involved? Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Was watching the debate about it on the admins board, always good for a bit of entertainment on a Friday night, after seeing the repeated moaning about British bias, i couldnt help but pop over there and suggest the only method to address the problem. I cant think of any other way to solve it unless we kill off most of Englands population to bring about balance with Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Pedro has taken a bit of a dislike to me.[17]. All those bad words he's using, absolutely disgraceful, don't you think? :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch yes, pretty extreme for an admin. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people just don't live in the real world. Jack forbes (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

admins aren't special

Worth mentioning that a warning whether delivered by an admin or another editor is equally valid. There is a Jimbo quote somewhere to the effect that admins have no special status and he's thinking of giving random people adminship to remove the mystique. I am on my phone so can't quickly find the ref. Lot 49a^talk 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

True the warnings may be equally valid but it coming from an admin carries more weight, i see he went nuts and clearly deserved the block today. Just seems strange that it was instant indef block when others are able to get away with murder and have constant warnings and a dozen blocks. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR

Aha. Looks as if we have administration after all. :) Wise self-revert, btw. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, it seemed to me from the conversation on that page in previous days that the 1RR was no longer really in force as the Admin who imposed it hasnt been seen for a month, never noticed the big pink warning was on the page. Is ok as long as an admin is regularly checking to undo such edits. Semi protection would remove that problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a close one, BW. Think the page will be monitored 24/7? Can't see it happening, myself. Not enough admins seem interested. Fair play to CanterburyTail, at least he did what he threatened. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Upton

Ordnance Survey gives Upton and Upton Park as separate localities. According to the OS map Upton is located north of railway line and west of Green Street and Upton Park is south of the railway and east of Green Street. Upton is a very old name for part of West Ham parish. Upton Park is more recent, but since the railway station has the name and West Ham FC is synonymous with it, this name has possibly been adopted for both areas. MRSC (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm i took a look at the OS map and some others and they do show it as a seperate location yes. I also looked up the postcode for one of the streets there, which is E7 but the Upton Park article only mentions E6 / E13 not E7. It seems rather strange, i would of thought all parts of London would atleast have a stub page. perhaps we could mention this on the London wikiproject page and for the time being put a see also Upton Park on that disam page? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. MRSC (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheep dog

Please see further comment at talk:Sheep dog. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Cornwall

I've proposed a splitting out and reorganisation of Template:Cornwall at its talk page, and would welcome your thoughts. --Jza84 | Talk 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for all of your comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my Rollback rights. I really appreciate it. Regards.--David | ^Talk 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming Poll

Yep, there's bound to be sparks flying, in the next few hours. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive been worried that there was going to be a sudden surge of E voters in the final day, im glad i was worrying about nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sniff sniff, I was hoping for an E-surge; Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I came so close to cracking in the early days of this poll, really considering switching my vote to D or perhaps even C. But one editors actions made compromise impossible, what a shame the vote did not go the way that person wanted. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever the results, it lastes until atleast 2011. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Its amazing to think this is sorted for 2 years, (after the attempts to void the vote fail anyway) lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary result is here. Valenciano has a similar tally. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, better majority than i thought F would have at some points, there were the occasional mass floods of Es and i started to panic. Good job done all round i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder

I have to ask - why change back to British Isles when no part of that section mentions anything else but England, Wales and Scotland? Black Kite 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies BW for interjecting here, but England, Wales and Scotland are part of the British Isles. When using that term we do not have to be totally inclusive of every entity within it. BI is correct - but, we could look again at it to see if there's a better description. In the mean time it seems reasonable to revert to the version prior to HighKing's involvement. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"and number of sites were closed down, including those in Ireland.", Its about Britain and Ireland, there for the British Isles is a reasonable term to use, especially as the change highking originally made was to Britain, which clearly cant cover Ireland, then after that was reverted he changed it to UK, but there was no UK in the 13th century. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, though. Why not use "Great Britain and Ireland" in that case? Is there really a need to use "British Isles" here? Is it referring to every part of the geographical entity? Black Kite 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is a geographical term, widely used including internationally and should not be changed simply because one or two editors dont like it. The uninvolved editor is still working on that section before the British Isles editors arrived, but on the talk page of the article makes clear its about Britain and Ireland. The two changes highking made to that title are there for incorrect ~~(first to Britain, then to United Kingdom after his first change was undone)~~, i can see only one reason why he made those changes, and POV changes are meant to be unacceptable on wikipedia. Great Britain and Ireland is an article, although quite frankly several think it should not be one. The trouble is Great Britain and Ireland is a common name for the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which also did not exist in the 13th century. British Isles is clear, the term is backed up by reliable sources.. there was no justification or reason for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Woops, he kept changing the title to Britain and the first sentence to United Kingdom, Both were unacceptable changes and undone twice. The involved editor then changed the title to United Kingdom, but that does not apply to that period as pointed out before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As per above, we don't need to be totally inclusive when talking about the British Isles. This is one of the tactics employed by HighKing - if something doesn't apply to, say, the Channel Islands then we can't use BI. "Britain" is ambiguous in that it's unclear if it just means Great Britain, the island, or the State. Personally I'm leaning towards England on this one but let's see what others have to say. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see a reason to keep England in the first sentence of that section instead of British Isles like it was originally, so i didnt change that one. But the title was clear cut as far as im concerned, its one of the more obvious unacceptable removals of British Isles ive seen for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Britain" does include the IOM, and all the other islands under UK domain. There are thousands referencing that on the internet. Tfz 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

HighKing is right about one thing - if the article doesn't actually apply to the whole geographical entity then it shouldn't be used; that's just accuracy, not POV. More to the point though, I'm trying to gain a middle ground here; what I'm saying is that there's no real need to use BI if the article only refers to parts of the whole. In some cases there's no option but to use it, that's clear; but each instance needs to be evaluated separately. Hence my point about mass-reverting yesterday. Black Kite 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We should follow Snowdeds suggestion and get agreement about where change is acceptable at the BI taskforce page or somewhere like that. Im sorry but i find the idea we should remove every mention of British Isles from wikipedia where there is a possible alternative, totally unacceptable. One editor should NOT be allowed to go around articles randomly removing British Isles, just because he objects to the term.. its disgraceful BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This matter has huge future implications, we certainly must move it to a central location where everyone can get involved in a neutral setting. Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force is probably the best place. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ArbCom should issue guide lines on the BI term usage, but I doubt if they will. The BI npov issue just cannot go on forever and a day imo. Tfz 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded suggestion about creating a list of proposed changes at some central location that Highking wants to make might help resolve this matter. I have no problem with genuine cases where there is clearly a more accurate term to be used like UK or Britain, but to use "Britain and Ireland" is a different matter. However in this case, considering highkings change simply changed it to something which was inaccurate,(Britain) there was no need for the change and British Isles should not be removed by default because Highking made a bad edit.

Lets get the list, so we can all take a look and give opinions on which should and should not be changed. that may prevent edit warring, but considering this has been ongoing for years with alot of debate and disagreement, theres no way i can accept or support simply removing British Isles from wikipdia just to appease Highking and a few others who constantly go around wikipedia removing the reliable and used term. That is not fair, and for the record i object to people randomly inserting British isles anywhere.. i certainly have better things to do with my day than hunt for locations and try to add "British Isles". The only reason this is a big deal is because POV removals of British isles, is clearly unacceptable and can not just be allowed to happen.. where would it all end. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Com on over to the BI-Taskforce, it seems so lonely there. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong article

There is a discussion here about whether the words “highly autonomous” should be removed from the opening sentence of the article.

The current opening sentence reads:

“

Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a highly autonomous territory of the People's Republic of China, facing Guangdong to the north and the South China Sea to the east, west and south. Hong Kong is a global metropolitan and international financial centre, and has a highly developed capitalist economy.

”

Feel free to expression you opinion in the above talk page. Da Vynci (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Rather than being defensive I really think you should listen to the frustration in Evertype's comments and pay some attention to your own comments and style, you are in danger of being stereotyped through stereotypical behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider my actions to have been gloating, with the possible exception of when there was a friendly conversation about how to illustrate the vote result but i was not the only one involved in that and i certainly did not start it. My other comments have been because people are trying to back out of the poll counting, i originally may of help fuel that by saying i was still open to compromise. There for when i was no longer prepared to accept compromise, i thought it was right to state so straight away. Thats part of the post mentioned in Evertypes original comment against me and claiming i was "Effing gloating". BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to write something very similar to Evertype, and I, as you know have been prepared to defend you as one of the unionist editors that is open to argument. Whatever your intent (and I accept your statements) it is coming across as aggressive, imperialistic etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Stereotyped for stereotypical behaviour? Sure! He refuses compromise, even if it would in fact make the encyclopaedia a better place. Ulster says No. -- Evertype·✆ 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I still feel Republic of Ireland is the best choice and that no reasonable grounds for changing the article set up was given except that it would make a few people happy and reduce conflict. Thats the only justification i have seen for the change to day (certainly no justification for the E option which had big problems). Accepting compromise is hard, i thought the compromise about the Ireland Collaboration Project accepting ROI is NOT British POV would make it easier for those who support F to back a compromise (when F was in the lead and looked set to win by a larger margin). It would also have made dealing with Sarahs "British POV" nonsense alot easier as wed be sending the signal the name change did not happen because its British POV, which is exactly what would have been claimed if the titles were changed. Anyway there is some constructive work taking place on the collab page now about when to use ROI in different articles. Sorting that would avoid going over old ground over the poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are spending far too much time reading motives into people's behaviour and reaction. Responding to an extreme position by hardening your own is the way that conflict exercises, and I think your definition of constructive needs looking at. Either way, I've pointed it out, will be interested to see if you have listened. --Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to avoid making further posts on the poll talk page until the declaration takes place. However i can not help but step in when people attempt to undermine or dismiss the vote. I think whats happening over at the collab page is very constructive, and those are the sorts of issues i wanted sorted out which is why i opposed the initial proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Never a dull momment around the subjects of the names British Isles & the Irelands, eh folks? Anyways, let's be Spicoli cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I personally agree with chauvinism and imperialism in the face of ghandisms and counter-culture "activism", as a matter of masculinity, it seems obvious to me that this is one of those things which will carry on and on until the Republic of Ireland article is at Ireland (which is where it should be IMO, a contemporary sovereign state of almost a century is more important than secondary geographic considerations). Its roughly the same as when schismatics had forced the Catholic Church article to be at "Roman Catholic Church" and then it was finally moved to the correct common title, which vastly improved the quality of the project and was the sensible thing to do. In any case, the whole problem with Sarah's "British POV" rhetoric is that most Irish people who voted, did so for it to remain as it is. I very much doubt the result will stop people trying to get it changed anyway. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not often we agree, we do here both on Ireland and Catholic! --Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i agreed with the first bit :) As for the dispute, im sure there will be some unhappy all the time with it but the articles will be locked into place for 2 years so there will not be edit wars over it in that period. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not over the name of the article BW, but on the subject itself I think you will find the missed opportunity this time round means that positions will harden on use in articles etc. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Im fine with that, i dont have strong feelings if the ROI is used in articles less times than its used now, but what i do want is clear guidelines of when it can be used just so we all know whats acceptable and that will prevent edit wars. Just out of interest, whats the big problem with Roman Catholic Church? Thats what i always hear it called. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Its the Catholic Church, adding Roman was a British POV at the time of the reformation (I should probably not be telling you this). Article was finally renamed recently but its still controversial. Yorkshirian and I are both Catholics, but he (I think) has a right wing background, while my history is Catholic Marxism and the Liberation Theology movement. --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ahh i see thanks, lol dont worry i wont suddenly develop an interest in that area :) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, BW, I think that your whole game is disingenuous. Whether you like it or believe it or not, or whether you believe that they are right to feel so, Republic of Ireland pisses off some people and causes strife in this encyclopaedia. Ireland (state) doesn't have this quality. Even you said you could support D, though at this stage I have to conclude that you were never honest about it and you were just teasing us. I said many times, as did some others, that "RoI" isn't British POV, but your requirement is for Sarah to say so, which to me shows that all you really want is to "win", because you know she is stuck where she is. All the "constructive work" you point to about when to use ROI within an article is meaningless, if the article is stuck there. I tried to use negotiation tactics many times: "What can people support?" We saw in the vote that more members of IECOLL (obviously the interested parties) could support D than any of the other options. That's something we learned during the poll. Is it meaningless? Or is it a way forward? -- Evertype·✆ 11:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My position on this matter has hardened, when i first arrived on this matter i clearly supported a change to what is no option D. But 6 months on the case for change in my opinion has weakened, where as the case for keeping it the same is done nothing but grow stronger. For example, i did not know originally that Republic of Ireland has been used 1000s of times in the Oireachtas, this fact alone disproves the "British POV" myth pushed by some.

If all i wanted to do was have F win then i would not have offered compromise during the poll at a point when F was in a very strong lead. But people from both sides did not support that compromise, Sarah said she was ok with it then less than 10 minutes later carried on with her POV pushing, another supporter of E said i was being unreasonable, i thought it was a reasonable compromise considering the larger compromise supporters of F were being asked to make. Anyway it failed, we can not go back on it now. Im sorry but i strongly oppose going against the vote. The work being done at the collaboration page now is important, and theres far more room for compromise over on those issues than here. Im not after some massive change of Ireland to Republic of Ireland, i just want clear guidelines of when ROI is used, thats something those who oppose the title being ROI should get involved with for obvious reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How wonderful for you, to dig your heels in. Who is to believe that your position has not always been hard? I don't give a fig about the "British POV myth". It's a red herring. What's not a red herring is that Republic of Ireland is problematic for a number of Wikipedia editors interested in Ireland. It does not matter if it's used 1000 times in the Dáil. It's still a red flag to a bull. D avoids this. I support D. The work being done on the collaboration page is meaningless if the red flag isn't taken down. This crap will revisit us in 2 years. We could grasp the nettle now. I'm all for rules about when to use ROI in articles. But that's not the central problem, which is still solvable -- if people of good faith look at the polling results and notice that within the IECOLL members D gets more support than any other option.

Look, this isn't too hard. Masem says that if IECOLL chooses to compromise even now it could be beneficial to the project. Your voice carries some weight; or you seem to hold a veto card, to look at it another way. Can you support a change to D even now? Just say so. If not: I've wasted weeks of work trying to broker compromise. Not that you should care about me. I've just been trying to get us out of a mire into which we are surely headed if the state article stays at ROI. -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The "British POV" claim is offensive and thats the reason why the last time i offered to compromise it had to be on the condition that we declared it wasnt British POV to ensure Sarah and co dont get to go around bragging. I accept that some people do have a genuine disagreement with where the article belongs and feel it should be somewhere else, however i think this is a tiny minority. As i have mentioned before millions of people have viewed the Republic of Ireland article in the past few years only a couple of dozen people AT MOST, have seen the need to demand or request change through that period.

If it was just me that was blocking a compromise from happening then i could undersand your concerns, but its not just me. There have been quite a few posts on the talk page opposing the idea of trying to decide a different outcome from the vote. Those people have put far more convincing cases forward than i have. Its probably best to try working on them than on me, if you want to push on. But i think compromise simply wont happen on this matter. If that means we have to come back here in 2 years time, so be it. It gives everyone a long time to get their cases / arguments ready for round two. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "British POV myth" is offensive, and I disagree with it. And I agreed that the project could declare it so. I've agreed to this every time. But you don't give a damn what I say, even though I'm a moderate who has tried to encourage compromise—before the poll, during the poll, and after the poll. You get to dig your heels in and "win" because Sarah supports the myth. And that will not solve the long-standing problem we have.

But you get to dodge it completely. You're safe. "I don't have to say I would support a D compromise because others will disagree". So you prevent anyone from discussing it. You "think compromise might not happen", so you don't even try. Not even to see what would happen. You've got your veto. You win.

For shame. -- Evertype·✆ 12:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my power and influence on this matter. I openly accept that it if wasnt for sarah and her disgusting attacks and claims then i would find it alot easier to compromise even at this point, although its not just been sarah, several have been pushing and continue to push the same claims. But it is too late, there simply is no room for compromise and i have no choice now but to oppose it. I really dont have the power to change the outcome now the vote is over, even if i came out strongly supporting compromise others would reject it as clear from the talk page. If you want to blame this on me, i can live with that however the people who are really responsible are the hardliners who have been against F throughout and making the offensive claims about British POV pushing.. They are the ones who are to blame for the position i now take on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were interested in compromise you would work for compromise. Instead, you make excuses so that you don't have to. You care more about being right than about this encyclopaedia. You talk to me as though you are reasonable, as though you would compromise with reasonable people like me, but then you pull the rug out from under my hopes by saying that you can't compromise because of the bad behaviour of others. So basically, you've been leading me up the garden path. I thought I was discussing matters with someone of good will, whom I could respect. You've shown me that I have not. Perhaps you and Sarah are cut from the same cloth after all. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was seriously prepared to accept compromise during the poll otherwise i wouldnt have made the suggestion i did, but people on both sides disagreed.. theres nothing more i could do and now the poll is closed there is certainly nothing i can do. Others have said to go back on the vote now or try and come to some different verdict on the vote is just not acceptable. Anyway there is nothing more that can be done. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You really don;t listen do you, just reflect a bit on the fact that people have bothered to come here and ask you to tone it down a bit. Try to stop telling everyone else what you will and will not accept; realise that you may be helping to drive good editors away from wikipedia. Please --Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What other editors do is their own choice. I will defend myself when needed and i will defend the poll when it comes under attack for unjust reasons. I am not stopping other people from supporting compromise, all i have done is state my position, it just so happens others agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That poll

Just a friendly request to tone your behaviour down a little, please. It does seem a little like gloating. Goading people on the other side isn't helpful, and is only going to make people's behaviour there worse. Thanks, 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done no such thing, but i have no intention of sitting back and listening to people rubbish the entire vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has noticed that I'm not (nor ever was) a member of the Ireland Collaboration Project. But then, why would anybody notice. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly some people who have been heavily involved didnt bother signing up either, it appears the only benefit to signing up is the ability to remove your name in protest. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

By jumpins I've done it. I've become a Ireland Collaboration Project member. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you pay your subscription fee? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay? as in money? Ha, I keep burgler alarms on my garbage cans. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, its only a small fee!, you get far more action and drama from the collaboration project than youd get from watching a film, so its worth it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aint nobody getting money from me, I even charge rent on usage of my phone. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

lmao, meanie. You may not get invited to the 2011 Ireland renaming reunion if you dont pay!. U wouldnt want to miss that would you. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get in there the old fashion way, I'll break-in. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

lol hopefully everyone will have moved on with their lives after 2 years and not be worried about an article name, can only hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, emotions will ease. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PIRA page

Hey, just wanted to say that I'm glad we could reach some compromises on the PIRA page. I know we have different views on the subject, but it was nice to be able to reach a consensus on the lede draft. I hope the rest of the article receives the same quality and quantity of attention that the lede did. Thanks again for your contributions. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit) I especially appreciate the neutrality that you've demonstrated in dealing with socks/pov warriors who happen to share your views. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with him on the "unsuccessfully" bit and i dont think to include that in the first sentence would stop it from being neutral, but i can understand others strongly opposing that being added so i dont think we should get into a big fight over the first sentence after weeks improving the whole intro and theres no excuse for the edit warring or bypassing the block like he did. Whilst on talk pages i have no problem letting people know my true feelings on things, ive always tried to avoid making controversial changes to articles which may spark a war. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your level-headedness. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also appreciate your level-headedness. Irvine22 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Gang member

I had to laugh at this comment [18]. I can assure you I've never been part of any gang in my life. I'm just picturing a scene from Gangs of New York. Not my scene I'm afraid. Jack forbes (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, was either going to be gang or "the crew" :) although i suppose i could have said the usual suspects showed up. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

lol,Yeah, we're all walking around with chibs to protect ourselves against those mad unionist gangs/crews/usual suspects. Jack forbes (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I sadly feel a little outnumbered at times which is disturbing! lol @ the slashers, sound like a nasty bunch. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They were, but they would have helped your granny across the road. Different days. Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wanna Be in My Gang, my gang.... Sorry BritishWatcher, Jack, I couldn't resist it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebec is a nation

I am well aware of the 3 revert rule. So, I am going to come back tommorrow. What I have to say is you're doing you're job very well. But we can't take take anymore of this british crap. It's been going on for more than 240 years. And you know what's the saddest part is ? I am able to speak to you in english like most french speaking quebecers. But how many peoples from the ROC could do the same with me in french ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs)

lol, well i speak the single language i need to speak on this earth.. English. This has nothing to do with British crap anymore, this is a matter for the sovereign state of Canada. Sadly we all have our little separatist problems :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that. And do you know the solution for all of them ??? No thinking that's the world belongs to you because it doesn't. And if you're coming here or in France you could really use to speak french. There's still hope that it's going to be forever like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobifr (talk • contribs)

Clarification: Quebec is not a nation, it's a Canadian province. The Quebecois (i.e. the francophone Quebecers) are a nation. For that matter, Inuit are a nation. Howabout [Leafs nation]? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does make a difference. do they have any plans for a 3rd referendum? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the Quebec government is Liberal, future referendums aren't scheduled. Besides, I reckon most Quebecers suffer from referendum fatigue (even though there's only be 2 within the last 3+ decades). GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope they dont think about holding another in the next 10 years, as ive said before.. the separatists stick together and if one sovereign state gets screwed over, then it will only encourage others around the world. Do you think if there was one less would support a break up than 1995? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebec seperatist are mistaken if they think they can take the entire province out of Canada. If a part of Canada can break-away, why can't a part of Quebec? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very true yes, are some areas more against a break away than others? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm recalling correctly, the Northermost & largest county was against independance in 1995. Mind you, the 1980 & 1995 Referendum questions were (to say the least) confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol, the SNPs proposed wording is pretty pathetic here too. Instead of asking do you want independence / a break up of the UK yes or no they have tried to have one where it talks about "starting" negotiations on bringing about independence, such weak wording could lead to people being misled by the door to door SNP activists, making it sound like its not set in stone and there will be plenty of further debate on the matter.

If there is to be one here, it needs to be very clear and simple in the UK or out of it, with all the implications laid clearly out for people before they vote. At the moment the SNP just duck serious questions and say "oh we will have a referendum on that after, thas for the future independent Scotland to decide" just avoiding very serious questions because their answers could impact on how people vote.

Like the issue of the Euro, whilst Scotland is more pro Europe than England, theres a strong minority in the separatists ranks who hate the idea of becoming independent then surrendering lots of powers straight over to Brussels. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Quebec seperatist have giving up on indenpendance & are more interested in their province's status within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardly anyone in the UK cares about the situation in Québec, and we really don't have anything to do with it, so don't blame us!!! (Or the Lizard queen for that matter)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't blame yas. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I heard it was a pretty hostile situation, didn't some extremist groups threaten to assassinate the Lizard Queen?--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lizard Queen. LOL. Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alot of people have made such threats, it comes with being a Head of State. Why ya keep saying 'lizard queen'? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Go search through the talk page on the queens article, and look for the "Reptilian agenda" thing...:P --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

A personal request - you could be a force for good in this naming dispute, its going to take a few people of good will from both sides to achieve it and you don't strike me (despite our multiple disagreements) as a die hard Unionist. So, I am hoping for a positive response on getting some agreement on when and how to use BI names. I think we if extend the list of articles in question then its going to be a lot easier to (i) generalise a rule and (ii) compromise "in the round"--Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i feel very strongly about the union, however the use of British Isles across wikipedia is the least of my worries these days. Im not obsessed with the term, all i hate is when its randomly removed for no good reason in an attempt to pretend it doesnt exist. Take the 3 examples Highking has listed, ive no problem with the one on the person being removed which is totally unsourced and i doubt one can be found for the British Isles, but there are a couple of sources by different authors for the French invaders one, and an entire book covering the subject in the British Isles for the coal one. There for i support 2 remaining but no problem with the other one being removed. The guidelines at the moment clearly do not solve the problem as there are removals which lead to edit wars and disputes. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Feeling strongly about the union, however misguided :-), is not the same thing as being swept up in a NI Unionist use of symbols. Hence my approach to you. I think we will find cases there both B&I and BI are in books or papers somewhere, so the guidelines are important. I am trying to get HighKing and others to stop random raids and deal with multiple articles in one as part of an approach to finding an overall settlement. Its one way to avoid edit wars and bad feeling. A rough "B&I if political" "BI if geographic" is I think sustainable with a bit of effort. --Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i try to avoid the Ireland issue as much as possible, has too much of a religious edge for my taste. Whilst it is important to try and get compromise and maintain stability, simply accepting the fact British Isles can be removed in most cases is not something im going to support. You say BI if its geographical and B+I if its political, but if we go along with that idea i see 3 geographical mentions of BI in the examples highking has given. Saying some guy is known around Europe is talking about a geographical location surely? so i see no reason why using the British Isles should be any different (although i accept in that case its not sourced so should be removed).

how is the one talking about the invasion by the French not geographical? its about them invading a geographical area, just as the one on coal is talking about coal measures in a geographical location. This is the problem with your suggestion, as far as im concerned every time the British Isles is used its used because in a geographical sense, thats what the term is. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering you’re a die-hard royalist…

Ever met one of em? I know I’m not a royalist, but I have met Prince Charles on three occasions. Living in an area with lots of duchy property means he is obligated to visit once every few years, and was there only a week ago in Princetown as a matter of fact. I also met His former ex-wife. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You poor soul. Will you ever get over it? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

lol im not a huge royalist, i just think the monarchy is certainly better than any alternative right now and its pointless to think about changing the system, the monarchy is also something that annoys a certain type of people, so its quite enjoyable rubbing it in :). Never met any of them, closest ive come to one of them would have to be the Queen when she was on her Golden Jubilee tour and came to Portsmouth, i saw her unveil an awful statue. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Queen once in the seventies at George Square. Held up the car I was in, bloody cheek! Tell me BW, would you bow your head to the woman? Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure i would, she is our Queen! It gets far more complicated when she dies though, so "God save the Queen" is very important ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You really think she is better than the rest of us? You should have more self esteem than that. I'd never bow to another human being but if I did it would be to someone far more deserving than her and her family. Perhaps you would also tip your cap to the landowners as had to be done once. Jack forbes (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

She is our Queen, she is more important than any other person in this country, ofcourse she is better :). Would you rather we do it like the Americans? Where you have people obsessing over presidents? Sadly standards have slipped over time, even if you disagree with monarchy you should show the same respect for your Queen as anyone else. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And there he goes on the wind up. Tut, tut. Jack forbes (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The 70s???!! Jesus I got to remember that almost all editors I interact with are older than me...(Did ya know putting the queens head upside down on a stamp still constitutes treason?)

And what Jack pointed out above is why I have resentment against not just the monarchy , but aristocracy as a whole. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why some are against the monarchy, i dont get why it bothers people so much though, but its enjoyable playing on that hate and winding people up. Its not like the royal family go around spitting at us commoners in the streets (anymore lol). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, admittedly they don't, they just get far to much money than they should from the public! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to him. They do spit on the public. The old Queen mother was the worse, disgusting habit she had. Jack forbes (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohh i hate the money argument, good lord this is the 6th largest economy in the world, heaven forbid we spend less than 200 million a year on a bit of British culture that many people love and support. The monarchy is one of the last remaining great British traditions the British government actually bothers to defend. I can think of 1000s of things id rather save the money on than by becoming some form of republic BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen mother was just a little eccentric. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO Republicans are insane, can you imagine how awful it would be to have "President for life Tony Blair"? The political class in this country are extremely poor quality as it is, none of them deserve to be head of state. The worst thing about the republican system is its tacky nature, it has no soul, no legitimate traditions, it has no culture, no unity or fluid connection with the rest of history. Take France for instance, the republicans have destroyed it completely to the extent that its a seedy, socialist ridden shell of its former great self. I'd rather a Civil War than a Republic. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Yorkshirian about the nature of republics. I don't know why some people object to the system of monarchy. I'd take a contitutional monarchy anyday over a dreary, anemic republic. Wouldn't you rather bow your head to someone like the late Princess Diana or the lovely Clothilde Courau instead of Carla Bruni?!!!!!I know I would.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to bow their head to either? --Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Some people just like bowing I guess. Jack forbes (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its at atavistic throw back to "off with their heads", bowing makes it easier to execute. --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bowing one's head was a mere figure of speech, Snowded; however people do it all the time in church when the priest is holding up a chalice of wine and a communion wafer. Oh please, don't mention beheadings as it brings back such dreadful memories of 1536. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going off to South Korea in the new year, wonder if they do allot of bowing over there...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Figure of speech or literal meaning I'd give the same response, and the idea that the royal family can in any way be compared with the "body & blood" is taking it too far, as to 1536, Ann new what she was getting into so I have little sympathy, 1649 is a much better reference, pity we didn't carry on that tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The execution of Charles I (who was decidedly pro-Catholic due in large part to his Catholic Queen consort Henrietta Maria of France) was followed by the Commonwealth, presided over by that delightful Master of Revels Oliver Cromwell who opened the floodgates to the bleakest, saddest period of Irish history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Cromwell behaved like a King, betrayed the revolution. Sooner we get rid of them and all the associated pomp and circumstance the better for the human race. --Snowded ^TALK 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, monarchies have got to go. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For me the Republican Centuries: the 19th and 20th, debunked that system for all times. The revolutionists thought they could change the nature of man itself, pretend everything is supposed to be "equal", the masses as "victims" and so on. Yet there are always leaders who rise to the top in any system, human nature. Their system instead of Kings, just led to republican heads like Cromwell, Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Which are far, far worse than any "by right of birth" monarch I can think of.

Either that or it led to complete cultural mediocrity (a financial oligarchy being hidden overlords) and a direct state threat to personal freedom. In his folly, Cromwell may turn out to be the greatest ally of royalism in the UK. If the republicans ever start to get serious, the polemical royalist response, using Cromwell is going to be fantastic. I can imagine it now, "They want to ban Christmas again!" :p - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"And the cinemas, discos, laughter, and The Internet!!!!" John Lennon was right when he described revolutionaries: "Well you know, you don't really want to change the world". Revolutionaries don't want to change the world, just their position in the world, putting themselves at the top, just like the Bolsheviks did-and elimated everybody who stood in their way. Cromwell was not a true revolutionary. He was a power-mad, religious fanatic who hated pomp and circumstance as well as the Catholic Church. Alas, he did not understand that human beings cannot live on prayers alone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

i believe the lyric you refer to by john lennon said 'we all want to change the world' not the one you have(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

I just had a listen on YouTube and you are absolutely correct, Lennon did indeed say We all want to change the world. I am losing my memory, however it's been years since I last heard that song so a mix-up with the lyrics is perhaps understandable. I do believe Lennon was being sarcastic when he said We all want to change the world. I especially like his line, If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777

I was aware of the previous arbcom case but was trying my hardest to assume good faith and was also trying not to inflame the situation more than neccessary. Dpmuk (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh i see sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do the same BW, you might consider changing your name and/or removing the flag from yr user page before you edit Irish pages and/or bait Sarah ... just a friendly thought. Abtract (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats unthinkable! To me that doesnt sound like trying to avoid inflaming the situation, it sounds more like appeasement and we all know what that led to 70 years ago. I also do not get involved with many Irish pages, only matters that also relate to the United Kingdom, such as the Ireland naming dispute which was recently solved via a poll or the ongoing motorway issue on which i have been fair and consistent. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, I'm getting more than a bit surprised, I thought you was cool. hope I'm still correct.) Tfz 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Im cool. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW change his name? Well, he can't have the moniker GoodDay, as I'm keeping it. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'Tis best that you respect Sarah's request (to not post on her talk-userpage). Note that I've respected Domer48's request of me. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wont post there again, she hadnt formally banned me as far as im concerned. One of the diffs Highking mentioned, she said in the edit summary i could come back when i stopped calling her a liar. That issue over the lying happened over at the Ireland naming poll because of the claims of British POV in the poll she was pushing and the bit about Irish voters opposing the option despite others proving her wrong. that was over a month ago, and weve only been engaging over the motorway issue, which is completly different and ive agreed with her in some of the cases where the British motorway needs moving to make way for a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've now been formally banned. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

lol yes, but i wasnt before. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second your change of name? Jack forbes (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But what would i change it to though, i cant think of anything better. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'IrishWatcher'? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, no sadly its more important to keep an eye on British people, alot of separatism and treason in the air these days. :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just call yourself Jack Watcher why don't you? :) Jack forbes (talk)

lol that might scare everyone called Jack out there if they have someone watching them. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, you could change your name to AlbionWatcher. Gives off classical vibes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm that does have a certain ring to it lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I should change my name to "theomanwhoshouldavoidloggingonwhenpissed". Not very catchy but sometimes relevant. :) Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol what do you think of this name User:Employanimigrantinsteadofavillager., just had to undo a rant by that guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Catchy and political. Interesting edit, though they should write a book instead of ranting about it here. I don't think I would go out and buy it though. 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Since you seem to have worked in this field. Your opinion on this matter might be useful; whether or not the "History of Cornwall" category should be contained within a "national histories" category or not because its a county of England.[19] I've created a new bar template to navigate between all the county Histories of England by the way. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice new history of England template, good job. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [20]. Thanks,Black Kite 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Howdy BW, ya think there's a chance my compromise will succeed? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

not a chance lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with that article's content, but a fella's got to try something. PS: Be back in a hour (gotta watch Three's Company. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Might save alot of time and effort just to lock that article down for a few months lol. Enjoy the show. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

TsC was a kneeslapper. As for the BI article, a year-long protection may be required. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why a year and not two years? Why not forever (just after I change the lede paragraph). Jack forbes (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All hells breaking loose elsewhere aswell now, take a look at User_talk:Black_Kite, the section on there about British Isles. Dozens of edits have taken place which highking has reverted, many of them original edits were accurate changes which now we can not restore because this 1RR now applies wiki wide on these matters apparently. On top of this theres still the motorway nightmare, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a list of these articles drawn up & then divided 50/50. Pro-BI editors take half & Anti-BI take half. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II‎

Thank you for your suggestion. I think that, thanks to you, we've got it right now. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and why a break from it always helps

Hello, BW. Sometimes wikipedia can be stressful which is one of the reasons I now take frequent breaks for a week or so. I can feel one coming up soon. I hope you don't mind me saying, but I get the feeling you are becoming a little stressed out at the moment. Take it from me, a break away from here does wonders for you. I'm not advising you take a break because we are of opposite opinions on most things, but because it is advice that everyone should take from time to time. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been alot of issues that have all come up in recent weeks which are very time consuming and have distracted me from other things. Im trying to cut down, ive not got involved on the Ireland collab page for the past few days as that seems to be going round and round in circles, but as soon as one issue fades away another one seems to flare up. Like the British isles examples on the taskforce page, i thought that was dying down now we have dozens of British Islands / isles links which need clearing up so its accurate which will take a lot of time. I will try to make less opinionated comments on the talk page regarding the British Isles article, but the radical change to the intro which led to an edit war hardly got the debate off to a good start and I did find the wording it was changed too totally unacceptable.

But i couldnt possibly take a full break for a period of a week or two from wikipedia, sometimes that can be more stressful if you come back to find dozens of things have happened and you then have to spend days catching up and you are in a weaker position if the change has been made already. Sometimes i pop on just to check if anything major has happened and if it hasnt then i go on with other things, but sometimes i cant just ignore something and must make a comment, then ofcourse when the person replies to my comment i must reply and so on till dozens of responses have been made over what some would see as a small issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing that can be done for you. It may be too late I'm afraid. You are now a wikiholic! We normally give people six months grace before they are dragged out the house screaming and shaking to be taken to a very secure padded cell. Shame! :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

lol this place is very addictive yes, its good fun at times though. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiholics Anoymonious saved me. Roughly 3hrs is my daily dosage. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

lol id just started relaxing for the evening then something starts up over on the Wales article so thats going to keep me busy for a few hours over the next few days. Not enough hours in the day! BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. I'm signing out for the night, cheers. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

night :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys think you've got it bad, well, I've begun to dream of Wikipedia!!!!Yes it even follows me to dreamland, so there is no escape for me. I think I'm rapidly becoming the Evelyn Draper of Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can no longer read a book quickly, as I'm constantly finding spelling errors. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you really do need that break BW. You're ranting and forcing your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalJames (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit of good fun

BW, if you want to read something that I composed for a giggle, here it is:User: Jeanne boleyn/Wikipedians and their historical counterparts. It's meant to be good fun, not to be taken seriously. Hopefully it'll somewhat lighten up the heavy atmosphere at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lmao thats very good, i dont think i fit into a single category there though. I think im a mix of two or 3 on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I fit at least three categories, I'm afraid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, do me a favour and revert this edit for me as I am on one revert a day. ta Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I still have to work out if I could revert stuff like that as vandalism without affecting my 1RR condition. Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think clear vandalism like that is fine for going past the 1RR as its exempt from the 3RR anyway, if that couldnt be considered vandalism it was a major violation of WP:BLP. worth checking somewhere just to be sure though BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Replied on my Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So I thoght this migh interest you (User:Ludvikus):

Hanoverian Monarchs: Great Britain and the United Kingdom

House of Hanover

Ernest Augustus and Sophia's son, George I became the first British monarch of the House of Hanover.
- <ref>Picknett, Lynn, Prince, Clive, Prior, Stephen & Brydon, Robert (2002). War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy, p.13. Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 1-84018-631-3.</ref>
The dynasty provided six British monarchs:

Of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland:

George I (r.1714-1727) (Georg Ludwig = George Louis)
George II (r.1727-1760) (Georg August = George Augustus)
George III (r.1760-1820)
- <ref> In 1801, the British and Irish kingdoms merged, forming the ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''.</ref>

Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland:

George III (r.1760-1820)
George IV (r.1820-1830)
William IV (r.1830-1837)
Victoria (r.1837-1901).

George I, George II, and George III also served as electors and dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg, informally, Electors of Hanover (cf. personal union).
From 1814, when Hanover became a kingdom, the British monarch was also King of Hanover.

In 1837, however, the personal union of the thrones of the United Kingdom and Hanover ended. Succession to the Hanoverian throne was regulated by Salic law, which forbade inheritance by a woman, so that it passed not to Queen Victoria but to her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland.
- <ref>Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, pp.13,14.</ref>
In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ascended to the UK throne as her son and heir, Edward VII, as son of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, genealogically belonged to that House — asserting, thereby, that the name of the UK’s Royal House changed because the surname of his father was Edward VII's surname.
- <nowiki><ref>Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, p.14.</ref></nowiki>

- - Thought all this might interest you! --Ludvikus (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  - PS1:Her Majesty's complete official title I know is: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  - PS2:Could I personally "honor" her (with your support of course) by producing a #REDIRECT for this complete title at Wikipedia? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  - PS3:Of course I know the She's the fountain of all "honor"; but I'm not her Subject (I'm an American), so I only meant that word as a respectful outsider. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

lol the monarchy certainly has a long and complex history, have you seen the article at Line of succession to the British throne that list on there is just crazy. As for the redirect, its up to you i highly doubt that people would enter that search term leading them to that location, there are alot of deletionists who go about deleting articles or redirects they think are not needed. Your spelling of honour is a good clue about you being an American ;). BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And we say "color" and you say "colour." We say "can" and you say "tin." By the way, I had a discussion with a lovely Italian lady today in which I pointed out that your Civil War took place a century before the American Revolution or the French Revolution - the point being that you guys moved towards democracy before the rest of most of Europe. OK - there were the Dutch - but they link to you through William and Mary - William being William of Orange. I notice you are "British Watch"[man]. So don't forget that I'm extremely pro British (in regard to your wonderful history, and role in bringing Representative Government to the world. If you're not perfect, I remind those who say so that "among the blind the one-eyed man is king." PS: There's also Switzerland and the Renaissance Republics of Italy to remember. Best to you, --Ludvikus (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Biographies 'post 1707'

I admit, I'm very adament that 'British' be used as a descriptive for those within the United Kingdom, whose lives occured after 1707. But, I will abide by what the community wishes. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think British should always be mentioned as their nationality but i have no problem with Scottish, Welsh, English being mentioned aswell. But i cant see that being agreed, in cases like footballers who play for England etc its more useful to say English than British.

I like the idea of using ethnicity for English, Scottish, Welsh and then British for nationality, or putting both in the infobox next to nationality like in that example on noticeboard. But clearly some feel strongly against that sort of thing :( BritishWatcher (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a Canadian thing with me. I see England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales, the same way I see Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Alberta etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, GoodDay. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are all nations with separate, ancient histories, languages, and customs, etc.. You cannot compare them to Canadian provinces anymore than I could with US states. I personally only use the term British when talking about Britain in the political sense, for example:British government, British Army, etc. When it comes to people I never use British, just whatever nation they happen to come from, for instance, The Rolling Stones I consider to be an English rock group not British, actor Sean Connery is Scottish, not British, Van Morrison is Irish, Catherine Zeta-Jones Welsh, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They each have separate histories, languages and customs, however they are all part of one country today, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The people in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (mostly), are British citizens. There is nothing wrong with describing someone as British, even if they only like to identify themselves as Scottish or Welsh.

You mention the USA, well not all of the American states share the same history as the 13 original British colonies that formed the USA. Texans have a unique identity, customs and history. How exactly is British identity any different to American identity when it comes to these matters, we are sovereign states. The difference is just we have been prepared to allow separate identities to continue and have promoted it. In America kids in American schools pledge to flag and country, its their only "national" identity but here because decades of incompetent British governments have grossly undermined and weakened British unity and identity we are in the situation we are today. With a disgusting spread of separatism that has to be dealt with before everything ends.

The problem is also how one defines "nationality", to many that would be American, Canadian, French, German, i fail to see why British is not equal as a nationality to those countries. Ive no problem at all saying someone is Scottish or English, but they are also British and i find it offensive that British is less important in status as Welsh, English or Scottish. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

British is not less important in status just less precise than saying someone is Scottish, English, or Welsh. If you say the Rolling Stones are a British group, it could mean they were from anywhere within the United Kingdom, whereas saying they are English specifies that all of the members were born in England. In an encyclopedia precision is very important. I agree that Texans are different from Californians or New Yorkers, but the cultural differences and traditions are not as great as those between a Scot and someone born in England. Or a Protestant from Belfast and a person from Brighton, Sussex. The USA is not comprised of nations whose separate histories go back thousands of years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that as an encyclopedia the more information provided the better, but im not suggesting that Scottish, English etc shouldnt be displayed, all i want is the fact they are also British, which currently does not appear in most cases because for some reason Scottish or Welsh are seen as more important. Id just like to see "English, British" next to someones nationality in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Country subdivsions of Europe

IMO the category "Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" should be in "Category:Country subdivisions of Europe", rather than simply "Category:European countries". For instance the states of Germany and autonomous communities of Spain, which have a similar situation to the United Kingdom, are in the "Country subdivisions of Europe" cat. Yet Mais oui! is doing the whole activist bit, to try and negate what seems to me a more standard, across Wikipedia categorisation of internal divisions of Europe's sovereign states. Could you take a look? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its best not to describe them as Country subdivisions, that was originally said on one article but it was deemed inaccurate. I think having the sub category Constituent countries of the United Kingdom or if its renamed to Countries of the UK is reasonable on this.

It appears some people are attempting to get the category itself deleted, which would be even more problematic, so keeping the stable name is best. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_21#Category:Constituent_countries_of_the_United_Kingdom, is the best place to discuss which section it should belong in so it can be taken into account in renaming or deleting the category. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean the cats that "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" itself is placed in, I think the name of that cat itself is alright, but the sub-cats its included in, should be the same ones as "Category:Autonomous communities of Spain" and "Category:States of Germany", (which is "Country subdivisions of Europe") rather than one which is for sovereign states themselves (which is "European countries"). - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it will be acceptable to enough people if its put in that category, it should remain in the European countries one but this whole debate may not matter if the category is deleted, in which case.. Countries of Europe would be the category listed on the different UK country articles as it was before. At the moment i think its the most clearest method, although Countries of the UK as the title would be fine. Its more clear than having the UK countries appear in line with other sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just incase what i mean is unclear...

At the moment we have the sub category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom which is part of Category:European countries. That is fine with me, however so its consistent with our usage across wikipedia i think we should change that to Category:Countries of the United Kingdom. However, on the rename page for that category, some are voting for the category to be deleted rather than renamed. Which would lead to European countries being restored, which incorrectly puts the UKs countries along side other sovereign states which can confuse people. There for compromise is best on this matter, Countries of the UK cat - in European Countries cat rather than a deletion and returning to the previous method which was far worse. I hope you understand what i mean, sorry if i wasnt clear before BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornish Ethnicity

Bad luck old boy :D

Believe me there is a lot more to come! Hip hip tally ho!

DfES Extended Codes Approved Extended Categories DfES Main Code Sub- Category Main Category

WBRI White - British WBRI White - British White

WCOR White - Cornish WBRI White - British White

WENG White - English WBRI White - British White

WSCO White - Scottish WBRI White - British White

WWEL White - Welsh WBRI White - British White

WOWB Other White British WBRI White - British White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 October 2009

Lmao i do not expect the Department for Education under this labour government to understand matters of ethnicity, their incompetence and failure is repeated on a daily basis. That extended code list was made in 2006, it has been 3 years and guess what the people of Cornwall are still English!, Shall we take a look at how well the separatist MK party did in that time? The best of it is, whilst i may have serious concerns about the separatist threat posed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this pathetic little obsession by a tiny minority that consider themselves "Cornish nationalists" i just find rather sad and amusing. Get a better hobby. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I see you on TV in Manchester? Along with your "English Defence League" filth? The leader of the "separatist MK party" won his council seat by the largest margin out of all 123 councillors. back luck old boy! Cornish has been recognised by the Office of National Statistics since 2001. Did you miss the 2001 census by any chance? :D The momentum is now with the Cornish people, expect more to come! The Cornish language is taking root across the country (Kernow). The Government for Cornwall Bill gets another reading this week. FREE CORNWALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

lol what a pathetic little speech in an attempt to defend a pathetic little cause. First of all, i am not an English nationalist, i despise groups like the EDL and their friends the BNP, so do not jump to conclusions. Understand there are alot of people proud to be British who do not vote for extremist parties or take part in such silly protests, they are indeed filth, so atleast that is one thing we may actually agree on.

On MK, wow big deal that the leader of MK won a seat out of 123 seats, MK won 3. lol hardly a revolution. Ofcourse county council seats dont make any difference anyway, its MPs seat that matter, try winning one of them lol!

"Cornish has been recognized by the ONS", i am still unsure on this claim. In 2001, the pathetic little nationalist movement encouraged people to put "Cornish" on their census, in exactly the same way that people were told to put Jedi as their religion. From what i understand enough people put Cornish it was given a code, just like enough people put Jedi so it was given its own code.

"Sufficient numbers of people wrote the entry in for it to be allocated its own code for the census processing team to use."

That is the explanation about the Jedi getting a code, is there any evidence to suggest Cornish was a different matter?

On the Cornish language, yes i understand it is being taught in a couple of schools now, well done. You must be very proud that out of 500,000 people who live in Cornwall i think theres a couple of hundred who can speak the Cornish language fully, that must be useful lol.

Finally on the government of cornwall bill, that is a private members bill, there are dozens that never see the light of day and will be voted down when needed. There is no mainstream political support from Labour or the Conservatives for more devolution right now, the lib dems only support it because they are so desperate for power theyd devolve things down to the street level if it meant they stood a chance of actually governing something. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

BI

I was dealing only with User:LemonMonday's reverts. If there are other you would like me to look at, please let me know. Black Kite 23:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. And please quit with the bad faith accusations. I am utterly fed up with them. If this carries on I'm quite happy to leave you all to the edit-warring and then file a RFAR. Black Kite 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

more

"I will strongly oppose any attempt to include cornwall on this article, it is NOT and never has been a country of the United Kingdom. To do so would undermine the status of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

Kernow is rising up and don't you know it :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.121.61 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

lmao keep dreaming. Cornwall is a county of England and that is how it shall remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sounds good, Cornwall getting independence from England. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what is Cornwall's anthem, or does it not have one? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, yes separatists all stick together. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of people in Cornwall are English, the Cornish separatists are a tiny minority which can be dealt with if needed, but right now they pose no threat. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The anthem in Cornwall is God save the Queen, the national anthem of England and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As far as im aware Counties of England have no anthems. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't God Save the Queen the British national anthem as opposed to English? Cornwall does have two anthems, Wales and Scotland have anthems as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes God save the Queen is the British anthem, England just uses it aswell. Northern Ireland also uses God save the Queen at football games, where as Scotland / Wales use their own. There may be cornish songs or anthems but none have any official status, the overhwelming majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves English. Cornwall is part of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - over at English Defense League you seem to be saying that Scotland is not a separate nation and the idea of it having International relations is offensive. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I view the United Kingdom as one nation, im British i do not think of myself as English. Sadly that is not how everyone else feels so the United Kingdom is made up of several "nations" to some. Either way, Scotland and Wales are not "international" which is what i found offensive. How can the same country be "international"? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I too, view the United Kingdom as one country. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay, but I disagree. To me the UK is a political entity, but not one country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the United Kingdom any less of a country than say the USA or Canada? Why is my British identity less valid than those who only claim to be Scottish, Welsh or English? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Britain is a political entity that is comprised of separate nations (and former kingdoms) which have thousands of years of history, culture, languages, traditions and individual identities. You are legally British, by nationality, but you are more importantly, (IMO) English if you were born in England (I am presuming you were).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Britain a political entity but Scotland and England are not? England was formed from smaller entities, so was Scotland. So if we go down this route what about the silly separatists from Cornwall who seem to think they have their own "country" and culture? How about the Kingdom of Wessex, should that be reformed? "history, culture, languages, traditions and individual identities", Different parts of Scotland have that.. What about the Highlanders? Scotland is just as much a political entity as Britain, its just we have allowed such identities to continue and grow at the same time as allowing British identity to weaken because of many different factors.

Yes i was born in England and would be considered as English, but that is not how i think of myself. I consider myself British and i always have, the United Kingdom is my country. Edinburgh and Glasgow are just as much part of my country as London and Liverpool are. The United Kingdom does not stop people from considering themselves Scottish or English if that is what they want, Scotland is still considered a country. However if the separatists win then my identity and country is destroyed, for unionists which without doubt make up the majority of every part of the United Kingdom, "independence" is destruction of our country, shared culture, traditions and identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My preference is to call England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales 'constituent countries'. But I've chosen to support the current compromise, in order to keep the peace. PS: The compromise has been doing quite well. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We're on very dangerous ground allowing anyone other than the indigenous populations of these non-English nations to state whether they are fit to have inter-national links. Some people may (quite reasonably) only wish to be called "British", but many English people (particularly supporters and sympathisers of the EDL) will expect the people of Wales or Scotland, living in quite different condistions, to respond differently to Muslim extremism. Which is why there's a WDL and an SDL, relations with which can only be "international". 86.158.184.158 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to exit from this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"international" just does not fit when talking about the relationship between England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. The best way of describing the other groups would just have been to say "Other British groups in Scotland and Wales have been established.." etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland is only ruled over by British authorities because they threatened the British by force that they had better rule. They will hardly be storming Westminster in the morning but flip the coin, they must have been a bit evil and menacing when they wanted to be. The British authorities, in my view perhaps, wouldn't dare to enforce anything in Northern Ireland except in matters of human rights and neighbourly defense assistance. Any time they have enforced more than that, we find a series of brutality that nobody is too proud of. When they insist the Irish, north/south, to have the final say over themselves, everybody seems to get along and in fact nobody seems to get along better across a stretch of sea so they have had the final say, south and north as well, about their own laws and things most of the time since the partiton. The laws of Northern Ireland often differ slightly from the laws elsewhere in the United Kingdom because, although following each others laws closely, the supreme ruling power in Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and makes its own final decisions. Devolution and home rule is older than anyone you know. They are not just going to kick us out when ready, they have been kicking and kicking...

I am sorry for blowing up your words. This republic is not Ireland even though it takes Ireland as its name. If both those facts are not fine, then it is not fine that it take that name, there is no other reasonable permutation. Saying things like "for certain needs" and further down that elephant in the room road, they have you all ripped up. I would rather accept a Wikipedia massacre than concede to folk telling me lies i.e. that the republic is Ireland. Go **** to them even if they ganged up and changed the whole thing to reflect the lie. There is a guideline that just because people vote does not mean that they are right and it is one of the most important guidelines. Folk all over America and places feel they have an Irish heritage and if some ya hoos are saying "This is more Irish if you say the republic is Ireland", they are going to get a rise and you must concede that but not forget that right here at home all they got was a rise out of some folk in Americae or some laugh with Harry Boo up the country and that's hardly a rise in wages, spouting more intense disagreement is all that is. Get the elephant out of the room and stop beleiving that folk from the north have less or even different heritage to those in the south. These lads argueing the bit are only saying "Our heritage will be we won this or we won that, our heritage is overseas." Yeah well we are an ancient peoples not some new peoples of "the state". The state is new, This is what they all fight about. The rest is ancient, this is what they all make peace about so don't entertain the elephant in the room.

Apollogies because I messed with your post, you dissapeared, you were probably offended and I would concede that but if you want to change it back you will have to say so because I did it for your own view as much as anyone elses. ~ R.T.G 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry its ok. I have just been busy with other things these past few weeks and not been paying much attention to the Ireland collab page, the conversation there seems to have died out anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, BritishWatcher. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Cameron

Hi. Just letting you know that an ip editor has copied one of your comments and moved it into another conversation.[21] As they only copied a comment that supported their position and ignored your subsequent clarification I think they may be taking your position out of context. I will leave it up to you whether you are happy with their refactoring or if you wish to revert them instead. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A nightmare for BritishWatcher

Ya awaken to learn:

The United Kingdom joins the Republic of Ireland
On your Userpage, the Union Jack is replaced by the Tri-colors (and you can't revert it)
British Isles is replaced with Irish Isles, throughout Wikipedia (and you can't revert it).
The article British Isles is moved to the Irish Isles' & permanently protected. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

wow that is a scary thought. It depresses me just thinking about it, i had to watch some patriotic videos to cheer myself up after that. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As payback, have you seen this video Goodday? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMLOOsMqUUE lol

God save the Queen of Canada :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spooky that it's real (Canada being a monarchy). GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your nightmare is a living reality hehe, lets hope mine never comes true :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Arghhhhhhhhhh... GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like as good a place as any to pose the question ... I'm trying to get into the midset of "why"? You evidently understand the problem with respect to calling Northern Ireland a "country", but I can't understand why you are adopting the line that you are. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A year ago when i arrived here on wikipedia i opposed England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being described as countries, i thought they should all just say constituent countries or part of the United Kingdom. However the sources backing up use of the term are extensive, i accept in the case of Northern Ireland its more problematic, but the sources that justify using "country" for England, use it for Northern Ireland too.

Changing the article lead doesnt just impact on the article itself, it suggests we are going to have to start using a different term to describe Northern Ireland, which messes up using Countries of the United Kingdom which is a pretty handy term that fits into the text of many articles. If Northern Ireland can not be a described as a country i dont think England, Scotland or Wales should either. Its also worth pointing out saying "Constituent country" really solves nothing at all, its still calling it a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it messes up using "countries of the United Kingom" precisely because that term - in that context - is truly well-referenced. No one commenting on the NI page has advocated against using that term in a wider UK context (although I appreciate now why I got a feeling that some thought I was). The problem - for Northern Ireland specifically - occurs when you follow though and deduce from that that the correct term for Northern Ireland is "country". It is precicely because of that fallacious deduction that so many sources exist that flatly state, "Northern Ireland is not a country."

That is the difference - in the case of Northern Ireland there are reliable published sources (from all perspectives - unionist, nationalist and none) that explain in simple terms the problems involved and advice not to call it a "country". They do so because it is a honest mistake to make (although co-incidentally being a perspective of held by a fringe perspective in unionism). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Military expenditure list

Hello BW, Just to say we were the third in the List of countries by military expenditures but the French have changed it once again to fourth, could you please take a look and see if all is right. Thanks --SuperDan89 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Its probably right sadly, we have a government that wants to get involved in as many wars as possible but wont increase the military budget to match it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again BW, thanks for checking it out, just wanted to make sure as the list is getting changed on a daily basis. Yeah seems we're always in the thick of it, well what the Forces do best I suppose ;)--SuperDan89 (talk) 02:10, 04 November 2009 (UTC)

Acacio here, I think the Spanish list is wrong, can I change it or do I need to make an account? I'm frightened to change it, Adiós! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.219 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland/national anthem

Hello, there, BritishWatcher. There's a slightly surreal situation developing on my talk page that may be of interest to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irvine22#Scotland Irvine22 (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BW, if there is anything you can do to get Irvine to pay attention to the multiple warnings on his/her talk page the rest of us will be very grateful. --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowie, enough with the his/her. I'm a dude. Irvine22 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like a Mott the Hoople song.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll should take my advise & stay as far away from the Scotland article, as is possible. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whites only

The source does not say "whites only" and neither do the BNP claim to be "whites-only". The letter of their membership is to those ethnic to the UK (with details to that effect). This would not include Polish or Russian for instance where the ethnicity is also white. In fact BNP policies are anti-Polish. Conveying that does not make them appear any less racist. It makes them appear more so if anything. We have no excuse to make them appear less racist, or more racist, than they actually may be. The edit to explain the true nature of their membership policy is not a very complicated one. If you read this, you understand or are not very good at reading. Hence, we understand each other. Play away. ~ R.T.G 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

which is prety much what I was saying about making sure that when we say they are something we accuratly quote what they say. Changing what they say only makes the page look unreliable, and by association those who oppose them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring at British National Party

Please stop. If you continue reverting there, or in any other articles in this topic area, you may risk being placed under a "one revert per week" probation, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Using "revert" as an editing tool is a completely ineffective way of implementing article changes. Instead, a better way to proceed is to engage in consensus-building on the article talkpages, and provide multiple reliable sources about the information you would like to include. --El on ka 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow what a disgraceful warning. I guess i will have to complain. But where should i take this? ANI or can i comment / complain on the troubles remedies page. Shocking. I am well within the limit for normal articles, the British national party has NOTHING at all to do with the troubles. Please provide me with where this was decided. I will take a look at your talk page now, is Wikipedia policy decided there these days? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Elonka's lost the plot on this Troubles-related thing. Time for an RfC I do believe. Irvine22 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i posted about it on the admins noticeboard, i got bugger all help there, they appear to just rubber stamp things and tell people to go away these days. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP

Please file your appeal at WP:AE. There you'll get input from experienced administrators, and less commentary from involved editors. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ, Gordon Brown at England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland

O'Canada & Stephen Harper, isn't in the Canadian provinces & territories articles. Star Spangled Banner & Barack Obama isn't in the American states articles. Therefore, GSTQ & Gordon Brown shouldn't be in the infoboxes of E,S,W & NI. PS: Besides, it'll never be accepted at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree its not a radical proposal. Its been stable for the Queen and Prime Minister to remain in the infobox, they are "of the United Kingdom". I fail to see why we should treat the anthem differently. We can clearly put something like (UK Anthem) next to it to avoid confusion.

There are some Scottish people who only consider themselves British, they would say Scotlands national anthem is God save the Queen yet we currently leave it of the list which is rather misleading when a few decades ago God save the Queen had been used at sporting events FOR Scotland as its the default anthem. Aslong as its labelled, what harm does it do? its providing more information for the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya might get it accepted into all those 4 articles, with (UK anthem) next to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no probs with that version, for all 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, BW. I re-thought it over: the GSTQ doesn't belong, if with the (UK anthem) descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it not belong? God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland. There is no rule saying we can not list the UK anthem there, its extra information about the situation within Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

'The star spangled banner' isn't in any of the American states infoboxes & 'O Canada' isn't in any of the Canadian provinces & territories infoboxes. IMHO, E/W/S/NI are not 'special cases'. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

E/W/S/NI are different cases because they are considered countries. The national anthem in Texas is the Star spangled banner. Now the texas article does not need to state that its the national anthem, even if it mentioned a state anthem. The problem is the Scotland article lists the national anthems as Flower of Scotland / Scotland the Brave. But God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

National anthem in Scotland, not of Scotland. I simply don't accept E/W/S/NI as special cases. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But GSTQ has been used as the anthem of Scotland in the past for sports the way it is used today for England and Northern Ireland. The infobox does not clearly state that it is only listing the anthem "Of Scotland" The national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen but that is not pointed out at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ can be added to the content, but not the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact there is a need for GSTQ to be added to the content, which i think is certainly needed highlights why it wouldnt be wrong to add it to the infobox as well. The articles on American states (ive not looked at them all) but i doubt there would be any reason at all to mention the American national anthem. Even though you disagree with the Queen/Prime Minister/Anthem being in the infobox, could you please not oppose if a compromise is possible with others? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where a compromise is possible. Having said that, there's nothing further I can add to the 'infobox' discussion there. I'll sit back & watch for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i agree we need to wait and see others views on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding GSTQ (UK anthem) into the Scotland infobox, would be counter-productive. There's no consensus for that. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There was not strong opposition, and the original opposition to it seemed to reduce. I just think its important that GSTQ gets added to the Scotland article infobox. Its less important on the Wales one because atleast in that case their is an official anthem of Wales, but there is no single one for Scotland and i dont see why GSTQ should be missed out. Its good to provide the reader with more information not less and it would address the fact GSTQ isnt mentioned at all in the article currently without having to get into a fight about the wording to be put in the article text BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If ya include it, I likey won't revert (not cause I agree, but because I'm not gonna get into an edit spat). However, I can't guess how others would react. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes i dont want to get in an edit war, will wait and see if theres any other comments over the next couple of days before adding it. But the page had gone silent for 48 hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

PS- I just don't wanna see ya getting into trouble at that article. Editors there, tend to be quite sensitive. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, I'm a stubborn Canuck. The dependancy status of those 4 countries, makes GSTQ inclusion in the infobox, un-acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But its not inaccurate, the question is if there is need to mention it. I think there is jsutification considering it is the national anthem in Scotland and there is no single anthem considered the Scottish national anthem. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Include in the text, but not in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding the text to the article would be a good start yes, some change is needed although the fact its noteworthy for the article text and has been absent suggests its not entirely unreasonable to think it should be mentioned in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about inclusion in the infobox. Anyways, I'll let others continue the discussion, as I shouldn't be hogging the Scot talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Will see how people feel about adding it to the text itself which might be easier to reach consensus on, ofcourse depending on the wording it may highlight more reason for it to be included in the infobox, but will wait and see. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. PS- 'Tis good to see Jack forbes's return. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Great power & G8

As you have posted on the subject, I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You get hit by a truck.

One day BritishWatcher is crossing the road, humming GSTQ (And cursing the fact it isn’t in the Scotland article Infobox...) when a truck filled with anti-unionist propaganda smashes into him, sending him into a deep coma...
10 years later...And he awakes! To find-
The union has been fully dissolved and England is an anarchistic socialist republic, Scotland has gone back to clan warfare and all of Wales has gone back to just sheep farming and filming doctor who. Which is longer shown in England.
The royal family has been kicked into council houses in Liverpool and have all gotten scouse accents.
Cornwall has been renamed "The super all-Celtic republic of no Englishmen" and is now fully independent and nuclear armed.
The British flag is now banned under pain of death.

Mwahahahahahaahaaaaa....--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow thats a very nasty scenario lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina...No, really even I would hate to see that happen. I'm sure even Dai, Jack, Snow, and come to think of it all the anti-unionists here would not like to see that happen. I could go on all day about how much I am against Argentina’s claim to sovereignty of those Islands. As my father would (Probably, never asked him) say, after that war, they can forget it. (My father, served aboard HMS BroadSword and witnessed the sinking of HMS Coventry). Oh I am going on a bit now aren’t I?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, Misortie, I shudder to think what scary, new world you'd create for me were I to be hit by a truck.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would enter your hospital room with a pair of scissors and return your haircut back to this again [22]. Just for the lulz. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye cruel world..............!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Has a vision of Jeanne disappearing into the mist on a gondola--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What a romantic notion. Venice happens to be one of my favourite cities I've visited.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a simple solution.... BritishWatcher never get hit by a truck! -- Phoenix (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No no banning the truck carrying the antiunionist propaganda would be a better solution ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Troubles banner

Some Suggested text for a RfC on the banner. --Nate ^t/_c 13:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I found out who BritishWatcher is!

[23](: --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LMAO< damn how did you get my photo! BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, now I have finally found the man sexy enough to replace Keith Richards in my erotic dreams and fantasies. I'll be on the next flight to London!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!! Your talk page is always fun to read :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here Here Phoenix! Its sooo true... My most entertaining part of Wikipedia. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was inspired...

...by the look of your userpage & thus had changes made to mine. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol very nice :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'Republic of Ireland' on EU page

Hi there BritishWatcher, a debate is currently in progress on the EU talk page concerning the use of either ‘Republic of Ireland’ or ‘Ireland’ to identify the state. As the page is clearly political and involves both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I am arguing for ‘Republic of Ireland’ for reasons of clarity and common sense. However, all my arguments are falling on intransigently deaf ears. I notice from the archive that you once attempted this yourself, only to be met with the same stonewalling which I am now receiving. This time you are not on your own, there is at least one other who endorses our commonsense approach. Perhaps you would care to take a look? The Spoorne (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey thanks for your edit to Alex Neil I improved your reference just a little bit, I find this tool useful to generate complete references: toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php thought you might find it useful in the future ^_^ kind regards Captain n00dle \^Talk 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice tool thank you, will certainly make a note of that and use it in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya BritishWatcher!

Can i invite you to have a look at this and its originating topic here. Yeah they are long-winded and sorta going in circles but you might be interested in them. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I think that what was put under the identity, is origenal research, of course as any research is, are you not intriged to note why he is wearing the red and white bands which are a blatent nod at England after 2006, so I researched it and the jurnos agree. The blue and white is no conicidence, and is definatly not specualtion, it's not rocket science, PEE point, evidence explain, all 3 are ticked KnowIG (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you could post it on the talk page of the murray article and see how others feel, or you can readd it to the article and see if someone else reverts. It seems a bit like jumping to conclusions by suggesting him wearing red and white had something to do with the world cup, the BBC commentary was not being serious. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

TBF a lot has been made of it, in the anti English thing, and the BBC may joke about it, as they don't for obvious reasons want to offend viewers who are Scottish and English, but I think they are right in their meaning. I will revert and see what others make of it, as i have a feeling that on the talk page it may end up being English v Scotland debate which is not what we're asking :) KnowIG (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I just reverted your edit on ANI, but I don't know why. I can't tell if it was a software glitch or a miss-click on my part as I was working. Anyway, I have undone my revert. Apologies S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

no problem, wondered why lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall

You are already well aware of the "Cornwall, England, UK" compromise, yet continue to ignore it. I'd also strongly advise that you take changes like "Cornish" to "British" or "English" to talk pages and wait for consensus to develop before imposing them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not recognise the legitimacy of any "compromise" on this matter. I have no problem with adding United Kingdom after England and depending on the wording to just put the United Kingdom. The changes i have made is to places where it simply said cornwall. Surely we can agree the country should be stated too?

As for the British / English. MOS says the persons nationality should be placed in the first sentence or infobox. There is a debate about if it should say English or Scottish rather than British but there is no debate about if it should say Cornish. Cornish is not a nationality, there for i have replaced it with British where i have come across it. As far as im aware the changes i have made were to British in almost all occasions, except to ones pre union which should correctly state English there for it was in line with your suggested compromise about pretending Cornwall is not English. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making it clear that you do not accept any wording other than your own preferred one, even when many other editors over a period of time have found a wording that is broadly acceptable to most. Please refrain from making large-scale changes without discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept the legitimacy of this claimed "compromise" which seeks to hide the fact that Cornwall is part of England. As far as im concerned that is caving into Cornish nationalism. No where did i say i was not prepared to accept any other wording than the one that i prefer. For example i have not undone one change to my edit which placed United Kingdom instead of England.

There are two issues here.

1) An article introduction should state the nationality of a person. Cornish is not a nationality, its debatable if its an ethnicity. English or British should be stated. That is in line with WP:MOS and WP:UKNATIONALS. I changed Cornish to British where i came across it which is in line with the suggested compromise about hiding the fact Cornish people are actually English.

2) I have added England to several articles where it failed to point out the country of birth. Cornwall is a county of England no matter how some people feel about it. An article should not simply state Cornwall. I have not gone around changing United Kingdom to England, simply adding England where a country was missing.

on these matters i fail to see where i have gone against any of the rules. My changes have been fully in line with them. When i see an error in an article i will try to correct it. It is not a massive change that needs endless debate in a committee. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia policy and guideline has been built on consensus. You cannot pick and choose which ones to follow. --Joowwww (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am following MOS which talks about nationality being in the introduction. English / British is a nationality that can be listed, Cornish is not a recognised nationality and there for does not belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I also refuse to accept an unofficial compromise which was agreed in one location and can not be imposed across wikipedia about the idea we pretend Cornwall is not part of England by simply putting United Kingdom. It is a pathetic attempt at appeasing cornish nationalism. When i come across an article with an error, be it failing to mention the country of birth of have the persons nationality in the introduction. I will make a change. If you intend to go around reverting my changes like you have, i have no problem taking this to the talk pages of those articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

English isn't a nationality. Cornish can be included where notable, as per WP:MOS. You can't pick and choose which guidelines you follow and which you don't. I will follow Wikipedia guidelines and rectify any acts against them, as per Wikipedia guidelines. --Joowwww (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the place that says Cornish should be included in the introduction of an article and where it says English is not a nationality that can not be put in the introduction? Im with you on the English nationaltiy issue, id rather they say just British. But the one where i did put English was for a guy that spent most of his life as English because it was before the union with Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it "should" be included. --Joowwww (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well here is what it does say on MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph

The opening paragraph should have:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

What the person did;
Why the person is significant.

There for i think my edits have been accurate and in line with the MOS shown above whilst your reverts have been out of line with the above MOS. Cornish is not a nationality, British or English prior to the union certainly is. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that Cornish is a nationality. --Joowwww (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

However, the article nationality seems to disagree with us: "Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots." So if you argue that English is a nationality, then so is Cornish. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, take note of this from WP:MOS: "Similarly, [...] the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless [...] relevant to the subject's notability." --Joowwww (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"previous nationalities and/or the country of birth" To me that sounds like saying someone is Welsh despite living most of his life in the USA and being an American. You accept Cornish is not a nationality, its questionable if its an ethnicity but if it is it states in the MOS it should only be stated if its relevant to the person in question ,so i accept someone leading a cornish rebellion justifies using the term Cornish in the intro. So after we exclude Nationality / Ethnicity... why else does Cornish belong in the introduction?

English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish along with its relationship to British is nothing at all like the situation with Cornish. We all know this to be the case, and the WP:UKNATIONALS which talks about treating English / Scottish a certain way never at any point says Cornish should be treated the same. People of Cornwall are English. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If English is a nationality, then so is Cornish. Neither are legally recognised as such, but both fall under the definition layed out in the article Nationality. Cornish is recognised as an ethnic group according to the Census of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2001.

WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay. It is not a guideline or a policy, please do not dress it up as such. At the top of WP:UKNATIONALS it clearly states in black and white "there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom." WP:UKNATIONALS lists "Cornish" twice, once as a people and once as a nationality from "antiquity to present". WP:UKNATIONALS clearly states in black and white, "Do not enforce uniformity". --Joowwww (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

lol i can not help but laugh at the irony of all this because i happen to agree with you about the validity of UKNationals. I think every single article on someone born in the UK should state they are British by default and it should only state something else if there is clear justification. However, it is very clear that English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish and of course British are in no way the same as Cornish. Cornish is not a nationality, you said so yourself. Well English was certainly a nationality before the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed. The article in question was about a man who spent most of his life during the time b4 the union. There for i put English. Im prepared to support putting British there if it resolves the dispute over that specific article, then we can look at some of the other articles where you undid my edits. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"British" is fine for that article. Uniformity should not be enforced across all other articles. Please tell me, why do you think Cornish is not equal to English? --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok we have agreement on that article then, thank you. I consider Cornwall part of England and there for Cornish people are English. Cornwall is a county of England. The difference between Cornwall and England (and the other nations) is that there is agreement England etc are nations and sources back up the fact they are countries today. Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English are considered nationalities, although i too would rather British was just used and almost every change i made was Cornish to British, except in that one due to it being mostly b4 the union. I also avoided making any change to an article on someone involved in the cornish rebellion or something like that, or far back in history when Cornwalls position as part of England was less clear.

The thing is England was made up of former entities, not just Cornwall. So if we recognise Cornwall as separate to England what about other parts? what about people who may feel the Kingdom of Wessex should be revived?

BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If Cornwall isn't a nationality because it's part of England, does that mean English isn't a nationality because it's part of the UK? Is Basque not a nationality because it's part of Spain? The political division the nationality belongs to doesn't have any influence on its status as a nationality. There are legally recognised nationalities, based on sovereign states, of which Cornish and English are not ones. But there are also nationalities that exist apart from sovereign states, as defined by the article nationality.

The difference between Cornwall and Wessex is that Wessex doesn't consider itself a nation, it just wants to be a region of England. Everyone in Wessex considers themselves to be of English nationality. That is not true of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

English/Welsh/Scottish and Irish is considered one of the few exceptions when it comes to nationality. Cornish simply does not have the sort of recognition as an exception to the rule English etc does. British as the legal nationality should be stated on articles about British people, there needs to be a clear case for someone to be called English / Welsh etc as far as im concerned, like playing for the English football team. Cornish just doesnt have the nation status England/Wales/Scotland/NI do.

I do not accept that most people in Cornwall reject the idea they are English and something other than a county of England. Support for a devolved assembly means nothing, London itself has devolution.. its still part of England, although with the rate of immigration its questionable for how long. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a referenced quote from the 2001 census article here that 7% of respondents in Cornwall classified themselves as Cornish by nationality - that shows it's a nationality that has some recognition in Cornwall, but only (to date from objective census survey data) of a very small minority. Far more classified themselves in Cornwall as "English" or "British". Therefore it seems Cornwall to most people (based on the census response test) is either part of England or Britain. Then of course no doubt there are a gazillion sources that would state it to be part of England. There are also probably a bazillion more sources that lay claim to "English" being a nationality. In a way, these disputes highlight how silly the current mechanisms in Wikipedia are - "compromise" in this instance is purely a Wikipedia phenomenon and not real-world. A new tag for "compromised text" would be useful for casual browsers in situations like this, with a link to the main debate arena/archive, where all the silliest arguments to and fro could be scrutinised by those with more time than sense. (this last bit of my comment is intended to be humour) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There can be no doubt at all that Cornwall is part of England and the people of cornwall are English / British. Of course even if 7% say they are Cornish it does not mean all of those people are rejecting being English / British. The present Foreign Secretary William Hague is often called a Yorkshireman, its not any form of snub at English or British.

Many states are made up of former entities, i see just as much justification for people wanting to revive the Kingdom of Wessex as i do the Kingdom of Cornwall. I dont understand how people can support such separatism although the British government goes out of its way to undermine British identity and the United Kingdom at the same time as promoting other forms of nationalism and appeasing certain groups.

I like your idea of compromised text tag, it would make sense. Ive often thought there needs to be a big warning sign above every page of wikipedia reminding people it may not always be accurate or balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The census is not an accurate way of measuring Cornish identity. There was no Cornish tickbox, and as such most people who describe themselves as Cornish did not know they could on the census. --Joowwww (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a box where people could write things in, only 7% chose to which shows they do not feel that strongly about mentioning Cornish. Most people in Cornwall are ENglish. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the 2011 census is going to offer it as a choice, or so they said on the radio the other night - we'll see if this survives government cuts. None of which affects if Cornwall is or is not in England and is an English County - it clearly is and arguing otherwise is pure 100% unadulterated POV with no place in Wikipedia. One might as well argue that Shanghai is not part of China or fox-hunting does not involve foxes. However, so far at any rate, the most comprehensive data available suggests that even in Cornwall, 93% of the population do not regard themselves as being of Cornish nationality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i will be waiting to see the results of the census with great interest. Rather than just a question on ethnicity, there will be the question on national identity. People will be able to tick English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, British and theres a text box where they will also be able to write Cornish in if they consider that part of their identity. That will be very useful as we can see how many of those who say Cornish, also still say English / British. I hear today that the 2011 census will be the last census held, it is pretty costly to run but it is very important for gathering an authoritative source of information. A document every household in the country by law is meant to complete can hardly compare to a survey done of a few thousand people. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There will not be a Cornish tickbox in the 2011 census. Census information is not an accurate indicator of Cornish identity, and won't be until there are equal options for "Cornish only", "English only", "British only", "Cornish and English", "Cornish and British" and "Cornish, English and British". If people do not know they can write Cornish then they are unlikely to do so, resulting in inaccurate information.

I refer you to the PLASC school survey 2010 in which 37% of parents described their children as Cornish - a number that has grown year on year.

James, I have never said that Cornwall isn't in England. I'm not sure where you got the notion that I did. --Joowwww (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Have you got the the source ref for the individual PLASC survey you mention Jowwww, couldn't see it on google - how big is the sample? The census does at least have the merit of being comprehensive and there are of course always disputes about the bias or otherwise generated from the formulation of questions in both census and surveys. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The question will ask what do they consider their national identity. If they dont think they are allowed to write in Cornish there then they obviously do not think cornish is an identity like English, Scottish etc. Of course there should not be a separate tick box for Cornish, it is not on the same level as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and British. Sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

James, I don't have a (reliable) source for the PLASC survey results, I'm sure they're out there somewhere.

BW, that's adding 2 and 2 to make 5. "Should" is an opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We can not put a tick box on a census for millions of homes just to accommodate about 50,000 people. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's also an opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion and a realistic one. As someone has mentioned on the cornwall page, another group wants a tick box for something. Where will it all end? Thankfully the authorities in charge of the census agree with my position = ) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia: WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Joowwww (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my talk page, i am allowed to state my opinions here and on article talk pages where it is relevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The talk pages of articles are intended for discussion about improving the article. They're not a forum for your Internet-assembled opinions. If you want to turn your talk page into your own graffiti wall, then by all means, do so. --Joowwww (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I clearly said and article talk pages where it is relevant. Talk pages mostly consist of people stating their opinions which are relevant to the article in question somehow. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a good job

		The Original Barnstar
		You seem to be cropping up on my watchlist a lot making yourself useful. You seem to have your head screwed on the right way and your contributions are appreciated. HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, would you like rollback? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar, that is my first since i joined wikipedia in 2008 :). Rollback would be good thanks, ive never understood the big difference between that and the "rollback" which is available with twinkle which is what i use at the moment, so will have to read up on it more before using it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)I've just granted you rollback. There's not much difference between it and Twinkle's vandalism button, except this is significantly faster. Have fun with it and let me know if you need anything. I'll give you the template, anyway: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Any time! Just drop me a line if you need anything. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this too, seems like a good idea and worth continuing after the trial is over. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 98

Do you hate me? —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 98.18.2.159(talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know you or your politics so no i do not hate you. I hate the term you entered on the article though. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate you BW. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I get the impression some other people do not like me. :( BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Northumbria Police manhunt

~~Technically, my edit was first, and yours was the second section on same update, but I'm not worried about it, I've updated your section with more info.~~ --Fbifriday (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasnt my section, i saw two sections added and removed one. Mattgirling beat you to it by one minute. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I thought I saw that you had created the section, and that Mattgirling had edited the 9th section, I didn't see his edit comment about making a new section. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

NI county maps

I think it would be best if you raised your concerns here rather than starting a new topic on each county's talkpage.
Cheers. ~Asarlaí 18:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have spent a long time going nowhere in trying to get a consensus over at the collaboration page. This is a matter effecting the 6 counties of Northern Ireland. The image presently in the infoboxes which should focus on Northern Ireland and the county in question currently shows the entire island, most of which is a completely separate country and has been for a very long time. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it's better to keep the debate in one place. ~Asarlaí 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if the debate could be kept in one place. If talks on the collaboration page break down which they appear to have, then the article talk pages in question seems like a reasonable place to have a discussion and get feedback. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to get more editors involved in the discussion. However, it would be better just to put a link to it on each county's talkpage...rather than starting six new discussions. That way, editors can see the whole backstory and everything is kept in one place. I could do that on each talkpage now if you don't mind? ~Asarlaí 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with it linking to the collaboration page to see if any progress can be made there, if you are prepared to do that it would be good thanks (or to that project page). But it seemed like that was getting nowhere after a recent post today. The trouble is that page is trying to come to a single agreement to cover all counties in Ireland. The only real problem is with the 6 Northern Irish county images and that should be the focus. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

the revert

Its not unconstructive. Boke is actually Irish slang for vomit. Look it up. 71.112.7.157 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's actually Scottish (it's "boak"). Swarm^Talk 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok well here's the deal. Some guy who got banned a while ago, Proofreader77 to be exact, has a website named boke.com or something. For years now he and a bunch of his wikipedia friends have been following this wiki page because they don't want this definition added in, because it looks bad for his website. I've tried adding this definition to Boke, as well as Boak, but its impossible to do, because there are a dozen, non-neutral, people who have both pages on the watch list and won't allow it to be added. Even though it really is slang for vomit.

Just look at these sites: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boak http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boke http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/voices/atilazed/b.shtml http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Boke http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikisaurus:vomit http://www.macmillandictionary.com/open-dictionary/entries/boke.htm

If you don't believe me that Proofreader is insanely obsessed with this wiki page and is trying to manipulate it for his own gain, just look at the history of the page and the talk page. One time he tried to fill it with tons of useless details and made it in a hard to read format, just because he was paranoid that someone might put in a personal attack against his website in it. He would auto revert any changes made to his copy.

Is there a way to start a content dispute and call in neutral 3rd parties to look at the page? Because I really doubt that anyone who would post on that talk page is neutral. 71.112.7.157 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You will need to post on the talk page there and see if others support its inclusion. I doubt it will be just one editor responding. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I am confused as to why my edit to Chaddesden mentioning the CLF was reverted. It is only comparable to mentioning the Bloods and Crips in the Los Angeles article. 90.209.247.184 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppet recruitment?

Is this a case of you doing a bit of recruitment? Bjmullan (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is a case of me informing someone asking a direct question about Highkings actions and advising him it might be useful to follow the debate as other editors may get into trouble for including British Isles in the future even though they are not doing it for political reasons. I did not suggest he should vote in it. Based on the current votes, i do not think vote stacking is even needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable comment and actions which I will respond to reasonably.

So what exactly is these guys agenda? I came across a few weird ones and change them. It seems to be some kind of edit war going on. I don't get it. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Their agenda is the removal of the term British from anything Ireland related. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there has even been several attempts to rename the article on British Isles to move it to something completely different. You need to be careful if you are making changes or adding BI to places because some get rather unhappy if they see BI added anywhere and patterns of alterations can get you into trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the Greeks didn't know what they where doing back in the 1st century BC when they named the island Prettania and later Brettania (which modern historians agree is based upon the Celtic inhabitants names for the islands) which would evolve into British.

But i'd love to see how they'd react if we tried to have the island of Ireland article renamed Little/Minor Britain as that is what Ptolemy originally called it around 147–148 AD :-P Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lmao, should put that on the ToDo list :) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. There would be a HUGE debate over which comes first, Little Britain or Little Britain (formerly known as Ireland)? I sense trouble ahead. Also a search for other synonyms like Smaller Britain, Off-Britain, Left-Hand-Britain and Britain's Sister. Or how about Atlantean Britain? Wasn't somewhere off Ireland one of the possible locales for Atlantis? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Britain's Sister? Really? That's one I never heard before. I'm reminded of Vashanka, the conquerors' deity in the Thieves' World fantasy series, whose epithets include "Sister-Raper"! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC) moving along now

I take it orange is not a statement of your political views, Orangemike? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Though I am technically a Protestant (Quaker, thank thee for asking) and of Irish descent (married to a Manxwoman, a fine pan-Celtic gesture). I just like the color; started wearing it to excess at science fiction conventions, then during union bargaining, the occasional Democratic National Convention, and of course to feiseanna and céilithe. I won't go into details of my annual rants at Milwaukee Irish Fest when some INA idjit berates me for my head-to-toe orange garb (and us both just out of Mass!) I'll just point out that there are three colo(u)rs to the Tricolour for a reason, and leave it at that. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should offer that as a compromise - we'll get rid of "British Isles" if they adopt "Lesser Britain" for all references/mentions of the island of Ireland. You'd also have to add a disambig line at the top of the article to make it clear its not on about the TV comedy :-D Mabuska ^(talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Most on Wikipedia would accept this almost straight away. Or "Minor Britain". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if the collective name for you guys would be a "Nell Gwynn" --Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought Nell Gwyn was Welsh Snowded? Or am I confusing your point? Anyways, anie fule know it was spelt Nell Gwynne. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No she wasn't, yes you are and both spellings are used. --Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Gwyn" Snowded. If only we could be as sure as you. :-) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I just used the wikipedia to check - useful resource by the way .... --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't believe what it says in there do you? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Born in Hereford, most sources say - but the name is certainly of Welsh origin, and there were still Welsh speakers in areas around Hereford in her time. So, "ethnically Welsh", perhaps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was her nationality. Is it known how she self-identified? Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, but she would have been born English, and republican... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Republican! Blimey, her outlook seems to have changed a bit over the years. Perhaps her self-identity did too :) Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's possible. After all, someone's circumstances at birth don't necessarily determine how they see themselves for the rest of their life. ;) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

May I just re-iterate that, according to the latest genetic discussion, the Irish are all Spaniards, the Scots are all Irish with a bit of Norwegian (which make the Ulster Scots a "back-to-our-roots" movement), the English are all Belgians (and we know how boring they are) and this debate is all the fault of a 2,000 year old Italian.

Needless to say, we all share 99% of our DNA with gorillas, and not an unlimited number of monkeys known to sit down with an unlimited number of typewriters to write an encyclopedia, which probably accounts for all the grunting and chest thumping of the would be dominant males. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't start with genetics lol, you could nitpick throughout that entire statement and show its frailities and holes. Though i do agree about all the grunting and chest thumping apes :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't go there. Please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Of course, the Irish are not "Spaniards" ... they are all originally from the noble Basque Country*. And I am surprised some other bunch of separatist extremists did not lynch for that one.

*"The Y-chromosome the Celtic populations turn out to be statistically indistinguishable from the Basques," Professor Goldstein of UCL. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And there was me thinking that the Celts weren't an acutal race but just a culture that caught on and was adopted by groups conquered by those who had already adopted it, pretty much like today with Americanisms ;-) Having said that the "Celts" of Britain and the Basques could both have derived from a common ancester in some other part of Europe where they are no longer found rather than the "Celts" of Britain having come from the Basques. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jamie the Saxt

Nice to see that we are in agreement for once - even if it's not really going anywhere. Ben Mac Dui 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, i do like the way it is possible to agree on a specific issue or two yet totally disagree with someone on almost everything else very strongly, the phrase Unholy alliance comes to mind lol. Sadly in this case it is not going to produce any results. Its an uphill battle now that is going nowhere, if the RM tag was added then the wikipedia naming police that want everything to follow strict naming conventions with no leniency for clear special cases would ensure it remained at its present location. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I love this project!

I find it bemusing that you and I are arguing on the same side of the demonym question, given my opinion of the English occupation regime (and indeed, all "royals" and other aristos)! Thanks for keeping all points of view represented here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) your republican pal

lol thanks, i am glad that there seems to be more support on the noticeboard for just putting Northern Irish in the infobox, the talkpage debate was simply going round and round in circles before it faded out completely. In the past few days i have agreed with several people whos political views could not be further from my own. Is a very nice thing about wikipedia that such agreements are possible on some issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Deleting material supported by citation just because you don't like it is unacceptable. There is a talk page discussion at John Prescott that you should take part in, but please oh please stop providing endless paragraphs of your personal opinion on what is right or wrong and learn to work with citation evidence.

I am restoring a stable version. Im happy to debate this on the talk page but dont give me crap like that above post. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BW, I am not the only editor who feels like that. You constantly give long opinions on multiple articles and you belligerently argue for "British" on all of them, but you hardly ever use citations. Its disruptive please learn to edit in accordance with the rules. --Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets deal with the article in question. There was clear consensus on the talk page for Welsh to be removed from the introduction or British added as well. That was implemented, then Dai came along and added Welsh to the infobox with no debate. Atleast 2 editors questioned Welsh appearing alone there and a compromise of mentioning both Welsh and British was put there. I am fine with that, it would be a more useful "convention" than just listing one. That would actually mean Welsh and Scottish could be listed on more occasions rather than just British. I have never attemptd to hide the fact that as people are British citizens, it should by default say British unless there are very good reasons not to. In a case like Sean connery or someone that plays for the Welsh rugby team.. it makes sense to say Scottish / Welsh. It does not make sense to say Welsh as a nationality on the infobox of John prescott. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

CITATION, CITATION, CITATION and your preference for British as default comes as no surprise. If you put half the energy into finding references and arguing from fact rather than your personal POV life would be a lot easier for everyone. --Snowded ^TALK 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

People agreed with the removal of Welsh from the first sentence of the introduction. Some of the concerns that applied with its use there also applied to the infobox. Dai should have got agreement to include just Welsh, he didnt, several editors disputed it and the compromise was reached which you have undone because it doesnt follow "convention", despite there being no rule saying only one can be listed. The debate on the talk page seemed to be clear, either both get listed or neither. Your own response said about not included either too, so removal of it seemed like the obvious solution. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with removal of Welsh from the first sentence, to follow convention. Citation BW, please --Snowded ^TALK 13:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not need a citation to not mention Welsh as his nationality in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a reach isn't it BW? People can't just go around making up unsubstantiated nationalities in infoboxes. On the main point, I know the concept of "Britishness" matters and it matters to you, but I think you're dealing here with a _politician_. Politicians are happy to claim any identity useful at the time in my humble experience. There may be better targets. Enjoy your Sunday! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

EDL

I gave a warning here as it is unacceptable to accuse you of BNP membership. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded, it is a shame some do make such assumptions although i am not surprised sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as you know I disagree with you on many items but I don't think you are a fascist! Mind you I really don't see what you find attractive about the EDL policy - there is no real evidence for "islamification" in the sense they mean it. --Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the situation may not be as bad as those in the EDL or BNP would make out i do consider it a long term serious problem. The islamists that protest against our troops (which led to the EDL being formed) are siding with Britain's enemies which we are at war with, to me that sounds like treason but they get away with it.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Londonderry-Derry title and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are already sharia courts in Britain which handle civil matters and some want the full adoption of Sharia law in this country. Reports suggest young muslims are perhaps more radical than the previous generation, we have already seen the problem with the home grown suicide bombers. More women in Britain wear the full Burka than they do in France, yet France has a far bigger muslim population. "State multiculturalism" is a big problem and unless action is taken to bring different communities together rather than the current policy of promoting division the situation will just get worse.

Mass immigration is the biggest concern, unless everyone is confident that its coming to an end people will continue to feel under threat as streets and neighbourhoods transform around them. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a sense of proportion here. Lloyd George was almost killed in Birmingham when he protested against the South African war, so there is a tradition of protest. It was only a very small minority who did and it would have died by the wayside if the EDL had not got engaged. Radicalisation of Muslim youngsters in the UK is a clear issue, but one of the major causes is isolation of those individuals, attempts to deny non harmful cultural practices (like the Burka - I am blogging on that and female castration later today if you look at the web site) increase radicalisation. We saw exactly the same in the 70s with the refusal to support the catholic civil rights campaigns alienating those populations and placing them in the hands of the terrorists for several decades. One of the great strengths of Britain is that it has never had a homogenous culture and a long tradition of intolerance. On immigration the largest groups are from Eastern Europe, without those levels of immigration we wouldn't have the labour force we need. You should take a look at Singapore sometime. Mass immigration is encouraged and they have a housing policy that prevents ghettos (something we could do with) and an inter-racial marriage rate which is a tangible proof of tolerance. They are in consequence one of the richest and most successful nations in the world. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"it has never had a homogenous culture and a long tradition of intolerance" - you'd have trouble convincing Manx and Cornish historians of that; ever heard of the punishments for linguistic deviantionism? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the history Orangemike, but blaming us as people now for that won't help. Some of us are striving to be better. On the point about radicalisation, I agree with Snowded up to a point, but I do wonder Snowded if you are focusing squarely enough on the realities of contemporary islamic extremism. Whilst it's wrong to identify every Muslim as an extremist, it may also I suspect be a touch naive to think that the Burka is not a political statement of rejectionism and intolerance of "Western norms". Not that banning burka-wearing is the answer. I enjoy these little conversations, even though they are generally not specifically article-related! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not just a case of not blaming people alive today for the past, but to consider back then the need for things like a single common language within the state and strength through unity. Sadly if we and all other sovereign states in the past opted for policies like we have today regarding things like "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" the world would be a complete mess because there would be no unity in the form of sovereign states.

Most of the population of this country and in other countries can claim at some point in history their relatives were oppressed in some way by the state, be it women, working class men, gays, blacks, catholics, Irish, it does not leave many people out, and the relatives of those responsible certainly can not be held accountable.

How we deal with things today is what matters. But how are we supposed to deal with certain things? Take the Cornish issue, Cornwall is part of England. This has been the case for centuries, some people dispute that it is part of England. In a modern democracy we should not have people with such views round up and shot, but the state has to defend itself from internal and external threats in certain ways. Like through the control or promotion of culture at the expense of another. We have revived a dead language known as Cornish, how far do we go in living up to our obligations to preserve "Cornish heritage" and if steps to defend and promote "cornish identity" are carried out by the state, surely for the survival of the state it is important to counter it with the promotion of English/British identity to ensure the state is not undermined?

At the moment in the United Kingdom we have incompetent governments that are prepared to undermine British identity and unity, at the same time as promoting and defending other cultures, be it imported through immigration or cultures within different countries of the United Kingdom and even English counties themselves. It is creating huge potential problems which undermine the state and that must not be allowed to happen. Nothing highlights the failure of the mainstream political parties than 2007. The 300th anniversary of the acts of union between England and Scotland, basically the founding of our country today, and what did the government do to promote it? Almost bugger all, we got a new coin but that was it, imagine the celebrations that would take place in the USA for Americas 300th July 4th? Then to add insult to injury, 2 days after the 300th anniversary, separatists won the Scottish election (even if it was with just 1 seat and 48 votes). Had the government put a tiny amount of effort into celebrating such an event, maybe those 48 voters would have stuck with labour and not cross over to the dark side.

Whilst id support a ban on the burka it would have to be handled carefully for it not to be totally counter productive. I would be happy with a clarification of the law simply stating it is the absolute right of property owners, retail owners, service providers etc to demand someone show their face. Some far left group wants to take the MP to court because he said hed refuse to meet constituents who wear the burka, the fact such a potential law suit could even be considered highlights the problem. "Religion" can not be an excuse for everything. It is all very well asking people to be tolerant of a minorities right to wear the disturbing and offensive burka, but what about the majorities rights? Can a minority not respect the majorities right to be able to see someones face, communicate with the person properly, lip read if they are deaf, feel comfortable in an enclosed space with the person and reject a form of oppression of women in other countries by not accepting it here.

Islam is sadly just one of many huge issues facing this country, which our utterly incompetent government (past and present) will fail to properly address. Although with David Cameron going to America to insult Britains contribution in WW2, then going to Turkey to insult Israel and then India to insult Pakistan, i can see why he doesnt have enough time to address our problems.

I got a bit carried away and went off topic, but i feel better after that little rant :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

What like this talk you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom Surely you should read the talk page before saying "take it to talk?" <sigh>

There's nothing controversial about it. it's the correct definition of the system. That is why the wikipedia article is called parliamentary system and not parliamentary democracy. I'm actually restoring the article to correctness. I adviose you look at the articles history. Vexorg (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on the talk page, i intend to look at the article history, i also intend to look at the talk page history to see where such a change was agreed. "take to talk" meant wait for agreement on the talk page before readding the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

List of national capitals

Eh! If I'm not bothered by the removal of italics around the non-sovereign nations, then nobody should be. No one would ever mistake me for being a devolutionist. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have 3 problems with it.

1) I agreed to the bolding as a compromise, it was a very minor alteration compared to other proposals being debated that i supported and others had to. After agreeing to that compromise they push through a further alteration which weakens that compromise.

2) Most list articles put non sovereign entities in italics, we should follow such a pattern no matter how we handle sovereign states.

3) The difference between a Bold and regular country is more limited than the difference between a bold and italic country in the list. The fact they are claiming its harder to read in italics proves there is more of a difference, and yet non sovereign entities have been in that list in italics for years.

That is why i am not happy about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rare that everybody is happy after the sovereign/non-sovereign topic, particularly when it's the 4 parts of the United Kingdom. My personal preferance would be to delete England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, along with the other non-sovereigns. I know you feel tricked, but atleast the sovereigns & non-sovereigns have been designated. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know that I've responded to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now come up with some draft text to include in the article, which I've posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Londonderry-Derry title and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Don't you think there has been more than enough debate about this, ans it is getting nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The why of BI

Wowsers, why did the Brits have to go & create the phrase British Isles? Wasn't controlling the entire island of Ireland, enough? Grrr. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the detailed history of the term but im sure its been mentioned before that the Greeks are to blame. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So it was the Greeks (who interesingly are part of the dispute of Macedonia). Anyways, I represent the sea life of the Irish Sea, who live on the British side of that Sea. They demand it renamed Britain and Ireland Sea. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You should realise GoodDay that on WP the common name should be used and therefore I'm starting a campaign to get it changed to "The duck pond" :-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lmao id support that :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, it quacks me up. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Great jumpin frogs, is there a sea called "Irish" bang slap in the middle of Britain then? Curses! Better mass-rv it from Wikipedia immediately. Can't have names like that existing in WP, even if they are on stupid maps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chat

On a more serious note, would you mind emailing me [24] when you get a sec BW? Want to talk about a few things offline. Many thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want you can send me a message and ill reply. Just seen ive been sent a few emails and didnt realise as i dont check/use this email account often lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's a new-ish template for this, if you're interested? {{YGM}} ("You Got Mail" - I should mention that I created the template, so this is blatant advertising ;-) )

Probably a good time to say also that (a) I'm back ;-) and (b) thanks for putting up with and, indeed, dealing with so much grief over the past few days. I've been following some of it via my mobile, but wasn't able to get involved very much. TFOWR 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

lol nice template and welcome back. You had a very short break, its only been a few days and you were still following via a mobile. This addiction is very unhealthy you know? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying out TFOWRs cool email announcement template

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Perhaps it could tell you who sent the mail in the template so you do not have to check or the person remember to sign lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Maybe it needs some work. Sorry I forgot to sign it! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does the incoming email appear? Can't see any link to where you go to read email! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on modifying it so it auto-signs, but at the moment it exactly mimics {{Talkback}} (which is what I ripped off to create it...) and does require the usual 4 "~" dance to sign.

Incoming email goes to the email address the recipient has configured, so the usual email application ;-) TFOWR 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, but I would like to see Gmail embedded in it, with Facebook as well, if you wouldn't mind TFOWR. I'm sure you have time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're sure I have the time?! ;-) I'm currently involved in a substantial time-sink ;-)

I suspect you're joking (I hope you're joking, either that or you think I'm a lot more clueful than I really am - honestly, I'm not that clever...!) but the GMail idea is possibly possible, maybe - I could add a link to GMail, for those editors with GMail, but it would be redundant for other editors, and people would probably then complain that I hadn't added Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, etc. I'll have a think about it - there may be some cleverness that I can manage that recipients could trigger...

...also, you realise it's editable by almost anyone, right?! My retort should be: so fix it yourself! ;-)

TFOWR 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny TFOWR but I'm glad you took it seriously and investigated every angle. I enjoy seeing admins work. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much, but quite enjoyed the implication that I was technically competent ;-) TFOWR 12:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol well if you did try and add GMail to the template but not others i would have no choice but to take the matter to the neutrality noticeboard because you would be discriminating against the rest of us. Google already know what we search for, they have tied their accounts to youtube so they know what videos we watch, they have satellites in space mapping the world out and they have those horrible camera cars driving around to see inside peoples homes and monitoring peoples movements. All that from a company with the motto about doing no evil. I aint letting them read my emails too! BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about the satellites :-o My wikipedia email is routed through GMail - time for a change, I think... tfowr

mi5.gov.uk, maybe...?! TFOWR 12:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wondered who you were working for. Had my suspicions of course, but those are being investigated by MI16. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Grrr you realise we will now have the security services checking over our comments here :( BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth is a pretty cool feature although its rather intrusive as it lets everyone look in your back garden. But Street view was a gross invasion of privacy. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Its OK BW, you have been assessed as "mostly harmless" --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks for letting me know. Did everyone else pass the test, or will we never be seeing some people ever again? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Still, I'm betting we all have a file in the secret Plaid bunker. Somewhere under a field in Arfon. Thank goodness the disappearings have stopped though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you never upset Cornish nationalists [25] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Our extremist friend

"I live and breathe to undermine the country that I live in." A matter for the police, do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure your aware Red Hat, that what that edit said is not in breach of the law. That is a democratic right to protest much like the Israeli Arabs. Though I do condemn his comments having seen the links you posted. Supercede (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think I don't realise that you and he are the same person, you must think I'm an idiot. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you are heavily confused. Perchance if I was the same person as the two other posters then the admins would have banned me too. I am sure you have been trying.. Only thing is I am not the other two posters and Why don't you visit empowerment forum and forum1 to find who your looking for. I have more forums for you to look through for the people your searching for... Just let me know .Supercede (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is 2010, he will be nominated for some award. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you understand the society we live in. Supercede (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

...and get a grant from his local council... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

lol sad but true yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:The Mummy

The Mummy appears to have initiated a new campaign (initially, apparently, via an IP number - User talk:86.131.245.123) to remove the word "British" from all UK foods and brands. See examples at Baked beans, Baked potato, Bubble and squeak, etc. Originally, the IPs intention was to add a non-existent English brands category to lots of articles - now The Mummy has stepped in to create a new one. Needs addressing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. There seems to be a lot happening this weekend. The sooner everyone is back at work and school the better. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

would that entail you heading of to school tomorow then?? I see you have met the MummySupercede (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now arrived at my talk page to make various insults. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Appologies for some of those peons James, nobody should be insulting you or anyone elseSupercede (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might explain?

I'm not sure what to make of this summary that you provided under the NI Demonym posting you started on the Geopolitical conflicts board. You clearly misrepresent the views of the editors posting to that section. I'm not sure why you did so, but it's something you might consider removing. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wheres my name at in those who support the removal of Irish?? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I only went through the list of those in the debate on the noticeboard, rather than from the previous debates. Feel free to add ur name to the list there. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, then it's not even a summary of the debate but a dragnet of other, perceived, opinions from elsewhere on Wikipedia.

BW, since you've not had a response from the other noticeboards and are trawling for even the slightest response on the geopolitical board, perhaps you might realise now that this isn't the big deal that you and Mick are making it out to be. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its a big deal, the responses shown in the list i produced highlight the majority see this needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia doesn't simply go on the majority vote. All you've claimed is that the use of Irish is discriminatory, which is a laughable reason for removing it as a demonym for NI. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not all i have said or others have said. Yes saying Irish whilst excluding British as far as im concerned is grossly biased and offensive aswell as lacking a neutral POV. One of the reasons for removing Irish is because it applies to a wider area (like British), only Northern Irish applies to Northern Ireland.. which is why it should only be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't do democracy yes WikiuserNI but then again it can go by overall concensus which is virtually the same as democracy's "majority wins". The term Irish is believe was only used as demonym in that source in refernece to the island of Ireland not a geo-political ideaology - however if that is the case there is nothing wrong with the inclusion of British as after all Ireland is part of the British Isles. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you complained that Irish was discriminatory, how does that balance with those who don't like either British or Northern Irish (the two are often intertwined politically)? It's a pretty poor argument.

Mabuska, the problem with that is that the points of view offered can't just be boiled down to "Irish yes/no". The logic for dumping Irish from one editor (such as BW) would be contrary to that of another editor who might want NI but also British to be used. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I complained including Irish whilst excluding British is discriminatory. Id accept British, Irish and Northern Irish being in the infobox so that there is something everyone is happy with. But we can not include Irish (which applies to a wider entity, the island) when we exclude British (which applies to a wider entity , the United Kingdom). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not accept British being in the infobox. Someone self-identifying as British does not equate to a demonym, and there are no reliable sources that say the demonym of N.Ireland is British. BW, I do agree that only Northern Irish should be in the infobx, but I also said that you should be questioning the source for Irish and not arguing that if Irish is there then it's unfair that British isn't. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is more about the article neutrality by listing one identity and not the other and accuracy as Irish applies to a wider area, not just northern Ireland like Northern Irish does. There is clear support on the noticeboard for the removal of Irish, WikiUserNI just refuses to accept this fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement makes it clear that both the British and Irish identities of the people of Northern Ireland are to be valued and respected. Extrapolating from this, both British and Irish should be in the infobox, while "Northern Irish" should be out. Irvine 1707 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is either include the lot or just have the one immediate locality demonym - Northern Irish. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting agreement to include British there is less likely to get majority support. There for the best bet is to remove Irish and just leave Northern Irish, this will then be in line with other parts of the UK that simply say English, Welsh and Scottish. Matters of identity are already covered within the article, although a note in the infobox or link to the section may be appropriate. But at the moment the infobox is totally unacceptable as it discriminates against British people by including Irish whilst excluding British BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that there's discrimination on offer is pointless hyperbole, it's already been pointed out to you. As someone who is resident in NI I can assure you I don't feel put upon by the use of the demonym Irish when visiting relatives in England, any more than I would if they said I was British. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The argument that if we can't have British then you can't have Irish doesn't make sense. As for using Scotland or Wales as an example neither country has a North Wales or North Scotland to compare with. Bjmullan (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is Irish applies to the whole island of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. In the same way British applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, or Scotland or Wales or England. British and Irish are both in the same situation because they apply to a wider area, there for it is unfair to list one whilst excluding the other.

Northern Irish is the ONLY term that applies only to the people of Northern Ireland. There for that should be the only thing listed in the infobox, unless we list everything, including British. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could edit everything that's unfair on wikipedia I would have a field day. Once again I'll say it (I don't believe it!), I agree with you that it should only have Northern Irish in the infobox, but please stop with this unfair nonsense. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox at present violates neutrality rules. So its not just about being unfair, its gross bias on a very contentious issue.

It'd be easier if NI left the UK & united with the republic. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll stay out of that debate. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Life would be just as easy if the Republic of Ireland rejoined the United Kingdom, and fully reunited the British isles again :). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the IRA, any Irish reunion will be a long ways into the future (if at all). GoodDay (talk)

Well it will certainly not happen before the 100th anniversary of partition, unless the Scottish separatists are victorious, which they will not be. Hopefully there is less than 10 months left of separatist rule in Scotland, roll on May 2011. I may be celebrating or in an extremely bad mood come May. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The UK won't be shrinking anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who needs a United Ireland? The people of the north have all the advantages of being Irish and the British pay for it. Bjmullan (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

a situation everyone should be happy with. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the heck is paying for it these days, the Chinese? For the Republic I guess the answer is easier, Germany. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the Chinese, but its on Britains credit card lol. The Republic certainly got a lot of funding from the EU, mostly Germany but Britain is one of the biggest net contributors too, although i did read an article a couple of years ago that ROI was to become a net contributor to the EU budget. People complain about British people being too eurosceptic, its alot easier for the european countries who get given more cash than they put in to be happy about the union when it wastes money. Even the Germans started to rebel a bit in opposition to bailing out of Greece. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of Ireland and the EU - i'm still amazed at how the Irish bowed under EU preasure and voted for the "European Constitution" or whatever name or shape it finally took. After all those centuries rebelling and fighting for independance and the right to rule themselves without external influence and they end up sacrificing more power to Brussels. Whilst EU money has benefited both parts of Ireland - what heritage has been sold out down the river in the process? Maybe they don't care down south about the republican dream anymore... they did also vote away their claim to Northern Ireland after all with the GFA.

Away from that i think we've moved away from the issue at heart... demonyms (rolls eyes lol)Mabuska ^(talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That what I thought as well, when the Irish voted to join the EU they gave up all territorial rights to Northern Ireland. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit it was rather funny seeing Sinn Fein and the British Conservative party on the same side of an argument. They were pretty much alone of major political parties in europe opposing the lisbon treaty. As for the Republican dream, i was recently informed on the ROI talkpage it turns out the country is not actually a republic after all. Its just a democracy, but it appears nobody told the republicans in Northern Ireland that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I think you're confusing the Lisbon Treaty with the Good Friday Agreement. The former was an tidying up of sorts of EU rules, the latter was an agreement (amongst other things) by the Irish to scrub their constitutional territorial claim to the entire island of Ireland in exchange for which the UK agreed that sovereignty over NI would be up to the people of NI to decide upon.

One way I've heard others looking at the EU and Ireland is that the Irish had less than a century of independence post empire, bye bye currency control and a lot of policy decisions. The other way of looking at it is that there's no problem with anyone "seceding" from the EU, they just say bye. And if the EU goes the way the bureaucrats wish, there won't be countries any more, simply regions, so nationality is moot. WikiuserNI (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail, I am no treaty geek by a long chalk, I was really repeating what my Irish friends had told me. I hope to one day see the death of nationalism as it is one of, if not the main cause of all wars. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If everyone would follow the example of the co-founder of the Republican Labour Party and co-founder of the SDLP and member of the House of Lords (a republican and member of the House of Lords? surely not!) Lord Fitt (aka Gerry Fitt) who proclaimed that he "was a socialist first and nationalist second". If all Unionists and Nationalists would consider the people before territorial squabbles etc. who knows how great Northern Ireland could be these days... Mabuska ^(talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What people have to understand is when the Irish look at the Continent they see nothing but friends. When the British look across they see nothing but enemies. Bjmullan (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

lol makes me think of this classic clip [26] when it comes to attitudes towards europe. Whilst i support the european union it is a good thing this country is pretty eurosceptic, we were proved right on the euro since the recent Greek crisis. The EU also does not make any friends for itself with some of its actions. There is something pretty disturbing when the European Union ignores the wishes of the voters as they did with Ireland, simply telling them to vote again. From some of the coverage of it we saw here, the second referendum was less about how wonderful the lisbon treaty would be, but how Ireland would be punished if it did not do as it was told and how isolated it would become. Some european countries passed the lisbon treaty with little debate, they are so "pro EU" they can not always see the dangerous of what they are rushing into. The EU has great potential if it stopped trying to impose uniformity within memberstates, it should focus on an increasing role in the world instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed days indeed. During the old empire dissidents would just have been shot and not given the second chance to vote. Thinking about it they wouldn't have even been given the first chance to vote :-) Bjmullan (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reflecting as from history and ignoring the present is an example of the problem. Your opinionated comment here is utter crap "What people have to understand is when the Irish look at the Continent they see nothing but friends. When the British look across they see nothing but enemies. "Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The EU is meant to be a group of equal sovereign states, very different to Empires of the past although the EU Commission President did compare it to one which got all the NWO obsessives going crazy. There had to be the rule of law in the past, the world would be a complete mess today if the sort of dissent we tolerate today was tolerated in the past. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The EU is the ultimate realisation of France and Germanys centuries long dream - domination over Europe! ;-) They can't do it on their own as we've all found out with the Napoleanic Wars and WWI and WWII, so there trying the diplomatic and money route :-P I just wonder what would have happened in European and world history if the UK government had actually accepted France's request to have the Queen as head of state after WWII... would there even be an EU today for a start. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Share our monarchy with the French? That is one way to increase support for a republic! lol. The European Union is simply a necessity, some like the French and Germans may get a little carried away, but European unification is required (whilst we should rightly remain sovereign states, with veto over major matters). With a growing China and India, the EU is the only option Europe has if Europeans want to remain a dominant force on the global stage, a position Europe has held for many centuries. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What can I say BW, I agree with you again! :-) Bjmullan (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I get bullied for being a supporter of the EU :( lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...There is no long term future for humanity without the colonization of new planets.......21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true, if people think everyone is going to obsess over the sovereignty of little bits of land here on earth in 1000 years time when humans are colonizing other planets they lack vision (to put it mildly). Of course this is another reason why i do not understand separatism, at a time when the world is unifying and getting closer together, why break up a union thats lasted over 300 years or 800 years and become a weaker entity with less influence. Makes no sense to me. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of the EU is all i will say about that issue. On 1000 years time... if civilisation crumbles and all hell breaks loose every little scrap of land counts... Mabuska ^(talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We can not isolate ourselves in Europe BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I think I've finally read something you've said I agree with BW! I must admit admit, I'm a little shocked... I had you down as a little Englander ;) --Richardeast (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

lol many are shocked that i am very pro EU, whilst i do not want a United States of Europe the have many problems with the EU, it is something Britain and the rest of Europe needs. Sadly i think people obsess over the matter of the EU and ignore more serious problems we face internally like separatism. If only we could agree on that point! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems pooling my countries sovereignty with my neighbours for the mutual benefit of all - next to China & India we're all small fish in the sea! A joint military and possibly a foreign policy seems logical (as long as London stops wanting to spend untold billions on trident while sending friends of mine to far-flung places without basic equipment!) but I don't see why London thinks they know better than we do for how Wales should be run! Why should some of the highest tax rates in the world, set for the benefit of the city of London, be left to cripple industry in the valleys? Why should billions of pounds of Welsh tax go to fund infrastructure projects like cross-rail, HS1, DLR or West and East coast mainline upgrades, when not a single penny's been spend in a generation here on a major infrastructure project? And why shouldn't Welsh culture and our identity be celebrated round the world and elevated to a equal status to that of other distinct cultures and identities?

I see the british isles (including Ireland) in a similar way to how many Scandinavians see themselves and each other.... we mostly play the same sports (no cheese rolling here though!), mostly eat the same foods and have the added benefit of all understanding the same language. We could be partners, allies, neighbours and friends - but to try to forcefully assimilate everyone and claim we're all the same alienates people who want to be different... instead of friends for life who have each others backs no matter what, the mistakes of Ireland are repeated and results in act like each other's national anthems being booed [27] - We're not English or british, we're Welsh... even our Olympic athletes prefer to drape themselves in the national rather than union flag (and they were part of 'team GB'!) [28] [29].

There can be no denying that, in the modern world with empire's gone the UK's no longer a global player, and, as the benefits from pooled sovereignty diminish, the calls for a breakup of the union will surely increase - the question is, how will we handle it. --Richardeast (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We are small fish in a very large sea but despite being this small little island nation without doubt we have played a huge role in helping to shape the modern world we all live in an enjoy today. We did that working together as a United Kingdom, not as just England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland separately, England was a minor European power before its union with Scotland. So even if today there may be less “need” for our union, it has been a good thing for Britain and the world and the case for ending the UK has certainly not been made, there are still many benefits and no reason to destroy a country united for 100s of years.

The cost of Tridents replacement will be pretty small in comparison to the overall defence budget. The talk of 100 billion which is an estimate by Greenpeace (hardly neutral on these matters) was over the lifetime of the new subs, which would be at least 30 years. Wales share of that money would be tiny. I agree with your concerns about the equipment, although that’s not a reason not to spend money on our nuclear deterrent. Sadly incompetent governments and lack of military funding is a big problem.

As for London knowing better, this is why devolution was introduced so that matters like health, education etc can be handled at a Welsh and Scottish level which are more capable of dealing with local needs, in time the devolution powers are being increased whilst the UK parliament and government deals with matters like defence and foreign affairs which you partly agreed it makes sense to pool sovereignty on anyway. As for spending, whilst the Government may not publish the details for expenditure and revenue in the way there is details for Scotland, It is the case that Wales has far higher spending than the revenue raised in Wales, a few months back I was watching Straight Talk with Andrew Neil and I think Plaids Westminster leader, he basically accepted Wales does get more funding, and we are talking in the billions a year here yet still demanded more.

As for Welsh culture, you should be able to celebrate being Welsh and Welsh culture can be recognised around the world, I am fine with that as long as it is along side British culture and being British, it does not have to be one or the other. But you seek the destruction of my country and my identity. Why is your right to be Welsh more important than my right to be British? Why is Wales more of a country than the United Kingdom? A nation does not have to be sovereign for its diaspora to feel connected or continue to celebrate its culture. Did people with Scottish roots in the USA or Canada have no connection with Scotland until it got its own parliament and government through devolution? The Scottish government is able to travel the world promoting Scottish interests right now, it does not need to be a sovereign state to do it.

Most people in the United Kingdom support the continuation of the United Kingdom. The fact about 87% of people voted for pro UK parties in Wales and 77% of people voted for pro UK parties in Scotland does highlight that most people are fine with the union, if they hate it so much and want the end of the UK, then they should vote for the separatist parties. So it is not a case of “forcefully assimilating” everyone, but people should learn to support their country, and that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the USA kids from a very young age learn their pledge of allegiance and repeat it regularly throughout their school life. They have loyalty to their country, is that forcefully assimilating everyone? It is doing something that helps to hold a nation together and I fail to see why the United Kingdom should not take certain steps which helps hold our Kingdom together. In recent years the government has undermined the UK at the same time as promoting other identities.

The booing of any national anthems is pathetic, the fact it takes place at all simply highlights the fall in standards because today we are such a liberal country that tolerates pretty much anything. Such thuggish behaviour should not be tolerated. The idea that the UK breaking up and us becoming separate countries is going to make us all live happily ever after sadly could not be further from the truth. There will be a lot of angry people from each part of the UK should it break up and whilst i hope there would never be violence, we are living in a dream world if we think there would be none. Sadly separatism never focuses on the detail of the implications for us all. When Scotland and Wales adopt the Euro and England continues to refuse, that is going to do huge damage to trade. What would happen to the greatest public service broadcaster in the world the BBC? What happens to the 100,000s of families that have more than one "nation", be it Scottish and English, Welsh and Scottish etc. Will all of them have to get dual nationality? or will families be forced to pick one nationality over the other? Are English people going to tolerate the fact two of the largest transport companies that operate in England and get a lot of contracts (First Group and Stagecoach Group) happen to be Scottish? Whilst we will all be part of the EU, other European countries have no problem breaking EU rules to protect their own national interests, a more right wing government in England will take a tougher line on European matters. (lets not forget the tories won a huge majority of seats in England in the recent general election, the only reason we have a coalition today is because of Scotland and Wales). Separatists put our entire futures on the line for this goal of independence. Whilst you may think the risks would be worth it, many others will not when the true implications of destruction of the union is explained.

You may not be English but Welsh people today are British. Some may not identify as British thanks to incompetent governments over previous decades, but we are all British citizens. As for the Olympic athletes, just because they take pride in being Welsh does not mean they reject or also do not take pride in being British. I don’t know about the specific Welsh athletes in question but there was a debate over Sir Chris Hoy at the time, and he made clear he was proud to be both Scottish and British.

The Empire is gone, however we still are in a position many countries would like to be in. We have a seat on the UN security council, we still have and will continue to have one of the top 10 economies in the world. We are one of the EU3 and will continue to be. An independent Wales or Scotland would be gobbled up by the EU and treated in the same way the Southern Irish were recently. They voted NO to the Lisbon treaty, their PM got called in for a ticking off and the ROI were told to vote again, that time along with a lot of threats about how isolated and damaged the Republic would be if it said no. If the United Kingdom said no in a referendum to the Lisbon treaty, do you think they would tell us to vote again? The treaty would be dead. There is still a need for the union but sadly like many things in life, some people can not see just how important something is until they lose it. Sorry for the long post, I wanted to reply to all the points. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-British POV pusher

I thought it might be useful to bring to your attention user:Bcs09, a user who vehemently pushes Indian nationalism and anti-British POV, which can be clearly seen from the user's contribution history. Bcs09 is currently engaged on the great power article's talk page claiming that the United Kingdom is no longer a great power whilst India is. Bcs09 is a sock puppet of banned user:Chanakyathegreat. Vivid green (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Had the great power article on my watch list for some time. Theres no way GB or France will be removed from the list, theres no major sources to justify removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"1930s book burning"

Not cool, BW. I've collapsed that part of the thread. In the process I've removed comments by both myself and Snowded, which I feel is fair enough as they were simply comments on your book-burning nonsense. However, it also removed valid, on-topic points you'd made (and I'd replied to below the collapsed section). Feel free to reinstate the on-topic part, but please do not repeat the book-burning part. What images you conjure up during this process are your business and in general are off-topic anyway. When they make negative implications about other editors they are really not acceptable. TFOWR 09:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ok sorry, is just what comes to my mind when thinking about the crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia. I wont mention the book burnings again if its problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a good and appropriate metaphor just for the record BW. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks. Its an image i can not get out of my head when i think of these matters sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Need emergency help

Hello, I really need your help. One of the editors involved in Kourosh Zolani’s discussion page, deleted a huge part of our contribution to the discussion. They keep deleting the new comments that we add. Now even if I do contribute to the discussion I am not sure that it is going to stay there. Please advise me what to do. I found you fair on your last comment on Kourosh Zolani’s page. That is why I am asking for your help.

Here is the link to what they did. Thank you, Thomasshane (talk)

Thank you so much again, Thomasshane (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding British Isles

I'm not totally suprised that the addition is being rejected at the island of Ireland article. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is this is one of the cases where it clearly should be. An article infobox on the island and it doesnt say its part of the British Isles. Its more justified to be used in this case than almost every article that has been debated by the taskforce. Whilst we may not in the end be able to add it to the infobox, it clearly needs to be mentioned in the text and if its not then theres some serious Neutrality issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much can be done about it. We'd end up with months of dispute & in the end it won't be added. Right or wrong, things are the way they are. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are the way they are because of the crusades over recent years. These sorts of things need correcting. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the changing times, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Change takes time to accomplish. Sadly there are so many other matters that need dealing with, the BI issue has dominated my time in recent days. I cant even remember how i got into the BI dispute it feels like so long ago and yet i joined it years after lots of crap had been going on. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The BI, is like somebody's pretty married woman gradually coming on to you. You're trying to respect her married status, but before ya know it, you done it with her & find yourself wondering how'd it happen. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

lmao it is certainly addictive once u get sucked in. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

War between Democracies

Welcome! But be aware its not a easy place, British Isles articles are mild in comparison. --Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks it looks like fun topic! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And might divert you from your crusade ... :-) You can have WP:TLW on the sock comments --Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles matter sadly distracts me from even bigger problems that need to be dealt with and some other areas i like getting involved in :( Thanks for letting me have the last word on there lol. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I too was happy to see fresh input for that accursed article, and hope you will continue to watch it and contribute in whatever way you have time to. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just here to say thanks, BW. Jack1297 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

lol np, i think its just a misunderstanding over Socks/old accounts. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolves

Hello

I initially wanted to merge the two articles because there was no evidence whatsoever of the wolves in Ireland and Britain being seperate species. The term "British Isles" was thus a convenient term for connected or geographically closely knit areas which were otherwise seperated by political boundraries (which mean nothing to animals). Although I didnt split the article, I did not press the matter for their merger, as my primary interest lay in the animals themselves rather than what I can best describe as nationalistic claims over the same animal.

I feel British Isles is an appropriate term to describe an area when a certain animal or plant is present in all the islands, including those outside the dominion of the crown. Hope that helps.Mariomassone (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Europe

The explanation given in your edit (23:06, 28 August 2010) suggests that you recognize that at least a part of Ireland should be classed as Celtic rather than Germanic; "whys a paragraph on Celtic Ireland belong in the intro about Germanic Europe?". Therefore, I'm sure you'll agree with the removal of that bullsh*t image at the top of the article, which represents Ireland as Germanic. Maybe you can create a more accurate/appropriate one. Finally, the article itself is largely nonsense, as has been mentioned on the talk page. Onetonycousins (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about how accurate or inaccurate that article is. I have the same sort of concerns about something like Celtic nations. But the text in question certainly did not belong in the introduction, although it being mentioned in the article itself would be fine. Best to raise this whole thing on the talk page of the article, to clear it up and avoid an edit war. I must admit, the articles accuracy does appear to be questionable. You could stick an accuracy tag on the page as well just to be safe until its resolved on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland easily falls into the scope of Germanic Europe. Just like Germany, France, parts of Turkey etc. all easily fall into the scope of Celtic Europe. Cultures and peoples overlap, Ireland is a strong case where it has overlapped, where even the "Celtic" majority may actually be a minority of the Irish gene-pool according to one historian. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That template

I appreciate your concerns about the template. My view is that it could be useful, if we had a matching "merge to" template, i.e. we had one that said "this may use BI inappropriately - consider splitting" and another that said "this may inappropriately treat BI subjects separately - consider merging". Both templates should link to WT:BISE, rather than to the article(s)' talk pages.

Anyway... still not sold on the template, but I can see it having some use to us. I'd like a way to drive editors to WT:BISE, if nothing else. TFOWR 10:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were matching templates it would be less of a concern although i still think its highly problematic. A warning template like that recommending without any debate before it being placed there that people split a section on Britain and Ireland is an issue and in a way it could be part of a process.

You start with a section on British Isles > It is changed to Great Britain and Ireland > Then the template is added to split the section entirely which would help ensure that British Isles can not be re-added to an article if someone thinks its appropriate.

I believe there are circumstances, because of Britain and Irelands history where it is appropriate for them to be listed together in a section. Like in the example at White people. Although in that case, as countries are used throughout the list it should be United Kingdom and Ireland. Certain people (both British and Irish) may not like the fact, but there is a very long shared history within the British isles. There for in a a section of countries, whilst it would not be appropriate to state British Isles as a title in the list, i see no problem with grouping UK/Ireland together. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

HighKing

I've just been reviewing the continuing comments at that ridiculous SPI against LemonMonday raised by HighKing. I have a question for you; do you consider that HighKing's presence on Wikipedia is beneficial in any way to this project? Here's my answer - a resounding NO! What little good work he does on articles about cheese and some obscure aspect of computer science are far, far outweighed by his tireless campaign against the British Isles and related subjects. His constant refusals (in many cases) to accept that he may be wrong - see the latest debate at BISE about James Kay - only add to the frustration. He causes massive time wasting among an increasing number of editors (note how when he stops editing the BISE page, so does everyone else). The only reason the BISE page is there at all is because of HighKing. He is just a one-man POV machine who continues to cause aggression, ill feeling and general discontent amongst an increasing number of editors. He is also the root cause of the blocks such as that imposed today on Triton. Can you suggest anything else that could be done to stop this - most options have already been exhausted? LevenBoy (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly i think the only way of dealing with this is to continue handling the debate at BISE. At least that has stopped the endless removal of the term and many edit wars breaking out over it. This is rather time consuming but i do not see any other choice, except a complete ban on adding or removing British Isles by anyone deemed an involved editor, but such a policy would move the whole thing underground again. I think progress is being made on BISE, cases where British Isles would have been removed instantly have at least been challenged and in some cases blocked. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton is the root cause of Triton's blocks lol. The BISE is the best way for now to deal with editors like HighKing. He will trawl through every article that mentions British Isles and so it is our job to ensure that any use of the term is backed up with verifiable sources to thwart what looks like nothing more than anti-British racism. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers LB, I don't believe HK is that bad. Nor do I think you (LB) are that bad (on the pro-British Isles side). GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pots and kettles comes to mind. You could of course raise an RFC or the matter at ANI then all behaviour could be examined. Now that would be interesting. --Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Highkings actions have been raised at ANI before, the community voted to impose a complete ban on him adding/removing British Isles from articles. However those sanctions were not imposed on him and straight away he removed British Isles from another article, nothing was done then either. We all just have to accept the BISE solution which whilst not ideal, has atleast reduced the problem compared to what happened during the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for an RfC then, of course the nominators behaviour is also taken into account, including your own current crusade which extends beyond BI issues to Irish issues in general. --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy for us to continue to use the process at BISE, like i said before, its not ideal but it far better than the situation before. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, edit-warring has virtually ceased on this topic. BISE has peformed well. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite wrong to infer that one editor's bad behaviour is caused by another's reasoned edits. People can wind up, troll and misbehave. That's all against the rules. Repeatedly making a similar edit in many articles is only against the rules if other rules are broken. HK does not seem to me to break rules, but rather to have a sustained viewpoint which he argues for repeatedly. He is now abiding as far as the admins seem concerned and as far as I can see with the rules set around the BI debate. We are surely each responsible for our own conduct. As regards HK's conduct, since I've interacted with him, I've found him to be willing to debate and engage in sensible discussion about points. We all have our POVs and must attempt to get used to each other having them. I don't believe you will get what you want out of further measures LevenBoy, as you plainly struggle with civility and generally with good conduct yourself. As we've all seen in the case of Triton, the admins mean business over this. End of. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as HK isn't changing 'British Isles' to things like 'Barney the Dinosaur', 'Donald Duck', etc; we can be assured he ain't no disruptor. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If he started to remove British Isles from articles again then his actions would be very problematic. Bringing examples to BISE requesting them be removed is time consuming but atleast reduces the chances of edit wars breaking out over this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your AIV report

I blocked 147.114.44.192/27 for 31 hours - hopefully that will slow down the vandalism. TN X Man 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the main pages have also got semi protected now so even if he bypasses the block those ones will be ok now. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher I am writing to you in response to a comment you left on the Derry article. I would like to make it clear that on no account did I make such a threat as you have openly published on the discussion page. I have simply addressed directly to OFenian that issues of similar matters have previously ended up in court (I would be happy to prove evidence of such cases) and I am quite appalled by the manner in which you have so quickly replied to my comment as a legal threat. You cannot go around accusing me of leaving threats every time you don't agree with my views. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that I am getting rather offended of your constant run downs on every opinion I express. I have a right to express my opinion and to try and improve such articles without comments as if I'm some sectarian editor that just wants the name Londonderry because it looks good. As you know I was involved in the recent debate about the introduction and when you had expressed your views on the matter whether I agreed with them or not I treated them with respect and took them into consideration and on some cases expanded on them for you, but all I have got when I try to improve the article is comments suggesting that the only reason why I want something altered is that I can’t accept consensus that were made almost a month ago. I have been ignoring your negative responses for some time now and I thought I would bring to your attention in case you weren't a wear yourself of how you have been expressing yourself. Yours etc.. Cbowsie (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand you were not making threats, but i linked the article because its best to avoid talking about things being illegal and court action. On the specific issue, i understand your position and i can see why you would feel the way you do about the situation. But we can not change the fact that there is an agreement which applies across the whole of wikipedia, to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. This is the way it has to be, whilst i am not happy with that arrangement, to be honest i can not see a better alternative. The reason i have made comments to you is because i do not want you to waste your time on something you will have no success in overcoming. There has to be good reason to say Londonderry anywhere when talking about the city, and in most cases there simply isnt. I am not trying to get in your way or cause problems for you, im simply trying to help save you time, because this specific issue can not be undone. The demographics of wikipedia and certain key agreements were made some time ago which are very difficult to over turn. Thats why i suggested focusing on some other issues where you will be able to accomplish change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cbowsie please take on board these wise words from BW and yes BW I know I'm a page stalker ;-)Bjmullan (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Grrr.. how were you able to post at 26 minutes past.. From the moment i posted at 20 past till a couple of minutes ago wikipedia was totally screwed for me, nothing loaded.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You should know by now that I have special powers ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

lol lucky you. I am glad to see it was not just me though, some others appeared to have had problems too. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton - your comment on this talk page

As far as I can see HighKing made no complaint about that latest comment on Triton's talk page, but it was picked up by two neutral admins one of who placed a block on his talk page. You would be a lot better explaining (if he is prepared to listen) the behaviours which have led to yet another block. The behaviour increasingly reminds me of Irvine22 and is likely to have the same consequences if there is not a radical change. Arguing tactics makes you sound a little like levinboy rather than an experienced editor. --Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought Triton was talking about the "nuts" comment in the edit summary, which Highking did complain about that on TFOWRs talk page before Triton got his latest block. Ive no idea who Triton is but on several occasions i have urged them to follow the rules. Him getting an indef block will be seen as a victory for some and knowing that is more of a reason for him to play by the rules.BritishWatcher (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Victory", "playing by the rules", whatever happened to this being a collaborative project where our goal is to improve the articles? Ah well... WikiuserNI(talk) 09:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I blame the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside - I assume this thread is supposed to be titled "Triton - yourcomment on his talk page" - that is, as a comment aimed at BW. I guess Snowded's finger slipped! If I'm right, I suggest that someone amend the title - TR might think it's intended as advice to him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On that note, BW - your comment on TR's talkpage, your comments on "victory", "defeat" etc in general, are far too close to WP:BATTLE for my liking. I appreciate you giving TR advice, but ease off on the binary win/lose/victory/defeat stuff eh? WikiuserNI is right - this is a collaborative project - and we need to behave collaboratively and not treat this as a battlefield (or encourage others to do so). TFOWR 10:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly i think some people will see it as a victory if he gets indef blocked, its also something i hoped would discourage him from breaking the rules again but i wont mention it in future. Whilst you are here, did you see my post about the United Kingdom article history, and the two examples of British Isles being removed by editors with a clear view on the term British Isles. Its those sorts of things that happened years ago which really get to me about this whole British Isles issue and why i take an interest in it, theres been clear efforts to remove British Isles from articles with no justification long before i arrived on wikipedia.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But does what you think improve the project? Does it need to be shared with the rest of the community? I'd suggest, resoundingly, no. I did see your comments about the UK article's history: I'd far prefer to focus on the present, and on sound, policy-based arguments for insertion or deletion. If this is getting to you - take a break. TFOWR 10:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As i said i wont mention it again, but i do not think my comments on tritons talk page in any way harm the project and if it encouraged triton to follow the rules it would improve the project and reduce disruption, that was the focus of my post. The history of an article is notable, if information was deemed valid for years with it in the introduction, its removal on very questionable grounds by editors with clear links to the dispute does concern me. It is these sorts of issues which got me into this BI dispute in the first place. As for taking a break, i took a long one a couple of months ago, during that period certain changes were made (not British Isles related) which i would strongly have opposed. I can not be selfish and take a break now, i am addicted to wikipedia again. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should strike your comment about HighKing complaining by the way, he didn't that I can see. If you have a diff provide it, but otherwise strike it--Snowded ^TALK 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It was on TFOWRs talk page here BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I know where it was, it was still as far as I can see a false statement, strike or provide a diff please. --Snowded^TALK 04:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not a false statement. Highking clearly complained about the comment to TFOWR. That is all i said so i will be striking nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A whole bunch of comments have been removed anyway so there is nothing i could strike. But ive checked and my words were perfectly justified. And the whole reason for saying it was because Triton said he didnt think Highking had complained about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are right on this one so my apologies, I h ad to track back to 6th to find it, given Triton's comment I assumed it was later than that--Snowded ^TALK 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

NP, you had me worried though i had to search back too to make sure lol.BritishWatcher (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I promise to do my best to always worry you. One of these days I might sneak the Red Flag on to your page to replace GSTQ--Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not something with a dragon on it then Snowded? Your allegiances are sooo complicated.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lmao well that would certainly freak me out if when i log on in the morning one day and play the national anthem the red flag song started playing. Its almost too scary to imagine.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the red flag, time to put on the TUC conference i think! lolBritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, is it that time of year already? How the seasons fly! Were you able to catch the Plaid conference[30] from wherever in the world you currently are Snowded?Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

BBC iPlayer allowed me too, but I am at home in Wiltshire at the moment so fairly easy. Plaid is a socialist party James so no real confusion. I am now contemplating a rich vein of disruption by substituting a suprise song of the month on BW's site. Possible a flag or two as well--Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, glad you're at home and I hope your weather is a little nicer this morning than rather gloomy Derbyshire. I always find it a bit of a stretch that Plaid is genuinely socialist, given the traditional clash between socialist values and nationalist ones, but I suppose it is in reality deeper than mere manouverism to win valley votes. :-)Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a major historical split in Wales - read Emyr Humphreys 7 volume Land of the Living series to get a sense of it (and its a great read as well). However in the modern period it has become more interesting. Labour no long has a monopoly on socialism and the old assumption that internationalism went hand in had with socialism is not as absolute as it was. Dafydd Wigley (born in Derby you may be interested to know) made a real difference here, moved my family from long term Labour Party membership to the Plaid. --Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard a bit about that, but don't know much in honesty. Didn't know Wigley was born in Derby - to Welsh parents presumably? He seems a decent guy to me. Puzzled whatthis section is doing in his article as it seems to be only distantly relevant, but there you go. I don't know if Labour has any connection at all with socialism now, at least in the higher levels - I suppose that may change if Balls or Ed beats Dave, but I can't see it happening myself. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting for Ed, as I live in Wiltshire I have a Labour Party membership, although the Devizes constituency is blue throughout. --Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do the LP know you are also in Plaid? I am pretty sure you would be drummed out according to the rules if they did, although maybe they don't care these days. I am in marvellous West Derbyshire, seat of the acclaimed Tory Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin, a self-serving chappy if ever there was one. Lucky me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No rules I could see, they just want the money ....--Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrying on conversation here

To respond to a point. People can describe themselves however they like, but they should not seek to destroy the very country that has given them the freedoms they enjoy. I am not just British by "desire/wish/choice", i am a British citizen just as those in Wales, Scotland and England (including in its county of Cornwall) are, even if they are separatists that are disloyal to the state and its people. When the concept of sovereign states is abolished, your other points will have more relevance, separate cultures does not justify destroying countries as almost all countries have differences. Can a city in England declare independence? Some parts of English cities now have more in common with certain cultures in other parts of the world thanks to immigration. Can they separate from the United Kingdom to form some new entity? I think not. Countries spend billions on their defence, should they all allow those countries to be undermined from within? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about irredentism. You say you are not British by desire/choice/wish -you actually are. We are talking about culture and ethnic identity here. Not citizenship. That is something else entirely. For example - I am European by citizenship (as indeed every other citizen of an EU country is), but by God I do not feel European by ethnicity or culture. Wanting to be part of a country and wanting to be part of an ethnic identity are two separate things, although sometimes mistaken for the same. It is perfectly reasonable to feel attached to one ethnic culture while still maintaining loyalty to another state (i.e. it is perfectly reasonable to regard oneself as Welsh ethnically and culturally, while still feeling loyal to the British state - that does not confer a British identity on that person, simply British citizenship). "Can they separate from the United Kingdom to form some new entity? I think not. Countries spend billions on their defence, should they all allow those countries to be undermined from within?" - Using that logic then we should no longer recognise the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, etc. All these countries fought for independence. Their parent countries did not want them to become independent, and indeed spent vast sums of money in attempting to maintain territorial integrity. Finnish inhabitants were variously citizens of Sweden and Russia. They still maintained their own ethnic identity, fought for freedom, and won. Are you saying they should not have been allowed to do so? If the majority in Wales, Scotland or Cornwall were to decide that in future they wished to become independent then that should be their own decision. Regarding immigrants and their domination of certain cities - that is another issue entirely. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I said i am not just British by desire/choice/wish. I have no problem with different cultural or ethnic identities, or how people describe themselves, as long as it does not undermine the United Kingdom, intentionally or by accident. When it does there is a problem. You mention lots of examples, but those countries independence (with the exception of one) does not undermine the existence of my country the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom is a democracy, if the majority in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland want independence then yes their wish must be respected but that does not mean the state and its citizens should not be doing everything within the law to ensure the survival of the state itself. It does not have to be an equal playing field especially when the clear majority wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. But the problem is where do we draw the line on entities we allow to break away? I can accept the principle (whilst strongly opposing it ever happening) for the fourCountries of the United Kingdom, but i do not accept this principle for a county like Cornwall, or any other English county, or a city, or a town, or a street, or a single person with one house have the right to suddenly decide they want independence from a state.

Peoples attitudes towards the state and what they consider their identity depends on many things, sadly in many ways the United Kingdom and British identity has been undermined at the same time as other identities have been promoted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"if the majority in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland want independence then yes their wish must be respected but that does not mean the state and its citizens should not be doing everything within the law to ensure the survival of the state itself". This sentence poses an interesting quandary - let's assume for a minute everyone in Wales wanted to become independent -by your logic they have the right to secede, but prior to secession they would still be citizens of the UK, and therefore should do everything in their power to prevent their own wish for an independent Wales!! Regarding Cornwall, there is a constitutional question regarding the legal standing of that entity which has not been fully resolved. Is it a county, integral to England, or is it something more. Remember, Wales at the beginning of the 20th century had a status similar to Cornwall's current status (albeit with more of a readily recognisable . Just as a note - I am not an advocate for or against irredentism or any other seccesionist claims. I just find it quite annoying that any time anyone suggests something that goes against your own personal beliefs you seem to delight in deriding them and insist in inserting snide remarks. Why not debate the topic at hand. If you have nothing positive to contribute why bother contributing at all? As you said yourself - the majority prefer the continued existence of the UK (a country which I am quite fond of, by the way), so just ignore the comments of separatist and nationalist editors (as long as their contributions do not interfere negatively with the project), and just comment on content. For example, your comment on the British Isles talk page - "I stopped reading after the first sentence. I am sure i oppose everything in your proposal thanks." - was totally unwarranted. It provided no constructive criticism at all. You simply saw something you assumed you would not like, and, without analysis, ridiculed it. Simply leave it alone if you're not bothered reading. Likewise, your comment - "Oh great another possible "revived language". We will all be returning to our own caves at this rate." - why? Why would you ridicule people in such a way? Did it contribute to the project? No. So therefore why insert it? All it does is serve inflammatory retorts, which can only lead to encouraging other negative comments from other editors. Anyway, that's my two cents worth on that topic. --MacTire02 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

At present a minority in each part of the UK want its destruction, the majority and the state itself through all peaceful means should be ensuring that continues to be the case right up until the flags are lowered for the final time. Cornwall is a county of England and that is how it will stay, a county can not break away. My "snide remarks" are just my sense of humour, but at the heart of it is the same question as before "where do we draw the line", hence the comment about all returning to our caves at this rate. Separatism can not just be ignored, for too long that is exactly what Her Majesty's Government and political parties have done.

As for the British Isles proposal, i would have given a far more detailed reply if others had not already stated they were against a change. I am very bothered about alterations to that articles introduction, but ill only get into a big debate over it if its need. As for the cave remark ive explained that above. Its like saying "what will they think of next". Theres nothing offensive about it, if people want to devote their life to reviving languages that is of course their choice just as its my choice how i spend my time too. BritishWatcher(talk) 15:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"the majority and the state itself through all peaceful means should be ensuring that continues to be the case right up until the flags are lowered for the final time." Agreed. And rightly so - I was concerned with what you had originally wrote which is why I questioned it. Thank you for clarifying your position - one with which I agree.

"Cornwall is a county of England and that is how it will stay, a county can not break away" Incorrect. There is nothing in British law that prevents status change for any region within the United Kingdom, country, county, region, city, parish, etc. If this were so Wales would not have its own assembly and indeed there would be no assembly for London. Likewise there would be no unitary authorities. Again I reiterate - I'm not for or against change in the UK - it is not my place for such an opinion.

Regarding the British Isles article - I am quite happy with how it has progressed to its current state - indeed I think there is slightly too much emphasis on why it should not be so named. What I was questioning was why you deemed it necessary to insert such a flippant non-contributive comment. If you hadn't read it, don't comment on it. Certainly if you had read it and did not agree with it, mention it. But you shouldn't disregard something in such an inflammatory way.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to be insulting or anything like that, and I do hope we can have some positive arguments in the future. All the best, --MacTire02 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the United Kingdom parliament remains sovereign despite devolution, even though it would be politically difficult, it has the legal right to abolish all of these assemblies and the Scottish parliament. Devolution only has to be granted to places the UK government supports it being devolved. So the whole of Cornwall could want a devolved assembly, it does not mean the British government must comply, as it is just a county and it will continue to be treated as one despite some peoples attempts to change that. Only a very tiny minority in Cornwall do not consider themselves English or British and want Cornwall out of England.

On BI, the controversy in the introduction has been gone over on many occasions and at the time the section was called "The intro should to refer to the naming dispute" , which was actually what i was referring to when i mentioned the first sentence, although i see it has since been changed. But the proposals to include more text about the naming dispute and move the fourth paragraph to the second paragraph are not something id support and i would have made more comments had others not responded already.

Anyway thanks for the discussion, sometimes my comments may seem a little direct but most of the time its just my sense of humour, its not designed to offend anyone, id rather an open environment where people joke and say what they think than rigid guidelines and endless enforcement which would prevent any sort of conversation getting started. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should read up on history BW. The laws of Wales before the conquest were far more liberal than those which followed. Your assumption that we were all given freedoms by the necessities of Empire is dubious to say the least. Look at the Chartist movement and its location if you want another example. Freedoms have been won from the ruling class not granted by them--Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course many rights, like the right to vote and an improvement in living standards for the population had to be fought for internally. But these sorts of civil rights are only possible because we are safe from external threats who would have taken all of our freedoms away. That is where the state and yes Empire had a major role in securing all our freedoms that we enjoy today, and not just in this country. As for the Chartist movement, that is the 3rd time this week ive heard it mentioned.. it got a mention in parliament the other day too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Legion

The Royal British_Legion#Controversial donations - I added Blair's donation, thoughts? Feel free to tweak it, I am far from a skilled writer. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for your help there. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE & outdenting

Hope ya don't mind my outdenting corrections. But they do wonders for the readers.GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

np thanks, ive been trying to beat the edit conflict. other posts keep appearing lolBritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus the dangers of traffic. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I used to prefer pipelinking British Isles. But now, I see it as nothing more then a way to sooth potential sensativities. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is, in an ideal world such piping would not be needed at all, but id rather it got a mention piped than not mentioned at all. But i understand your position on it.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If the others will accept inclusion via pipelinking, I won't attempt to revert. Though, I won't like it. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WTC

You modification is very thoughtful. Rather than a revert/revert, an additional improvement. This makes it less like we are trying to say "those guys are bad, they killed civilians". So civilians in the New York attack is fine with me.

Good job. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the sentence flows better now than it did originally with just the single point about civilians. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles

~~Sniff sniff, DG's posts brought a tear to my eye. It looks like I'm a Canadian nationalist (going by my userpage). GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)~~

~~PS: In a homourist way, I consider DG, my -opposing- mirror image. Even our initials are sorta reflective (GD & DG). GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)~~

~~PPS: A poor secret: DG & I, mix like oil & water. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)~~

Hey

I need your suggestions and guidance on the changes we are proposing on India. How should we move forward?

Thanks,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my latest response with slightly different wording to the last sentence? The overall size of the history section itself does play a big part in if others feel it should be mentioned or not, the section certainly needs expanding either way so adding more bits to that over the next few days as we wait for more comments will help. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did and I made those changes. I also responded on the talk page as well... see right beneath your comment, with the {{od}}. You are the only real help I'm getting so far. I the archives show you've always helped, so... :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive left another comment underneath that one. Still have concerns about final sentence. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot at first by the way, the canvassing to the Irish Republican wikiproject by Zuggernaut was very problematic. Your attempts to add to the article in a neutral way are helpful and will certainly improve the history section which is so very short at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

nah... it was my fault actually... i did not understand what was going on until much later... It was too complicated for me... :P

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Zuggernaut case

You misunderstand what people are saying there. They are saying that per WP:CANVASS you should have discussed with Zuggernaut first, NOT per WP:ANI. On WP:CANVASS it says to contact the other users talk page first. I suggest you apologize for the misunderstanding, so everyone can try and go home happy :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"They" is mainly Highking, whos refuses to accept that what has taken place is canvassing and against the rules. The canvass page mentions the best way is to raise it with them and if they continue go to admins noticeboard, it does not say you must from what i can see. Highking is talking about the box that appears at the top of the admins noticeboard where it states you must notify the user, it also asks people to discuss on the peoples talkpage prior to posting and this is the first time ive been told that it is a strict rule, the only rule i knew about was that you must inform the users mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the box on the ANI page, all it means is alerting. Whether you must or not can be seen as irrelevant, there is an argument you should have. It'd be nice if you could just acknowledge that, and clarify your reasons for moving to ANI. I think right now others (like I did) are getting confused between your arguments about the CANVASS advice on talk page discussion and the ANI box. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason i raised it there was because i knew raising it with him myself would solve nothing, i wanted neutral editors to tell him what he did was wrong so he would accept it, the fact he does not accept what he did was wrong despite other editors saying it shows this would have been the case and he said there i was trying to stall him. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Just remember to make that clear to others in ANI! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at British Isles

BW, RA introduced the sentence here, and I reverted as per BRD. He then reverted my revert here, but I believe this was inadvertent. There is no consensus for his addition - it was not discussed beforehand, and people on the Talk page agree that the sentence is largely unintelligible. My understanding is that this article is under 1RR (no revert of a revert) - therefore both you and RA have breached this rule on this sentence. Please self revert. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ive reverted, this revert of a revert thing is crazy. 1RR should apply to ones own actions, not others. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD comment

I have no problem with your !vote to keep the article (List of largest empires), but I find your implication that I (as the nominator) am not working to improve the encyclopedia. I sincerely believe that the existence of that article is bad for the encyclopedia, and that deleting improves the overall quality of the encyclopedia. This is the article level equivalent of removing non-encyclopedic content from individual articles. Some, like myself, believe that our goal is not, nor should it be, to list every possible piece of information in every possible organizational format. You, presumably, differ in your fundamental attitude to the encyclopedia; fine, no problem there. Please don't disparage the contributions of others, though, simply because they differ from what you prefer to do here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that, all i saw was that it was the 5th nomination and i believe time would be better spent improving the article. If there are original research concerns at the moment, the criteria for inclusion should be strengthened. It was nothing personal, just after so many deletion attempts i dont see the need for more. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone ignored your good advice

and changed it back.

I changed it to your good suggestion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&action=historysubmit&diff=384891597&oldid=384877042

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page where I've started a discussion about where I made a change and you made it even better. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Benny's usage of British Isles

If what many say (at Wikipedia) is true, about the Irish despising that term? I reckon the Pope, won't be visiting the Republic anytime soon (along with the paedophile stuff, to boot). GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm Irish (Northern, but still from the island) and i don't despise it lol :-P Hmm it'd be interesting to see him visit the Republic and what kind of reception he might get - it'd be more interesting to see him visit Northern Ireland, now that would make headlines and probably for all the wrong reasons. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear Ian Paisley is there in Scotland protesting at the moment, all hell would break loose if the pope was heading to Northern Ireland lol. I am all for watching some good riots, but not within the United Kingdom. Although i must say the Popes speech was rather nice, with the exception of the attack on the secularists. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot against Benny? Has this got something to do with his mentioning British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lmao, well it was probably one of the worst things hes done in his lifetime. Who would of thought he was a closet British imperialist! BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If I were spiritual, I'd suspect the ghosts of De Valera & Henry VIII were behind the plot (the former being an Irish nationalist & the latter being anti-Catholic). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the pope officially grant Ireland to the King of Great Britain at one time? (not this pope, a much older one) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"The year after his accession, Adrian issued a "Bull," or "Laudabiliter," that authorized English King Henry II, who had petitioned him for it, the right to invade Ireland "for the correction of morals and the introduction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian religion." Adrian is known to few people for anything he did other than issuing this Bull." [31]

I wonder how many irish catholics know that? I suppose it doesn't matter, it's not like they want him there anyway ([32]) :p Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The irony of it all is pretty incredible yes. But dont forget that is all small fry compared to mentioning the forbidden words "British Isles" these days. Interesting about the poll, you would expect support to be far higher, that cant all be over the child abuse issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That Pope Adrian IV (aka Nicholas Breakspeare) was English and him (supposedly) granting foreign lands to England was quite a coincidence really. Funny that god hadn't mentioned it to any of his/her previous (or subsequent) representatives on earth. Still, there we are Daicaregos (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

God? what's that? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i said when i looked at the picture on Pope Adrian IV. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aghhhh my British Isles alarm just went off. It got mentioned by a woman in the presence of his holiness the Pope, live on BBC2, BBC News and Sky News! And it was in a religious building.. making it even more shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Any more gems from Benny? GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I sadly have to report i have not heard British Isles mentioned at all today on the TV. :( Maybe someone complained??? . On a serious note though, i have been rather impressed with him today. Rather strong words on the churchs "troubles" and even met some victims. Im looking forward to seeing the polling after his visit is over to see if there has been any mass conversion to Catholicism. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There's but one way to make the Vatican open up fully about its past cover-ups of the sex scandals & bring the Catholic Church to its knees. Don't give to the collection plate, the Church is but a financial empire. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope Adrian gave Henry II a Bull for the invasion yes, but the real irony is the excuse was to impose Roman Catholicism over the Irish who adhered to Celtic Catholicism. Its ironic as the Irish Roman Catholics owe the English for them being Roman Catholics.

On the financial empire that is the Papacy and Vatican - it should pay for all its expenses, the British taxpayers of which the majority aren't Roman Catholic shouldn't have to stump up for something the Vatican can easily afford by itself.

As a secularist and Atheist, i find some of his comments disturbing and lack of confronting him on key issues such as the Vaticans refusal to condone condoms for Africans to help prevent AIDS even more startling etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring - Please see the talk page there

Wgfinley , please read the talk page, me and the IP came to an agreement to resolve the matter. I did not break the WP:3RR BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR is a guideline, all parties there were warned to cease the edit warring. That page just came off protection, everyone was warned continued edit warring on that page was going to result in blocks. Despite that you two decided to disturb editing (and cause issues on the page I might add) with your revert warring. Disturbances on that article need to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted him twice then stopped to avoid violating WP:3RR. We then had a discussion on the talk page, and i accepted his compromise. My 3rd action on the page was simply to remove one sentence which was out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. 3RR is a guideline and not a cliff to run up to at full speed and then stop at. You were edit warring pure and simple. I will reduce this to three hours but only if you are going to agree to be constructive and stop reverting as a means of discussion. I don't want to protect that page again so my choice is to block those who are going to edit war or protect the page. --WGFinley (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Edit Warring policy:

This policy, and the three-revert rule, are designed to prevent and limit edit warring. They are not an entitlement, nor an endorsement of reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule still receive blocks for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system in reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and will often take action solely due to disruptive or edit warring behaviors.

That page just came off protection, you engaged in edit warring after it came off of protection, I've been forced to block you for 24 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Restoring Honor rally after previous warnings.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. WGFinley (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wgfinley , please read the talk page, me and the IP came to an agreement to resolve the matter. I did not break the WP:3RR BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

both editors have resolved issue

Request handled by: WGFinley (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Howdy Wgfinly. If an agreement has been reached & thus no more edit spats, then the block would be no longer needed. A block is ment to prevent, not punish. There's no longer anything to prevent. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since both of you claim to have resolved this dispute I have removed both of your blocks. Again, 3RR is not a line to run up to and is unproductive as a means of discussion particularly on a page that was just protected. Please don't do it again. --WGFinley (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wgfinley, i will be more careful in future. It still says i am "Autoblocked" though. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock cleared. Just, erm, be careful and try to stay out of trouble. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Either HJ is just that fast or it wasn't there, I hit it on toolserver and it was gone LOL. Thanks HJ. --WGFinley (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is working ok now thanks. Was interesting to see what a block looked like i suppose.. ive always wondered what it says lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will do. I will impose a 1RR rule on myself in future to stay on the safe side of things. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, where's my thanks? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

lol sorry. Thanks goodday for your support! =)BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs, hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add the following: I think the temporarily block of you, BritishWatcher, was not necessary. (Maybe because everything happened so quickly, WGFinley just had no chance to see that we reached a consensus.) Yes, we have different opinions for some time now and clashed together today, but I definitely see that you have good intentions and valid reasons for your perspective. Ironically, after this clash I have a better feeling than ever that we all really can reach a real consensus everyone(!) will be satisfied with. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

block log barnstar

		The block log Barnstar
		- Well I think the block was a little severe, best of luck with any appeals, but it will anyway soon be over. I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:BritishWatcher for his fine contributions to wikipedia over two years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

lol thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone just wanted to up their blocked-user tally lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone block me, I want a barnstar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps asking to be blocked in order to gain a barnstar is itself grounds for blocking? Maybe a passing admin can help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the usual passing admin is depressed due to the recent revelations of his own dark past... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I could block you for that... oh, wait... never mind, carry on... ;-) TFOWR 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI stuff

I'd advise LB to hang around, while the SPI is in progress. When one's under an SPI & goes quiet, it tends to be seen as hiding. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is people take breaks, its clear neither of them make edits day in day out. Sadly its seems anything may be seen as suspicious these days. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You can thank the MBM/MF case for that. As for Triton Rocker, I suspect him of being Irvine22's sock. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has suspicions though, these investigations could go on for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose most of us could just ignore it and move on, leaving it to SPI people. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

McCarthyism? I wouldn't worry too much. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If two editors could be blocked for just being involved in the same dispute then its something that concerns me and not something i can ignore. If there is clear technical evidence that is one thing, but even after the recent SPI came back with "technically unlikely" people still wanted the editor blocked simply for taking long breaks from wikipedia and being involved in the same dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt LemonMonday will be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Case is closed for now, but even the attempt to get him blocked just on behavioural evidence troubles me. Especially when its easy for two editors actions to be taken out of context of the wider British Isles dispute that has been ongoing for years and involves many editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In my younger days, I was a bit of a sh-t disturber. I had a bad habit of getting editors to fight amongst themselves. One could suspect that HighKing, LevenBoy, LemonMonday (for example) were my socks. Heck, those names have a smiliar pattern to mine (two names stuck togehter - thus two capital letters). GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Its like when people look at a bunch of numbers, its always easy for people to come up with some sort of pattern and jump to conclusions, even if there is nothing there. I still remember when i first arrived, getting a grilling by snowded asking for my life story lol. You must have a lot of socks if every account with two names is you! lmaoBritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, we can thank MidnightBlueMan for the current situation. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

MidnightBlue simply responded to the crusades. Before there was BISE and rules against removing BI from everywhere. I wonder if Blue would have gone down the same path had such structures been in place at the time, but of course such structures would not have existed without resistance to what some editors were getting up to. Its like a never ending story, i know what i think triggered the whole thing, some may disagree. The whole BI thing reminds me of something said at the end of Lord of the Rings..

"Bilbo once told me, the great stories never end - that each of us must come and go in the telling."

I think its very true, you get dragged into this whole thing for awhile, many move on but the story continues and new characters arrive. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago, I begged for the BI addition/deletion stuff to stop, via simply leaving articles as they were (to that point). Atleast one editor (a deletionist) refused to go along with this. Alot of headaches could've been avoided, if a stalemate would've been agreed to. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate would not be in the interests of the deletionists though. Far more BIs will be added by innocent editors making additions to articles than would be removed by innocent editors making justified alterations. I look back at the history and think damn, i wish i joined wikipedia a few years ago and got involved in all of this. Especially as in some cases a policy or consensus was created which i find problematic. Very difficult to bring about change now, but had i been there at the time i like to think i might of been able to help influence the outcome in a favourable way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if I may. I want to assure all of you that this has nothing to do with the greater BI/UK debate whatsoever. I like hunting socks when I'm sure I've found one, and people sock for all different reasons. I don't care for what "greater cause" they're doing it for, and that's not why the SPI is there. Irvine22 and Triton Rocker's Wikistalk results are: 2 mainspace articles in common and seven overall spaces, with a combined 3,258 edits[33]. LevenBoy and Triton Rocker: 25 mainspace articles and 44 overall spaces, with 2,265 combined edits[34]. It's not just about this disproportionate number of common articles, it's that they act in concert with each other, without ever communicating; and Triton Rocker's introduction is too random and yet too familiar with LevenBoy's "likes and interests" for this to be at the very, very least a meat puppet - but I know it has to be a sock. I would not have filed this if I weren't convinced, and I wish both sides of this debate the most peaceful outcome. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to include these ones, but I'm sure you've already seen them:[35]. Note the "disproportionate" number of edits. This one's a "little" better about the wikistalking[36]. Doc9871 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

TR & LB began corresponding with each other, yesterday. Could it be a possible rues? stay tuned. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find i was expressing of freedom of speech.Willde360 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Free speech was not fought for to allow individuals like yourself to insert offensive material into articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy BW. Err, sock or not, the Blue is better account, is off to a stinker of a start. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

He certainly wants to make an impression. Ive heard of going out with a bang, arriving with one must be more rare. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of moving comments unrelated to the evidence to the talk page, I'm very much considering simply collapsing the non-material discussion on the report into two sections: one beginning with the "witch hunt" concerns you validly expressed, and the other beginning with the SPA's arrival all the way down to the bottom, including my last comment. The collapse boxes, as you know, would be still in the report with no alterations whatsoever to any comments: they would simply be marked as "non-material discussion" and closed. Would you have any objection to my doing this? Nobody's comment will be erased at all: I have more evidence to add, and I want to discourage any editors from making comments that are not directly related to the case, as it standard with SPI reports. I just don't want you to think that I'm saying that any of the things you or the other editors commented to are wrong or right: they're just immaterial to this case, and will not sway it one way or the other. Thank you, BritishWatcher! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with some of it being collapsed, but if the SPI comes back with no technical evidence and people are pushing for action to be taken based simply on similar behavioural grounds, i will be repeating much of what ive said previously trying to put things into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, we've an IP account (which was away since May), diving into British/Irish stuff suddenly. It seems, there's 1 or 2 banned editors evading their blocks. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be a lot of activity at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've collapsed the parts of the report not relating to the case specifics. Again, BW, I do see your concerns, and they are valid. Hopefully any similar behavioral grounds amongst other editors will be considered carefully, as I did before filing the report. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

India Article

Can you please help break the dead lock there either way? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Better judgement

Hi BW, your stock doesn't improve with edits like this. I for one think you are better than this. Looking forward to your intelligent inputs in the future. Bjmullan (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that edit wasn't BW. BW had made the previous edit, which was to add a "welcome" template. Welcome templates are good... TFOWR 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Better judgment all round needed, it seems, in these trying times. RashersTierney (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was this an open armed welcome to an obvious sock. Bjmullan (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcomes, with all the sound advice one could wish for, always a good start. No fault there. RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it was only after his first couple of edits on the SPI page, Ive added that welcome template a few times (although i spend 5 minutes hunting for the code each time because i do not remember it) . It was before he was a confirmed sock. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please BW don't take this as an attack, if you were every in the neighbourhood I would invite you to dinner and enjoy your company but maybe next time take a step back. Bjmullan (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not a pint at the meet-up tomorrow? RashersTierney (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you guys all have fun with that gathering tomorrow. If there are any punch ups i hope we will all be informed? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be more cautious in future, one of the sock's suspected IP's later attacked me anyway. And thanks for the dinner invitation :).BritishWatcher (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a blow-up over nothing. Though on tomorrows meet-up or is that todays meet-up; not a chance i'll be there... it'll only make this feel even more geeky and like i'm attending a Star Trek convention or something. Like what are we going to discuss? How lame such and such an editor is or something lol :-P Mabuska ^(talk) 00:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

First off sorry BW for taking over your talk page and second funny enough I am in the Dear Green Isle this weekend and also past through a hot topic (Eglinton) earlier this evening but cannot meet you trekky fans here (or any where for the matter :-) ) Bjmullan (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Such social gatherings are not really my sort of thing. Relaxing in a chat room and discussing random things is more my cup of tea lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE

I was beginning to fear it was bad breath, that kept my fellow supporters away (at the Conkers case). GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

lol i think a few blocks may be more of the cause ;) This is going to be a rather quiet week. Might be a good chance for us all to take a little rest. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as LB & TR have been given a wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen this cover up? [37]--87.113.177.162 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not all the same person, even if some of them hold similar views.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you believe they dared label me as a sockpuppet of O Fenian? Mabuska^(talk) 09:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lol yes i dont quite understand why he included you in the list, although its obvious they aint all the same person anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think because i was defending the implementation of the IMOS, i wonder who'll i be labelled as being a sockpuppet of next?? Lol Mabuska^(talk) 09:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aghh the Derry/Londonderry issue. The name of the city sadly is the least people should be worried about these days here on Wikipedia and in the real world. Although as a participant of the British Isles dispute i guess i cant really talk lol. These issues have a way of becoming very addictive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough it wasn't that part of the IMOS that was the problem lmao. It was the use of other native languages in the infobox for places, i.e. Irish and Scots, though in this case you can guess which one caused the problem for said editor. Mabuska^(talk) 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lol i can understand people being unhappy about the Derry issue but i cant see the problem with native names in the infobox. :\ Although again, i cant really talk as ive discussed native names inclusion on the British Isles infobox because of the Cornish language issue lol.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "Derry" in The Sash and Derry's Walls. Pretty dispositive for me! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So your idea of dispositive is the name of a place used in a song? Really intelligent that is! --87.113.91.136 (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum it's a clear indication that "Derry" is used by both traditions. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said it wasn't used by both traditions even today. The point however is that the city is officially and legally called Londonderry, not Derry. To state otherwise is to provide false information. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a quality encyclopaedia?--87.113.91.136 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno - is it? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting point you pose. Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information and more to the point does it justify calling itself an 'encyclopaedia' when it so obviously reflects exaggerated political opinion. --87.113.196.244 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The city is officially Londonderry yes, but we dont have to use the legal name on wikipedia, theres plenty of other examples where a non legal or official name gets used. Although a month or two ago the introduction of Derry made no mention of the fact Londonderry was the legal name. That was clearly problematic but thankfully that got changed eventually.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The name Derry is a term of endearment for the city and as such should come secondary to the legal name or have a separate article all of its own.--87.113.196.244 (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Before Irish republicans and nationalists made a huge issue out of the term "Derry" in the last century or two, which to be honest has huge hints of anti-British racism towards the term "London" as there is no complaints over other renamed places - the term was pretty uncontroversial and was frequently used by unionists. If republicans hadn't hijacked the issue and made such an issue out of it the term would probably not be causing so much trouble as it does now. Its only made unionists less likely to use or adopt the term Derry. And so what if a wheen of songs make use of the slang term Derry - the city charter states that it shall be "forever" known as Londonderry.Mabuska ^(talk) 10:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was not for lots of different UK media sources like BBC / Sky often using the term there would certainly be more justification for it being at its proper name Londonderry. Sadly i think this is one of those many issues where too much ground has been given in the real world, rather than just a problem on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they have a policy now to mention the city by one name at the start of the report and use the other thereafter.--87.115.136.150 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Our new colleagues

I'm starting to think its time for a request for comment on these users. What do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ps while you were asleep [38] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An Rfc has also been suggested now on the talk page. Personally, I feel that when someone presents this [39] as a sign that the article is not stable, they're reaching. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grrr i appear to have missed a lot, i was having a nice relaxing day offline lol.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well when the Derry/Londonderry naming issue concensus is reopened for a debate in a year or two, the arguement that Derry City Council gives the term Derry legal credence will be blown out of the water... if i can find the news article on this years judicial review that stated the councils name has no official status or affect the actual name of the city. Essentially the council is allowed to call itself what it wants - it will however have no official or legal bearing over the citys name. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that source is already in the article or the naming dispute article. The council certainly does not have the ability to rename the city by itself, and the attempt to push for an official change has been rejected by both unionists and the moderate republicans of the council. Theres only one name with any legal status, that is Londonderry, but sadly lots of sources use Derry often. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who has the authority to re-name the city? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think its Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council from what i can remember the last time i read the articles, it is somewhere in Derry or the naming dispute article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The council can petition for them to change the name, but they recently decided not to.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So it's still Derry. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The city council is called Derry, the City is Londonderry as the name has never been changed since it was given its city status centuries ago. They considered trying to get the city name to be Derry and thought by the council changing its name, the city changed to, but it didnt and they have decided against petitioning to change it to Derry for the time being.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess up. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There no mess up, rather a concerted campaign by Republicans to have the official name changed which suits their political agenda to have Northern Ireland reinstated wth an all Ireland Federal Republic...if only pigs could fly.

The naming issue is simply part of a much larger campaign which includes the promotion of the Irish language in a country where everyone speaks English. It isn't even a minority language since their mother tongue by birthright is funnily enough English. Some of us can speak French and Spanish but we don't go around expecting everything to be written in such languages. It is PC gone mad and it is all to blame on the Peace Process which saw the British Government buckle to concession after concession in order to prove a point. --87.113.196.244(talk) 19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too many concessions were made to the republicans thats for sure. Sadly this is not just a Northern Ireland matter either, Her Majesty's Government goes out of its way to appease separatists within great Britain too. Letting the separatists come to power in Scotland, labour getting into bed with the separatists in Wales. The incompetence of the political leadership shall not be forgotten. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of people in Derry call their city Derry and reject the name Londonderry. The move toward Irish reunification wouldn't suddenly speed-up simply because a city changed its official name.
Irish is the native language of Ireland... French and Spanish are foreign languages. Welsh isn't the mother tongue of every person in Wales, but it is the native language of that country and it appears on signs wherever you go.
The Scottish National Party were voted into power by the people of Scotland.

~Asarlaí 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*I agree that a name change wouldnt speed up Irish reunification, although there is no reason why the name would be changed anyway, even if we accept Derry is the common name used.

*The separatists in Scotland came to power because of incompetence by the labour government at the time and past governments for failing to tackle the issue, instead they have chosen appeasement. And they only came to power in 2007 because of 48 votes anyway, the clear majority voted for unionist parties, but that does stop the Scottish executive using tax payers money to push their separatist propaganda. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does Asarlaí get his facts from because they certainly aren't recorded anywhere. Oh yes, wishful thinking! In a recent Petition to the House of Lords the people of Londonderry certainly made their views known to the local Council. I don't believe the term 'vast majority' would come anywhere near it. In any event, whether the city is referred to as Stroke City or the Maiden City or Derry is irrelevant since it is officially and legally properly known as Londonderry.

I believe the Celtic language was the native tongue spoken in the island of Ireland which is derived from the languages of the Middle East, Irish is a bastardisation of Celtic, Gaelic and god knows how many others. English is the mother tongue of the island now no matter how many efforts are put into reinstating this so-called Irish lingo.

The devolved Government's only exists because of the policies of the former discredited Labour Government.

Irish reunification is only a pipe dream. There is more chance of the Pope marrying a Methodist than there is of such a thing. Novel idea though but funny!--87.113.196.244 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Derry city has an overwhelmingly nationalist electorate. I suggest you visit it sometime. As a unionist once said to me: "I call it Londonderry, but not when I'm there". I doubt many Derry folk are losing sleep because British officialdom calls it "Londonderry"... nearly everyone else calls it Derry... they've got nothing to worry about.
Irish is one of the Gaelic or Goidelic languages, which is a branch of the Celtic languages, which is a branch of the Indo-European languages. English is one of the Germanic languages, which is also a branch of the Indo-European languages. There's no "Middle East" or "bastardisation" going on.

~Asarlaí 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Derry has an overwhelming nationalist electorate"? Could that maybe have something to do with the way non-Catholics which include Muslim's were intimidated out of the old city by Republican thugs? I think you will find your term overwhelming a bit exaggerated given the number of Unionists on the Council.

Losing sleep over British officialdom"? hmmmnnn.... when it suits off course since they chose to live in Northern Ireland instead of poverty ridden Donegal. Irish tiger's poorly I hear?

Re the Irish language being native then, absolute balderdash! Any good historian knows that the so-called native Irish, the Celts, originated from Egypt.--87.115.136.150 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

Grrr, your country gets to have 4 teams. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

lucky us lol. Imagine if Quebec fielded its own team. =) BritishWatcher(talk) 15:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if Canada followed the UK's style? we'd have 13 teams. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

lol well that would add to the numbers if all other countries did the same. Would mean the opening ceremony would go on a couple of hours longer though. its rather annoying though because i have mixed feelings, obviously i love the commonwealth and unity through sport, but dividing the British teams assists separatism. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather see your teams as one. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Could Nunavut really raise a decent team? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that has a far bigger population than the Falklands who compete with their own team at the Commonwealth games. Sadly quite a few teams dont win any medals but they all atleast do send a few athletes, sort of swamped by Canada, Australia, and UK teams though lolBritishWatcher (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

England, Wales and Scotland were all countries when Canada was still Indian territory.--87.115.136.150 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

template editing

You are in pretty deep, here. Where does geobox/type/nature get invoked from? It isn't directly called from your test case.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

lol ive no idea, someone posted that link to the geobox/type/nature page and thats the only place i could see that displays the different fields that can be used/changed.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Give me permission to play in your user space, and I'll get a reference chain built for your testing.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do thanks, because i have no idea how to set it up and i still dont understand why the original change did not work when i edited the geobox/type/nature page, if that was the right page to change. Templates are so confusing :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

geobox/type/nature is just an example: it doesn't actually implement any of the fields. That's done at the main geobox template, and that's where your changes need to be made. Right now,User:BritishWatcher/4 uses User:BritishWatcher/geobox, andUser:BritishWatcher/geobox/type uses User:BritishWatcher/geobox/type/nature. That should be everything you need to play around without causing damage.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So Template:Geobox was the page that needed to be changed, but cant be by non admins?BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Once you get your versions working and you can show me a discussion of people agreeing that they like your change, I'll move it back for you.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh thanks, the debate took place Talk:Giant's_Causeway#Northern_Ireland_is_a_country, theres a dispute because Northern Ireland appears as a region there and not as a country as described on wiki and the way some want. So someone suggested a compromise of adding sovereign state / constituent country so that could be used on that article. In line with the template atManchester where it mentions the UK as sovereign state and England as constituent country.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it on the Geobox talk pagehere a couple of days ago but got no reply, thats why i tried making the change unsuccessfully lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ive looked at the proper template to edit and i dont have a clue how to change all that lol. It repeats things over and over again, i was hoping it was a simple format like the format on the metric/imperial page that i made my original change to. Will have to wait and see if anyone responds on the geobox talkpage. Thanks for your help.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pushing it

Your definatly pushing it on the Andy Murray article. 1st you revert cause you don't like it. Then you go to the talk page and come up with a piss poor excuse, which doesn't and will not ever resolve a situation. 'Can someone please remove - "Murray has often seen to be moody and has been a source of fun early in his career. Murray early in his career was often prone to PR gaffes." -, its not even backed up by solid sources saying this.' Why lie it has a source from the Guardian that's solid enough. Now come up with a better way of saying it or proper reasons or I will simply revert you, simply because you haven't got a solution. KnowIG (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence just does not belong in a BLP. If you want we can ask if its acceptable on theWP:BLPN. It is not appropriate based on a source like that to say someone is seen as moody or was a joke in his early career. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of removing it improve it. There's too many negative people on here. For example look at the page's history it was good then in Januray it got butchered, I inadvertadly restored what got deleted. What pisses me off here is YoU ONLY want to delete and do not seem to be able to come up with a proper solution. So come up with one you were poking around yesterday I'm out of ideas and DELETION is not a viable option for the section, since you won't allow me to call it ControvsiesKnowIG (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs deletion is perfectly acceptable, then atleast the issue can be deleted on the talk page and a compromise readded if one is made, but i see no reason for his article to say he is seen as moody or he use to be a joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DELETION IS DEFINATLY NOT A SOLUTION when it leaves a piss poor section and people quetioning what image means MUG KnowIG (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well im unsure about the section heading and some of the additional content added, my main concern is not the fact some may wonder about the title, but that anything that in anyway violatesWP:BLP is removed. Saying he is seen as moody and was a joke when he was younger is a problem, especially based on that one source provided. Plenty of celebs have an active sex life, but we would not say on those articles they sleep around, even if its true. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My problem is you would let me called it controvosies or PR gaffe or something like that, so you see the problem here. I don't give a stuff about BLP since it won't help us get to a solution here. As soon as you realise that the betterKnowIG (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review therequest page and theguide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain, Ireland

Personally, I've no probs with mentioning British Isles (and the controversey around it) in the lead of both articles. However, I'm guessing many are opposing its inclusion at Great Britain, for fear it'll be proposed for Ireland's lead. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well im not going to support mentioning the controversy in the GB article if the BI is not even deemed notable enough for the introduction. On one hand the controversy in relation to a completely different island is notable, on the other BI is not notable to be mentioned in the lead or to say Ireland is part of the BI in the lead at all.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh come on, having 'British Isles' and the controversey mentioned in the geography sections ofboth articles, ought to be enough for now. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its ok for the Ireland article where the controversy is relevant to the article in question. Not ok for the GB one if BI is deemed not notable or acceptable for the intro.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If my suspicions are accurate, getting 'BI' into the lead, will be as easy as forcing a marsh-mellow into a piggy bank. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@BW: I think you've got it the wrong way round. You have to establish the text of the article first, before you can summarise it in the intro. I'm not against mentioning the BI in the article -but, if it is mentioned, there should be a link to the controversy and other terms used, because the controversy affects the use of the term everywhere, not only in Ireland. Once the text of the article is established a decision can be taken on whether the existence of the archipelago is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the introduction - and my opinion is that it isn't.Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the people living on GB, have no probs with the term, why mention it there?GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not to do with who "has problems" with the term, it's to do with the fact that the term is, objectively, a subject of contention, and that other terms are increasingly in use, in GB as elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its contentiousness is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But the fact that other terms are increasingly in use, because the term is contentious, is relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

'It's contentious' or 'it offends folks', just isn't enough of a reason to opposeBritish Isles addition to both articles leads. As that's my stance? it's best I stay away from the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposing it - I'm just against it being done unnecessarily or in an uninformative way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that was why i said before there i was prepared to compromise, mentioning the controversy which i believe does not need to be covered on the GB article at all as its relevant to Ireland, if it resolved the lead issue as well. But if there is a problem with it being in the lead then its back to square one. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that your version mentioned Ireland in the lead, as part of the BI - which was wholly unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with that not being done, it was just the way i could fit the sentence together, otherwise it looked like Ireland was not part of the BI which is something that needs to be avoided, and it looked odd a short sentence on its own. BritishWatcher(talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is one of the 1000 "smaller islands" - there's no need for it to be mentioned specifically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be mentioned in relation to the BI, but it does need to be in the introduction and the sentence would look odd coming after saying GB is surrounded by 1000s of islands and islets within the British Isles, then saying Ireland is to its west in its own sentence. so i put the two sentences together. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A better form of words could be found, if necessary (and I don't think it is). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered byMediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

RIRA

You may be interested in the obstructive reverts by pro IRA sympathisers at RIRA--84.93.174.133 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that it is an attempt by O Fenian to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Wikipedia policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given. --87.114.85.253(talk) 10:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You've been edit warring.[40][41]. Since you stopped three days ago, I will not block you now, but don't do it again or else I'll apply a sanction as if I had blocked you this time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Yank with an agenda! --Jenny Coopers (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediator available

Hello BritishWatcher. Don't know if you noticed, but WGFinley offered to mediate our case and so far, 7 out of 12 editors havesignified agreement here. If you have any reservations about him, I understand - I believe the decision needs to be unanimous - but if you're willing, assigning a mediator this way will considerably faster as AGK indicatedhere it may take two to three weeks otherwise. Thanks for considering it. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fat Finger

I just fat fingered and rolled you back by mistake - I immediately corrected it. Sorry. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

lol np :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

Not that it is your place to dictate what is or is not my opinion, but - do you honestly think that my opinion is " ... that insertion if not done in the way i [sic] suggested would result in misleading and confusing many people when they see United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, France, England and Northern Ireland all in line together as equals." (pause for very deep breath). please re-read your statement and make amendments as appropriate. Daicaregos(talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive added a full stop and started a new sentence at That insertion. So its more clearBritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing that Template's title & related templates, articles, etc etc from countries tosovereign states, would likely end these constant squabbles. I've brought that suggestion to WP:COUNTRIES. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, should be changed to Sovereign states, in line with how articles have been dealt with.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, what's going on over there in the UK? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

the position about parliament having not having supreme sovereignty over Scotland is just so crazy, another editor said it once too during one of these discussions about if EWSNI should be listed or not. What i dont understand is, if the UK parliament is not sovereign... who or what is? The UK parliament created the Scottish parliament and Scottish executive, both of which it has the legal right to suspend or abolish. The UK parliament signed up to the European Union, something it can repeal. It signed up to European Conventions on Human rights, something it can repeal. I dont see what is left that actually has legal authority over Scotland... unless its Her Majesty.BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya hand out dissolved parliaments & bang-o, it goes to peoples heads. PS: When is England gonna get their dissolved parliament. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully never. Whilst some polls may show people want a separate English parliament it would be a complete waste of money. At a time when the government is going to be making about 20% cuts to most government departments, i cant see people wanting 10s of millions spent on a new bunch of politicians. The London Assembly is a complete waste of time, labour tried to establish an assembly in north England but people overwhelmingly rejected that. The trouble is an English parliament and First minister would be too powerful, thanks to England having 80% of the population. It would do too much damage and undermine the union even more. People fear the idea of these regional assemblies, some see it as a plot by the European Union to destroy England into regions. Equally absurd, but some really believe it. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Down sizing is required. England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland should be fitted withLegislative Assemblies like the provinces of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start withopening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First ethnic & minority rights in England

When was the first ethnic & minority rights (culture education political language rights) declared in England? Don't confuse it with immigration and citizenship laws/acts! Can you write me? Many Thanks! mail: stears333@gmail.com —Precedingunsigned comment added by84.2.100.11 (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea and i have no interest in that area at all. sorryBritishWatcher (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the questioner wants to pursue this, they should ask the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - and make sure that their email address is not visible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre

Hi BritishWatcher, how are you? what s new? I just want to ask you to take a look on the articleSabra and Shatila massacre. An IP wants to delete major sourced information and cover that with minor improve of language. I asked him to discuss before doing major changes. But he didn t. I don t want to make war edits. Plz take a look and give your opinion of the history page. Cheers--Helmoony (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

~~WP:DFTT, seriously. Or~~ don't whip WP:DEADHORSE~~, either one.~~Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Those two just never end with their attempts to insert biased material in articles or push a POV. Its hard to just ignore their actions when it can cause such chaos.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. When does a FA review finish anyway? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly another week still, hopefully now the oslon source has been completely dealt with which was the main concern it shouldn't be too much longer. Will be glad once its closed, the whole circumstances around that FARC have been pretty annoying. BritishWatcher(talk) 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Struck through DFTT, in case its taken in the wrong way. Anyway, I don't know how to format the sources, or I'd add some. Do you? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

this is a great tool for making citations although im not sure if that can do the same format as those footnotes on the British Empire article. On the Imperial measurements one, that sentence probably should be reworded to make clear its status now or just removed, i can think of more notable things than that for the legacy section. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Your concern has been addressed by Snowded (checkthe last response in the relevant section). I will go ahead and remove the {{POV}} tag if you do not have any other concerns. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Hello, BritishWatcher. You have new messages at Talk:Famine_in_India#General_POV_RfC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've summarized the list of your POV grievances in the section listed in the talkback box. IF you have any additional concerns, please list them after item 3 on the talk page.Zuggernaut (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More updates on RfC andneutrality Zuggernaut (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Giant's Causeway

Hi British Watcher, Any chance of getting this page fixed?Factocop (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you there?Factocop (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [42] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi BritishWatcher, can the EU be said to have a geography? You may like to join the discussion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union#EU_has_a_geography.3F Andrewing123(talk) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick look but you probably wont like the position id take in that debate lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I have identified your ID as being connected, indirectly, with user Factocop. Please visit ANI and comment, if you wish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry BW that your name was dragged into this, I never for one moment thought you were a sock. I hope this doesn't put you off editing here at Wikipedia, much as this hurts me to say this we need intelligent editors like you ;-)

Ditto --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this and the ANI page. I would have been very surprised if you were socking. I'm not surprised you weren't. Anyway, one of you is enough for all of us. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been cleared. I'm sorry to have dragged your name into this, but I had to be sure. Why that one sock substituted his name for yours temporarily will remain a mystery. But as I sampled your various contributions, I saw someone with strong opinions, but not the kind of going-through-the-roof that's constantly evident in Factocop and his socks. I keep typing "Factocopy", and that turns out to be appropriate for him. :) I can relate to your frustration. I stay away from controversial articles nowadays, for the most part, because they are a never-ending source of conflict, because they are never "done". There's always a new POV-pusher coming along to destabilize things (like Factocopy did). That's where the "anyone can edit" axiom harms the credibility of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a difficult time, picturing you wanting to hide United Kingdom with a pipelink. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks for all the comments above, hopefully ill get back into wikipedia again after a nice little break, I get too drained on here after awhile. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Dear British Watcher, we need urgent help to improve the translation into Danish of this page or it will be removed. Can you please help us? thanks a lot--Aeron10 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A stranger among us

Welcome back BW, you're brave to return to this place. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by, not decided if i want to be back yet, maybe will wait until the new year. :) BritishWatcher(talk) 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeya in 2011. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Things would be alot more accurate, if the UK was described as a country & England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland as constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is actually true, as Constituent Country is their legal status. The stuff about "country" is just confusing to readers - how can a country possess countries? I know English is an ambiguity-laden language, but you can only push it so far before it loses all contact with reality. The UK is the nation-state and country. Scotland and Wales are constituent countries. Northern Ireland is of uncertain status.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya see what I've been going through all these years, James? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK is not a nation. It's a state that contains the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations. Of course they have things in common with each-other, but they also have things in common with most other European nations. To use your own argument, "how can a nation possess nations"? ~Asarlaí 01:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy as the "boundaries" of different nations (as in people oppossed to countries) often overlap. The UK is a prime example of nations within a nation. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have used two definitions of nation in one sentence. If we stick to the proper definition of nation as meaning an ethnic group... then the UK is a state containing a few nations living alongside each-other, not nations living within each-other. It includes the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, those of mixed-nationality (or ancestry), and those who prefer to call themselves British. ~Asarlaí 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who you see as a nation. What if you consider the British as an ethnic group? Or everyone from Liverpool? It's a question of scale. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Asarlai the "few nations" do live within each other, not just alongisde each other. In all reality the majority of people in the UK (and the RoI) of Irish/Scottish/Welsh/English descent all have a shared genetic and cultural heritage from centuries of inter-migration, conquest and settlement back and forward - thus can these "nations" be described as being side by side or all messed up within each other? Many people who adopt a "nationality" or "culture" do so with at times having less claim to it than someone who doesn't associate themselves with it in anyway.

Also what constitutes a "nation" can be speculative, as Chipmuckdavis said, to some Liverpool could be a nation. Anywhere can essentially be its nation if it meets the "requirements". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nation" doesn't just mean "ethnic group" and it's very silly really to claim it does. There are many uses, not least, the concept of the UN nation-state, which has existed since 1945. Often people think "nation" can refer to lapsed countries, regional entities, supra-national entities, etc. It's all very fluid. Clearly the UK is a nation, which is why we have "national institutions" and "national bodies". Others think Wales is a "nation" and Scotland is a "nation". But I used the more exact phrase "nation-state" and there is only one of those around here, the good ol' UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox headings linguistics

I think most of the world has gone nuts. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that the issue had been resolved by now, sadly it seems common sense changes take as long as they always did on wikipedia.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite discouraged at the moment, with alot of my colleagues. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the illogic of the arguments - once one argument is comprehensively disproved, another pops up - when that is shown to be false, the first is dusted off but with a new twist. We are clearly not dealing with rational debate here. Welsh must be in, period. Do I detect a plot - the editor who slipped it in seems to have been previously and subsequently uninvolved. All very peculiar.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would comment at length but I have an urgent underground caucus meeting of the Welsh plot to destabilize Wikipedia, its part of a world wide conspiracy to destabilise rational anglo saxon thinking and replace it with uncivilized celtic illogic. --Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just that, but to drizzle it with dangerous Celtic cookery and linguistic traumas. PS. Did anyone hear about that Welsh village that the Welsh Board of Welsh (or whatever it's called - I am freely translating from Welsh) wants to call Sili?Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise it must be very difficult for you dealing with alien cultures who lack the benefits of English ancestry. The endless fun the English have with other languages reading them in English (like the German for father) and the jokes about sheep (we see them as a economic resource, you see them as the object of sexual jokes). Why the world doesn't realise that all of this is reasonable I will never understand. Maybe you should just get rid of us, spin us off and dig a deep water canal to join the Dee and the Severn so you can finally be completely isolated from the rest of the world? --Snowded^TALK 22:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just boggle over and over that you can bear to live amongst us for even the short times you do spend here in Fair Albion Snowded. As for the canal, I assume Offa was going to get round to filling that dyke at some point - perhaps the Welsh were too revolting though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew it, I knew it. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I truly believe, there's a conspiracy to drive me coo coo. Check the Canadian provincial & territorial infobox headings, for further proof. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats not a conspiracy its a description --Snowded^TALK 22:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a pedant GoodDay (Q: Who led the Pedant's Revolt. A: Which Tyler) but I believe the term is Cuckoo.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I know I'm depressed & disillusioned, I can't even spell Cuckoo. What's next? An RM for Wales to Cymru?GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about All Statements about the UK to be Shown in Welsh in Subscript? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugggh. Here's another gem, at the article Queen Victoria. There's editors trying to persuade me that Queen is a part of Victoria's name. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Abandoning the ship

I don't know why I started looking at Wikipedia again when I had happily jumped ship to another, independent wiki project.

Thankfully not all wiki projects have such bizarre attitudes to Londonderry and all things British, amongst the many oddities found here. I have moved elsewhere to a more sensible project and was just passing though. I suppose if all patriots leave Wikipedia, that just leaves it to those who hate our nation (the worst of whom seem to be those who belong to it).

Howard Alexander (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

this will always be the major wikipedia that most people read, sadly some seem to push an agenda which is aimed at undermining reality and countries. ive been taking a break from wiki and still can not get back into it properly, but i do stop by and check on a few pages, in recent weeks developments on the UK page have been alarming. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotland

I've made changes to the infobox at Scotland.195.171.9.229 (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why tell BW of your changes? Perhaps you should have discussed them first at the talk page. I have reverted your changes and I suggest you discuss and get consensus for them at the Scotland talkpage. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks.Alinor (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

The curretn lead & the previous 'listing all 16 realms' lead, are & were jokes. Indeed, the title of the article & the heading of the Infobox like-wise are jokes. The UK is unique among the commonwealth realms & is the realm, the queen & her family is most associated with. Has any of her children (for example) gotton married on any of the other 15 commonwealh realms. What of her grandchildren: Where's Prince William getting married? or Zara Philips? -- Ottawa? Sydney? Auckland? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of heads by country

Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas atTalk:List of current heads of state and heads of government.203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon Gaunt

Added some information at the Jon Gaunt talk page, it's a reliable source from the BBC too. Hope that helps. Jenova20 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place hereon whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Odds are the status quo will remain. The pipelink is sufficient. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well i hope so but there are some who will sadly never accept there is a need for disambiguation. I hope that people recognise the status quo has continued support and we leave it at that for a few months at least... but if people continue to push the issue and want changes every few weeks i really think there is a need for the additional 2 year ban on moves to be requested / polled again. How you been doing anyway GoodDay? hows wikilife? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to peeve off at least 2 editors, who are devolutionist PoV pushers - you likely know them. I've also got a Rfc in the works against me - which I find entertaining, as it'll proove futile (our conversation, is likely being scrutinized for a possible report). Overall, things are quite normal for me, in Wiki-land. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on Moving Burma to Myanmar

Talk:Burma is polling whether to change from Burma to Myanmar. I was going to post this discussion in the proper categories to make sure everyone was aware of the discussion but I thought maybe you would have a better idea of which ones were appropriate. I don't care which way people stand on the issue just so long as they know and don't find out about it after the fact. You had posted in a poll there before so I thought you would be better informed and it wouldn't look like canvassing from me. Thanks.Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention.61.18.170.171 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangers

I find it's easier to think about this in terms of company law. A "Club" is a legal entity, and can be separate or a subsidiary of a "Company". Therefore while the Company can be liquidated, the Club can be sold and can continue to exist. This is how most companies in England (I know, that's not Scotland, but I imagine the laws are similar) get around the FA's rule 34 banning payments to owners and directors of football clubs - they set up a Plc, with the club being a wholly owned subsidiary. I don't know the details of Rangers, but it strikes me that what has happened in this case is that the "Club" was sold to a different company. So if the article is about the Club, then the article should stay there. I'm not spending a lot of time on this, but you seem to be involved. This might be useful to explain how a Club can be separate from a Company. --HighKing (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed it seems to be the best way to look at it and other sources seem to suggest a similar thing too. Thankfully there appears to be quite a few examples that set precedents which justify the need for a change to be made to the status quo which was imposed without consensus in the first place. The new company did buy the club and its assets, sadly a couple of people refuse to accept it and that will take awhile to fix. A little progress is at least being made though. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:move review

First you call it a sham; now you are providing such arguments and stats that should be somewhere else. Maybe it would be best that you cool yourself off and discuss your problems with the process in WP:village pump (miscellaneous) (or WP:VPP). --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well i have been asking where we review the review, and if that id happily discuss the issues in other places once this has played out and we know what happens. Im not going to sit back and watch as misleading claims are made and an entirely one sided debate, which is why i put the table in. I genuinely do not understand how it is reasonable to expect the review to take place with some people just reading a summary of the change (which has resulted in the closing admin having to clarify on numerous occasions because people are getting it out of context), nor do i think it fair that people put in weeks of discussion and debate going over the facts, for this review to come along and determine the outcome without it clearly being based on the whole discussion. Merely mostly comments on the review page, peoples own positions and their assessment of the brief close summary. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If MRV won't function almost like DRV, how can you prevent it from turning MRV into RM's clone? --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there would be no perfect system, although i think several things might help.

1) The closing admin should be given time to prepare a detailed account of exactly why they came to the conclusion they did which is put in bold at the top of the page in a more prominent position than simply the first person to cast a vote after the challenger has already been able to state their opinion. And that detailed response from the closing admin is what should be considered, rather than the brief summary given on the RM close. (so basically they give a summary, if it is then challenged to review, they give a very detailed account to get all the points in).

2) Put the debate into context with a neutral summary of the situation. (number of RMs in the past, basic argument of each side), above or below the Admins detailed statement.

3) Do not allow those who took part in the RM to take part in the voting section, have a general discussion section below for all debate. But the Endorse/overturn votes/comment should be for those who have not taken part in the RM. (Easier to check who took part in the archived RM than a general involvement or past involvement in the debate).

4) Allow the closing admin to briefly issue a response to each of the Endorse/Overturn comments if they want.

If those 4 things were done there would be a little more order. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Don't mind the input Watcher lets just say certain editors got me frustrated with their stubbornness at sources. I logged off wiki for a while so I wouldn't get caught up in it because last thing this issue needs is editors losing their cool. Hopefully SFA transfer membership so we can be done with all this! BadSynergy (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I would suggest a vote or a poll in order to avoid edit war. I guess Iam not the only person to question this redirection, no offense. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Thegrenadier (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wind up

I believe you may have been the victim of a wind up [43]. If not, I shall eat my hat. :)Clay More47 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well i did use the word if, ive not looked for if there are sources on it, makes no difference, its the wrong article to put anything like that on even if it was true.BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

SFL website crucial

I agree with you that as soon as SFL update their website to include Rangers in the 3rd division, the founding year and other information will hopefully put an end to whole thing. At the moment they have this http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ however site not updated yet. Could be they are waiting to see if membership is transferred over.BadSynergy (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers at the Pageant

Aaaargh! That stupid blinking statement about the numbers was the result of countless arguments and revertings. It was the absolute best solution to an ongoing edit war.

Do go and look at the article's talk page, and follow the discussion on Richardeast's talk page!

It you want to enter the fray, you are most welcome, but you will have to be quite persistent!

Amandajm (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite pissed off about the fact that I can't make your user page play "Rule Britannia" or whatever it's supposed to do! I'll just have to go and watch that magnificent Sarah Connolly on Youtube, Last Night at the Proms, 2009.

Amandajm (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks, yes i saw the talk page debate too, but the wording on the article was still totally unacceptable giving serous undue weight to a couple of sources that in no way were attempting to dispute the official figures reported by the vast majority of media sources, so it had no place there. If it is reverted ill certainly argue about it on the talkpage, sadly there is always a blatant bias on wikipedia against these sorts of things. It should play the national anthem on the userpage, didnt realise there was a problem thanks.BritishWatcher (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The sound file works for me. Horrible synthesised version though, and doesn't sound like theSex Pistols at all.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, might be a certain browser or plugging then, it does work for me on one browser but not on another. As for that sex pistols song, i understand despite a massive campaign to try to get it to No 1 as a snub to Her Majesty, they only managed to get 80th in the charts.. meanwhile the jubilee anthem made it to no 1 in both charts. Was rather satisfying lol ;)BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might check out the talk page to Elizabeth II as well. When it went up on the wiki main page a day or so before the weekend celebration. I was, frankly, embarrassed. My reasons are probably in the files, as they went on for pages. Amandajm(talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. trying to get a consensus

Please review your response and update it accordingly if required witht he updated question that is more neutral--Andrewcrawford(talk -contrib) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aidan Burley

Regarding your undoing of my revision on Aidan Burley's wikipedia page, you asserted that it contravened BLP policy, positing --incorrectly -- that my addition was 'unsourced'. You are wrong. The Mail article included the requisite reference material. I would suggest you cease with your conspicuously politically partisan editing.

PresidentJBartlet (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You added controversial material to an article, i reverted it. It in no way is political partisan editing, im no fan of the guy for the comments he made about the recent opening ceremony.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Only by consensus will Rangers FC article be retained

I urge you to reconsider your opposition to the sentence "Formed in 1872, Rangers were relaunched in 2012 immediately after entering liquidation." No where does it say Rangers are a new club, or mention "New Rangers", or imply their history is not continuous. Your entrenchment is adding to the impression that no consensus will be reached, which will inevitably mean to this one shot at an all-encompassing Rangers article - an absolute essential to my mind -before permantly mired in paralysis of disputes. The absurdity of having that nonsensical "Newco Rangers" aritcle as the only operational page representing Rangers on wikipedia becomes increasingly more likely with every step taken away from, or post seeming to undermine, the possibility of a consensus article. All the best.Gefetane (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the sentence extremely misleading. If incorporated in 1899 was added then i would accept it. I was prepared to support the wording that existed yesterday but it has changed since then. Simply saying 1872 to relaunched in 2012 misses out fundamental information.BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at theTalk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox.Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just one thing to say to you... QUACK BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't do walking away...

I'm not going anywhere - I'll keep watching what is being said on the talk pages but won't waste my time trying to get involved in answering points when it is absolutely clear that some editors are just continually posting the same points despite them having already been responded to. I can tell what is going on and certainly won't be walking away to allow those tactics to succeed. Articles must not be allowed to be biased by groups of committed editors forcing their opinions by grinding down those who disagree with them. I can at least hold my head up as being neither pro-Rangers or Anti-Rangers -I'm from London! I couldn't care less about the tribal issues here. All I care about is that articles are not being distorted by a group of committed supporters - I don't intend to walk away and let that happen.

Have a good evening. Spiritofstgeorge(talk) 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the SFL, SFA, old company, new company, HMRC and the media did not view this as the same club, i would not be involved in this debate, but the facts are clear. I agree that we are going round and round in circles, so hopefully there will be far less need for things to be repeated in the coming days and weeks, but it is right this situation gets resolved. BritishWatcher(talk) 21:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! Ogwikitem (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. related articles

Hiya,

Since you seem to be doing most of the updates and reverting do you want me to post the articles that are affected by this dispute so you can make sure there all fine and watched so dont get changed without a consensus being changed, i have step backed now i have put it to formal mediation and i have now made the articles as per what seems to be the consensus not saying i agree with it or that i say there is but there no real edit warring so i feel there a consensus that being agreed. As i say i have done the work to keep both sides of the dispute views in check i now want to step back so leave it to everyone else. If you want the list i will post them to you there is a lot. Although a consensus appears to be reached mediation is still required so it can be shown this is where the consensus was reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i have the main articles already on my watchlist, other editors have made most of the content changes though, in particular the entire new article at Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. PLC‎ was written by someone else. Will try and make improvements to that paragraph on the newco rangers article later, but i do think a lot of progress is being made across the board, and i hope we will be able to maintain consensus and resolve the matter permanently. I will also try to make a start on potential few points for a FAQ to propose to put at the top of article talkpages to try and help prevent new editors arriving not understanding all of the previous discussions that have taken place. Well done for all your efforts, lets hope that the dispute is close to resolution.,BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please put this in the formation and early years please British Watcher? Celtic 1-9 Rangers 11th August 1888

There's a source mate, where it says rangers highest score under the picture. http://www.rangerspedia.org/index.php/Celtic_FC AND THAT'S ON THE OFFICIAL RANGERS WIKIPIDIA!!!

It's on the official old firm wikipidia page aswell mate!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Firm

It's even here on a scottish football forum!http://www.scottishleague.net/archive/archive78.htm

And see, it says here we beat them 9-1 in a friendly at celtics ground! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100320073059AAFH7Ag

britishwatcher your aware of wikipedia policies please dnt add it as it will be reverted for unreliable source, every source ther eis unreliable as i just explain on the user talk pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

TheMediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and theguide to formal mediation,please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot(talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right hi, its just see that newco page, it isn't right. Thats all i can say about that, there's 5 million Rangers all wanting it to be deleted. PLEASE. I'm begging you. Please delete it! it is still the same club Aradioham (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Kk thanks but with the newco page, please just stick to the company. Nothing to do with the stadium, training ground, players or staff unless its talking about the transfer from oldco to newco. Thanks. It wouldnt be fair talking about the football side of things. Just please stick to admin, liquid process and the money side of things :) — Precedingunsigned comment added byAradioham (talk •contribs) 11:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by Fyunck(click)

Since you criticized my supposed canvassing re: Burma/Myanmar (I disagree), I hope you will be equally critical ofUser:Fyunck(click), who has today posted to about a hundred individual user:talk pages, as well as to the WikiProjects for Australia, England and UK (and only those — not US or Canada or any other). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he should not have posted on those 3 wikiprojects, although i see no problem with people who were past involved in the debates being informed provided all sides were notified. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

However the tone of his message was not neutral but instead preloaded with a moan about the issue being raised and not closed. Such a tone can encourage one sided responses. Do you have a problem with that? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there are people on both sides who will be unhappy with the debate being dragged up again in such a manner, the important thing is if both sides were notified. If he informed those who voted for the move then it is not a problem like the notification of those 3 wikiprojects. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The last RM was procedurally closed due to the proposer merely slapping on the RM tag and not providing an explanation. That cannot credibly be held up as too recent a discussion (or else it would be easy to abuse).The next previous RM was ten months ago which is about standard on these more contentious ones, especially when each discussion ends in "no consensus" but attempts to find a consensus one way or the other get blocked (usually by status quo supporters). "No consensus" never settles the matter, it just defers it. The situation is very different from the Ireland articles where whatever else can be said the super vote in 2009 annulled the standing of the status quo ante from the outset. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been numerous conversations on the talk page and on another page regarding the naming of the article. there has now been an extensive debate that has lasted two weeks and looks likely to go on for a 3rd week with the template being readded today. Nothing has changed in recent years to justify a move back to Myanmar. There may be change in the coming months as democracy develops which results in a significant development one way or the other. With the opposition either becoming the government and changing the official name or more sources being free to use it once the censorship clears up. Or with the opposition, and western governments along with certain media organisations all switching to Myanmar. We should wait for a real world solution, not change the status quo which has lasted 5 years when there is clearly no consensus.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see themediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to theChairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot,on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you areactive in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

Just a thought, but if it was me I would avoid phrases like the "once the separatists are defeated" you used in Talk:Scotland, if only for the sake of maintaining calm discussions, since many editors are quick to heat up in these spaces at perceived slights. Especially as all issues relating to Scotland articles will intensify during the Salmond campaign. Agree? Jamesinderbyshire(talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to avoid the word separatist just because some dont like it. My comment was not meant to spark a response that was given to it, i simply want people to consider the need for planning ahead so that there is no chaos no matter which way the result goes when it happens. As far as im aware opinions are not prohibited from talkpages unless its extremely offensive, or just large amounts of general chat which is not related to improving the article. 1 small sentence at the end of a paragraph clearly talking about the potential need for change to the intro in the future isnt extreme, i really do not see the big deal.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My general sense is that you remain (as you were when we last went into this in detail) confused about the purpose of talk pages in Wikipedia. They are not platforms for political debate, for stating one's own political opinions repeatedly or for trying to provoke battling behaviour. I have to say, you seem unable to grasp this on a very basic level, as your immediate response to my suggestion shows, with the lengthy diatribes and repetitions. As I say, you don't make a case that you should be regarded as an opinion former about how to write NPOV material in the articles. I would suggest if you can't can it, move on to some other area of Wikipedia than British-related articles, since you appear to me to get off on restating your politics, which nobody wants or cares about.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussing improving articles. I think i just said that, and that is exactly what my comment in this case was about. The need for a discussion to take place so that we know what should be put on the article once the separatists are defeated. That is not unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You say "endlessly repeating the word "separatist" because someone pulled you up on it is not going to make it so - it isn't an accurate depiction of the realities of the SNP proposals, regardless of how one personally feels about them. " - Im sorry but you are talking about politics there, and are inaccurate too. The SNP seek to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, if that isnt separatism im not quite sure what is... seems to fit with the definition at Separatism. I said separatist once, until one person moaned about my sentence, obviously im going to have to repeat it when defending my comments. It is hardly "endlessly repeating the word", a gross exaggeration. BritishWatcher(talk) 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad anyway that you think the talk pages are about improving articles, because in this current spat your main concern seems to be to try to get your political views across. As that's exactly what you were trying to do last time we had one, it seems little has changed and I take your protestations of being concerned about improving articles with ever so slight a pinch of salt. And yes, talking about your political statements inevitably involved me, for one small period, in politics. Oh dear.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really would love for you to explain how the term separatist does not apply in this case but that is up to you. I had no interest in a debate on separatism with people on that page, except for relating to alterations needed to the article, although im happy to discuss such things here on my talk page if someone comments. "my main concern".. Sorry but i explained the main point or concern which was the reason for the comment. I was pointing out when someone asked about trimming down the introduction, that when those separatists do lose the article is going to need a overhaul. And that is something that would be better discussed in the run up to the referendum result, so that an attempt at consensus can be reached.. rather than waiting until the night in question when things could get extremely heated, with edit wars or an inaccurate article being locked in place for weeks. It seems a wise precaution to prepare for.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some nationalists find the term seperatist unappealing. I (a nationalist) personally have nothing against it as I'm fully aware of what the term seperatist means and our cause is seperatist. We wish to break away from the UK. An incorrect term with pejorative undertones would be for example to call us isolationists or such but seperatist is perfectly valid. It's quite clear however BritishWatcher that you are using the term purely to bait others and prove some obscure point. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by88.104.194.190 (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here:Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits--Tritomex (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

It has been proposed that Rugby union in the Ivory Coast be moved to Rugby union in Ivory Coast. This move request will have far-reaching implications for all sub-articles and categories involving the Ivory Coast. The discussion is locatedhere.

– Fayenatic London 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Military/Armed forces (again)

Sorry to come back on that subject but could you clarify your opinion in Talk:Armed forces#Merge discussion? I'm trying to resolve an interwikilink problem and I need a clear distinction between the meaning of Military and Armed forces in English. The articles don't help very much:

Military#Etymology and definitions says <military> = <armed forces>
Armed forces#Organization says <military> + <paramilitary> =<armed forces>
Paramilitary says just the opposite: <paramilitary> (usually) is not part of <armed forces>

Asking the question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 94#Armed forces / Military wasn't very helpful as well. Thank you in advance. --Nk (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

TheMediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and theguide to formal mediation,please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot(talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see themediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to theChairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot,on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalemand, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

TheMediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and theguide to formal mediation,please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot(talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see themediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to theChairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot,on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1,2). TheArbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread atTalk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion atTalk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued acall for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

White Genocide

A few years ago, you made a very well worded post to Talk:White Genocide. There has been moreracist activitylately and I was wondering if you'd be willing to give it another look. Andrew³²⁷ 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best —Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At the Jerusalem RfC discussion

It seems you've lost interest in this discussion, and perhaps Wikipedia in general, but it would be great if you could comment on a part ofTalk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion#Question_one:_Accuracy.2Freliability_of_source_opinionsthat discusses your source summary The government of Israel has made Jerusalem its capital and seat of government. Some of the editors there have interpreted that as meaning (and being intended to mean) "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government.", whereas I assumed it was intended as a matter-of-fact statement regarding what the Israeli government has done. Can you comment on the matter since, you know, it's your statement? And maybe select an alternative phrasing that gets the same message across (assuming my interpretation was what you intended) but is not so potentially open to misinterpretation? -- tariqabjotu20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs• logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts bythe end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer atthe discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)