User talk:BritishWatcher: Difference between revisions

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about Britain and Ireland, there for the British Isles is a reasonable term to use, especially as the change highking originally made was to Britain, which clearly cant cover Ireland, then after that was reverted he changed it to UK, but there was no UK in the 13th century.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 [1]. 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)

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.[2] 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) - [3]. 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)

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)