User talk:BritishWatcher

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." [1]

I wonder how many irish catholics know that? I suppose it doesn't matter, it's not like they want him there anyway ([2]) :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)

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)