User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Abuse or rants will be deleted without me reading them. Archive April 2007 to December 2008

Use of "minor edit"

You just made a +1051 edit to the Wikiquette alerts, but it was marked as minor. Rather than template you, I thought I'd bring it up ... that certainly is not "minor"! ♪BMWΔ 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: a check through your contributions show that your edits are constantly noted as "minor" when they are not. This is an improper use of the minor edit box. Please fix ASAP. ♪BMWΔ 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had "mark all my edits as minor" checked in my preferences. I turned that off now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

Hi, just a friendly reminder that while using the Wikiquette process is a good way to try to resolve disputes in an amicable and informal way, it is very important that you inform the editor(s) involved that you have done so on their talk page. Failure to do so can be considered, ironically, a breach of wikiquette. I have informed the other editor in this instance, but generally you should undertake this yourself. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Duly noted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.E. and layout

Glad to help. The two image suggestions I quoted at PR came from WP:MOS#Images, which is fairly short and to the point. My general rule of thumb is to aim for one image per main section in addition to the lead image, which is always in the upper right. It's OK to place the others on the left or on the right, but they shouldn't fall across the section breaks. The left-hand ones can be directly under main section heads or embedded lower in the sections, but they shouldn't be placed directly under subheads. Some editors put all their images on the right. I don't like to be quite that limited because in some cases an image will look out of the page or run out of the page (train, car, horse) if it's on the right; in those cases I try to find a place for it on the left. If you follow the MoS guidelines, you should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire referencing

Hello Red Hat. I have noticed that many authors mentioned in your reference list have their own Wikipedia articles. Shall I list them out in my review comments at WP:FAC, or is it simpler to wikilink their names directly in the article? I also have some low-level stuff where the author name could be more fully spelled out, like: Thomas Macaulay -> Thomas Babington Macaulay, and the book has its own WP article. How shall I proceed on those? Do you want the author names wikilinked or to use the authorlink option in the citation templates? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Ed. I really don't know, I have never been through this process before? Which do you recommend? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes a lot of difference. If you don't object I'll probably just hack away on the reference list. There's a few things that involve some judgment, like adding more bibliographic info for Macaulay, including the original publication date and title. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars on the BE article

I agree the best thing to do is simply remove the image and the mention of the news week article. For the time being i wouldnt bother adding another image to replace it though, seems to be enough on the article already unless we can find some free use image that symbolizes the decolonization / hand over of hong kong. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this picture from 1997 [1] , is there anyway it can be brought to wikipedia? btw nice job on the map of the BE, very sharp and clear, where did you get the map (the base)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlankMap-World-large.png The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks but what about the middle east and carribean focused part?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did it myself using zoom, a border and a drop shadow. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks btw did you use Microsoft Paint?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a piece of crap. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL i agree , you used Paint net right?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Merry Christmas and Stop changing the map" CosialsCastells (talk)

Feliz año

Yes, I agree with your presented summary in my talk page and with the root of the problem. Nevertheless I admit that I do not distinguish well neither the connotations nor accurateness of the employment and one or another word in English language.

Only I must specify that Navarre (since 1515) and lordship of Biscay (Basque provinces, since 1200) belonged to Crown of Castille, though they both were preserving its own legislation and administration too, but, I repeat, inside the Crown of Castile. Regards Trasamundo (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK map

Your rather curt ending to your edit summary "next?" seems to presume there is an agreement. Shouldn't we wait for a little more input from other editors? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for coming across as curt. By "next?", I meant "next argument for showing the EU?". As you will have seen, I have just placed a straw poll there, which shows that I don't think that we have any form of agreement yet. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for presuming you intended to be curt. Life is full of opinions and it would be a dull world if we all shared the same ones. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK

Hi. Unfortunately I had to remove one comment you made as it was inserted in the middle of another user's comment. There was nothing wrong with your point as such, so I'm letting you know this so that you can add it at an appropriate place if you want to. Please keep in mind that we must never alter what another user has written, especially not to make it seem as if they had said something else than they did. I realise that this wasn't your intention in any way. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you will have seen that your edit was reverted by the user who posted these comments. If in future you believe that someone has placed comments in the wrong place, for the same reasons that you quote above about not altering what someone else has written, you should move them and not outright delete them, even if you do post on their talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered that and I would have done so if you had signed them. I could then have moved the comments along with your signature to make it clear that the contribution was yours, so please remember to sign your posts in the future.JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do always sign my posts - I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 so I am fully aware of the requirement. I do not sign my posts, however, when they are in a compiled list like the one we have there, where we are collecting arguments and don't need to see who posted what. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian Union

I've never even read the article, I think, and I'd rather not get involved in the dispute. This was my first edit, and with luck, you guys can agree to compromise eventually. SamEV (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok well im making a new map that hopefully will satisfy both of us for the IU article, patience Ferrick.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with me that the map is inaccurate why did you Undid my edit? Luis wiki (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not agree with you. The map that is presently on the article is accurate. The one that you favoured was far too generous regarding the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Mira tengo que pedirte un favor, eso es que pares de poner imagenes encima de otras, como lo hiciste aqui [2] lo que me parecio muy rudo de tu parte y hay que tener en cuenta que esta no es tu primera vez haciendo lo dicho [3], si mis mapas no te gustan no los cambies por otros, sino preguntame primero por favor o quitalos de los articulos donde esten pero como acabo de decirte por favor no cambies mis mapas por otros archivos, mejor has tus propios mapas para que yo no gaste mi tiempo. Gracias--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "your" maps, I am afraid. Once they are uploaded to Wikicommons, they are in the public domain. Secondly, if you persist in reverting articles to show your disputed maps, then you leave me no other choice than to directly modify the maps that you have uploaded. I'm seriously considering a request for comment on your actions at Wikipedia as your behaviour is totally inappropriate and smacks of being a single purpose account. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey why don't you write in spanish, i tought you said you knew it ? XD

I didn't meant they are "mine", i said if the maps i make you dont like, then feel free to make a map or revert my edits, but please dont put another map (that is not even similar) on top of it, that's rude and impolite, and if you do at least tell me about it. Secondly how are my maps disputed ? I have a very good source (not my only one tho). Go ahead and "consider" my "innapropiate" actions ok but remember i can just defend myself so easily with a bunch of insults you have thrown at me during the last 2 months, the latest one yesterday, as for being a spa account that is correct i believe, my only purpose here is to edit spanish-related articles because that is what i know most about, that's what i studied, therefore i take all responsabilities if you notify the wiki admin board. I mean imagine if i put stupid stuff on the British Empire article if i haven't studied or read about the subject, why bother? it would just mess up wikipedia.

Also look "While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly requires a post-beginner level of editing skills (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party with previous IP editing experience wishing to improve the Wikipedia project. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not generally recommended. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment."

Take in account that very closely :) Greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have one source, which runs contrary to specialist books on the subject - I have listed them at Iberian Union. Also, as someone who is knowledgeable to some degree about Portuguese colonial history, I am telling you that this is a completely unrealistic depiction of the Portuguese Empire, which (aside from Brazil) was primarily based around coastal trading posts and factories. The Portuguese just did not have the manpower to push into and control the hinterland, and struggled to defend what they had against the Dutch. The only areas that they really did move in from the coast (and then control) were in Brazil, Angola, Mozambique and modern-day Tanzania/Kenya. It looks to me as though this map you have produced from the Spanish govt website is based on a misunderstanding of one or another map that shows the coasts which the Portuguese discovered. Such a map appears in Livermore's book [4] and is reprinted in [5], but it is clearly marked as discovery, not empire. You can see it here [6], pages 53 and 52 (scroll up for 52). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American revolutions

I would be happy to merge Latin American revolutions article into the other article. An Afd seems like the wrong forum to use. travb (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry. I have never been involved in a merge, so I assumed that one article had to be deleted. Do we just redirect? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

portuguese empire

Hi there. First of all, where you from?

Listen, I think the map you have put in the article 'portuguese empire' is very good and informative actually, but you shouldn't replace that red map we have, it took a lot of time for some people to do it. But I really like your map, but it doesn't cover all the portuguese possessions. I would really like if you put this map in the article, but on other section rather than below "portuguese empire".

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat ferrick please discuss about your map in the PE talk page not the BE one, please be considerate . And if you are going to make a map like the one you are proposing include more territories like the one right now, show everything not 5 major forts, its about the PE not the forts. Also people who actually backed you have not really an avid interest for the PE article they are from the BE page, lets be considerate of other people's work and time.Thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the map you are proposing for the PE cannot be compared to the BE , the BE was more defined (in a territorial sense), almost nothing was claimed by the UK or explored that wasnt colonized. a user in the BE page says he dislikes the current red map in the PE page because he/she doesn't understand it...then what are the captions for??!!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how this thoughtfulness on your part did not apply whilst you were foisting your map onto the Spanish Empire page, isn't it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am preparing new contributions about this issue, but I must incise in several issues simultaneously. If a map has been so much time in the article, it is not profitable to embroil to discussing uselessly because of the hurry, since the inaccuracy is removed with references. I will put the post in Spanish empire, though I am not going to enter the exact limits of the Portuguese territories. Trasamundo (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French colonial map

I reverted your edits of File:France colonial Empire10.png - The French zone of influence of incluence in China is listed at List of foreign enclaves in China and I found confirmation in "The Cambridge History of China" on page 146 (searchable via Google Books). The zone in Siam is mentioned in Entente cordiale and I confirmed in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm sure there are other mistakes on that map, but those don't appear to be among them. Kmusser (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Disambiguations

Excellent. Your solution works a lot better than mine-- not only is it more effective, taking the reader straight to a choice, but it has a more polite tone. I wasn't sure how to do a disclaimer without inadvertently suggesting (a) that the reader ought to "know better" or (b) that Latin America has a revolution more often than an old 45 record. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd opt for keeping the article title (wars of independence) the same and confining it to a specific list of the wars of independence that took place in the first three decades of the 19th century. T don't see any reason why the United States has to be separate from Latin America in that regard, other than American chauvinism. Washington was the same type of national hero as Bolivar, O'Higgins, Artigas, L'Ouverture, etc. There was an identifiable (and relatively short) time in world history where wars were (indeed, had to be) fought to attain independence from an understandably reluctant colonial power), and those wars are a rich part of the heritage of many nations. After that, I'd recommend a separate article for the post-1830 (and usually more peaceful) attainment of sovereignty in later years for places like Brazil, Belize, Guyana, Panama, etc.; and adding the name of that article to the dab page. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

portuguese empire

If you want the map of the empire like that (without the areas of influence) you should also take the areas of influence from the map of the spanish empire. there must be a same criteria for all the maps. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me from what country you're from. I've already taken the claims from the spanish empire. An empire is made of possessions not of claims. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i didn't know how to do that. Also don't you think its better to show all of the PE (claimed/explored, etc) instead of just actual possessions? the Iberian colonial empires were very old (or young as they started before anybody) and were medieval in mentality and unlike the Brit. Emp. or the French Emp. they were not very good defined until much (much) later. And just out of curiosity, did you put that year old map back again in the SE page? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal

Hello Red Hat. I reverted User:Historian19's edits because he changed almost all sections' images of the article about Portugal. I stated that on the edit summary and even restored his text in the section "Government and politics". Meanwhile, during the afternoon, the user was blocked by an administrator because he doesn't behave properly in Wikipedia. Miguel in Portugal (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donde vivo

"BTW why do you ask where I'm from? In my experience editors who care about places of origin tend to misuse the information: either to argue that someone who is not from "country X" is not qualified to edit an article relating to "country X", or that they have some kind of bias against "country X" if they are not from "country X"."

I hope that applies to me too.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I think I know why you ask me, do you really think that?!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misiones Orientales

To follow up my earlier comment on your map, it seems that the Misiones Orientales have been systematically portrayed as part of Rio Grande o Sul in the various colonial-era maps, when in fact they were only incorporated into the Empire post-independence. Obviously the Platine boundaries were extremely volatile in the 18th century, with wars occuring in the 1750s, 1770s, and 1800s, but I'm not aware of the region ever being annexed to Brasil before 1828. You may know who to approach with this. Cheers, Albrecht (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be doing much good, but I'll try stick around a little while. I don't understand why mapmakers refuse to illustrate specific periods, regions, or themes (economy, subdivisions, etc.). Hell, they could include Cambodia if they wished in a map titled "Spanish conquests and explorations in the East Indies, 1520-1643 (or whatever)." Likewise, no one would object to indicating the Pacific coast claims on a map illustrating, say, the northern expansion of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, 1748-1819—after all, many of the huge expanses of pink on the British map (i.e. the Canadian Arctic) were largely of the same fictitious order as Spain's Pacific claims: a few symbolic explorations backed by a period of naval preponderance. Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAR OF JENKINS EAR

indecisive? who rennouced to the asiento¿? the british or the spanish? who failed in the massive attack? the british or the spanish? who had territorial ambitions? the british or the spanish? what language is spoken in that land thanks to the british failed attack, spanish or english?

I've checked out too your sources and where is the mention to the battle of Cartagena de Indias and the heavy casualties suffered? Cosialscastells (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like someone is engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the mention in your sources to the battle of cartagena the indias and the heavy massive casualties suffered? why i can't find nothing about blas de lezo too?Are you trying to avoid the truth? if yes let me know =)Cosialscastells (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. It would seem we've upset some people. I have some raving nonsense on my talk page too. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire edits

Hello, I've noticed your reversing my edits on the British Empire page, so just wanted to explain myself. On the Zanzibar sentence, I thought that linking to the main article on the topic would be enough for a reference. It did occur to me at the time that I had no external source, but the sentence was short and uncontroversial, so I thought that a link to the main article on the Zanzibar revolution would be enough.

As for Diego Garcia, the depopulation was part of the Cold War but also the island was an acquisition of the British Empire; there's nothing mutually exclusive about the two categories. There are sentences in the "Legacy" section about how Mauritius claims British Indian Ocean Territory for itself, and it seems linked that Diego Garcia has been a controversial issue within Britain itself (or at least within the legal community in Britain). I would count that as part of the empire's legacy: it's one of the few islands that Britain still possesses.

Regards. Epa101 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The British Empire is a featured article, and it went through a rigorous review to get there with strict use of references. My reason for reverting your edits was that you didn't produce any reliable sources reaching the same conclusion that you did that these are legacies of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Diego Garcia, my references were two court cases from Britain. I'd hope that they'd count as reliable sources that the island's depopulation has been controversial in Britain. It's true that I didn't have a resource for Zanzibar; I'll look for one. Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I am not disputing that the depopulation was controversial: I know that it was and read the press coverage. I am disputing (or at least requesting a reference for) the claim that it was a legacy of the empire. This is a strong claim, and needs a reference reaching the same conclusion to show that it is not synthesis on your part. Personally, I disagree that it was a legacy of the empire. It was a legacy of the Cold War. Same applies to Zanzibar: you need to show that reliable sources also reach the same conclusion that the events there were a legacy of the Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire

Can you at least help me or try to fix the 'bad parts' instead of just deleting it? it took me a while to write them. Thanks.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are even changing the introduction. What was wrong with it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needed more primary info and some parts were wrong such as the notion of Spain being identified as a unified nation state in the 15th century when in fact only the political framework was being created and it would only be with the Bourbons that something close to the Spain we know today would emerge, also the 18th century was skipped, added some parts of population and size of the empire, and small adds just to try to make it better but i still dont see how this is a good arguement for reverting my edits (which I would try to fix now)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]