User talk:BritishWatcher

Is Northern Ireland a constituent country of the UK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

Sock speculations?

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

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

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

country of the uk

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

Digital Library Production Service

In this AFD debate you said:

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

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

National Anthem

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

National Anthem

Oh, someone just changed it !!

Your revert on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

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

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

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

Who suspects ya?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kibblesworth

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

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

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

List of countries articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet Union

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

Puns

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

Northern Ireland edits

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

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

British Empire FA Review

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

All those countries lists

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

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

Any interest in helping with Iraq?

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

A problem with flags?

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

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

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

I notice you are not editing the main article contents

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

Equal status

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

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

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

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

List of sovereign states

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

Just thought I'd let you know...

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

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

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

Re: UN Security Council presndency

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

potential sources

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

British people

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

My deletion

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

Hello

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

Andy Murray

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

intransigence

Copy of message to User:Bretonbanquet:

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

Sandboxing

Hello there BritishWatcher,

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

Retirement postpond

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

Ireland naming question

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

No need for consensus

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

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

Poll

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

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

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

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