User talk:Rob984

Celtic League

Their website says: "The Celtic League is an inter Celtic organisation that campaigns for the political, language, cultural and social rights of the Celtic nations. It does this across a broad range of issues. It highlights human rights abuse, monitors military activity and focuses on political, socio-economic, environmental, language and cultural issues, which generally or specifically affect one or more of the Celtic countries in some way. The organisation also aims to further each of the Celtic nations right to independence and to promote the benefits of inter Celtic cooperation..." That is a much more nuanced set of aims than your suggestion that it "openly seeks to create six sovereign states". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle...

Political freedom for the Celtic countries is one of the fundamental aims of the League, because without this freedom it would be extremely difficult to secure our other aims. This freedom can only be achieved if the Celtic countries become independent states in their own right. In turn the Celtic League believes that all peoples have the right to pursue self determination should they so wish. This is one of the reasons why the League shows solidarity in its work with other peoples of the world who are also striving for that freedom e.g. Basques, Catalans, Tibetans, Maoris, etc. and are congratulatory of those people who finally obtain it.

– Current Campaigns, celticleague.net

The organisation may promote self-determination in a wider sense, but I don't see how they "promote pan-Celtic self-determination". They promote independence of what they regard as "Celtic countries": Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany.

Considering this is one of their "fundamental aims", I think it justifies mention in the introduction.

I think it's in breach of WP:NPOV to state an organisation that campaigns for the independence of Cornwall, where in the 2011 census, 86% of the population stated they had no Cornish national identity, and 87% of population stated there national identity as English, British or both, "promotes pan-Celtic self-determination", solely based on there own claims.

I fail to see what activity of there's involves promoting "pan-Celtic" self-determination. Is there a secondary source for that per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV?

Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "promoting pan-Celtic self-determination" is poor and unsourced wording, but "promoting pan-Celtic independence" is no better. It is the organisation that is "pan-Celtic", not the self-determination. I suggest that what you need to do - rather than adding contentious wording to the lede without changing the main article text - is to use their own website text on the campaigns to expand the section in the article dealing with their campaigns - for instance, by adding a reference or two to a currently unsourced and somewhat thin paragraph. And, more importantly, what all editors - including me - need to do is to find references from independent sources commenting on the organisation, and rewrite parts of the article based on what those sources - rather than the organisation itself - say. Much of that article is in a very bad state, and is in great need of improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious

IMF staff estimates are legitimate estimates and no figures here are solid, every country that has a 2015 estimate on it was made by "IMF staff estimates" at least most. Also the the 2014 estimates are made by the same source so are you judging the competence of the the 2015 estimates and trusting the ones from 2014? Referring to your revert on my GDP update on the UK Orelbon 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Orelbon Yes I am. The source provides "estimates" for the next decade. It clearly distinguish between calculated past figures and future "IMF staff estimates". Do you really think the UK's GDP has reduced between 2014 and 2015, despite the ONS reporting growth every quarter? Rob984 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rob984 how about the current estimates in the wiki are wrong considering they don't even have a refrence. Orelbon 20:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Orelbon Yes they do. They are cited to the IMF and also present in the source you provided. Please look at your source, it shows both the calculated figure for 2014, and future "IMF staff estimates". Rob984 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your source here: [1]; it states in the top right corner of the table "Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates". All the cells from 2015 onwards are shaded. the data in that table for 2014 is the same as the data in the infobox at United Kingdom. The source provided currently is this: [2]. It is the same data on a different IMF webpage. The calculated data for 2015 wont be released until 2016. Rob984 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Royal and Parliamentary titles act 1927

Hello Rob, The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed not only the royal title but also the name (Style) of Parliament (from Parliament of the UK of GB & I to Parliament of the UK of GB and NI) and thereby the name of the state itself as I've always understood it to be. UK of GB & I was used as the name of the state until 1927. (Imperial Conference, 1926: Summary of Proceedings Cmd 2768, p. 15 (London: HMSO, 1926).) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Habel. I would think the Royal titles are more significant than the Parliament's title (with the Parliament being subordinate to the Crown); but neither is a definite indication that the state's name changed. If the convention only changed in 1927, and that is supported by sources, then of course it should be noted. However, regardless, the point in which the state formation changed was 1922. In the context of the article, we are using the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to refer to the UK between 1801 and 1922 when all of Ireland was part of the state. Rob984 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Parliament in that sense is not subjected to the Crown. The Crown is a part of Parliament. The article on the RPTA indicates that the style of Parliament was changed and that therefore the name of the UK was changed to UK of GB & NI. And there is a source for that in that article. I'm not sure if that isn't more significant than the Royal title. I agree however that the article in question shouldn't be made confusing because of this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Habel The Crown is not a part of Parliament. The Monarch has a role within Parliament, and Parliament can amend the constitution, meaning it has significant power over the Crown; however it is still subordinate,

Which source?

Rob984 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(Imperial Conference, 1926: Summary of Proceedings Cmd 2768, p. 15 (London: HMSO, 1926).) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The monarch is a part of parliament. See Parliament of the United Kingdom. "The Sovereign forms the third component of the legislature (the Queen-in-Parliament)." That seems well sourced there as well. From the website of the UK Parliament: "Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays an essential role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law.". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hebel, you're wrong. You would agree that the Parliament, along with the three armed forces, the Supreme Court, etc, are all subordinate to the state right? Since this is a monarchy, by definition the state is the Crown. The monarch is the living embodiment of the Crown. So while the monarch plays a role in Parliament, this is in the same way she plays a role in the armed forces. She is not subordinate to either. Infact, the Crown is the legal embodiment of both.

Anyway, could you please clarify where in that source it claims that the change of the name of Parliament implied the name of the state changed?

Rob984 (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. I have no intention whatsoever of changing you revert edit on United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That's not what this is about. I'll come back to you here on the points you have raised and I hope conversation will be interesting. That might take some time however since the real world has decided I'm going to be somewhat busy with things that are not Wikipedia in the next two weeks or so. I don't think I'm wrong about the makeup of Parliament however. The crown is part of Parliament. I'll come back to you about that and about the name of the state / style of parliament. I can't add comments now but I'll be back to explain my thinking on that and what it is based on. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rockall

Hi, Rob. "ownership" of Rockall is actually disputed. Iceland disputes it. There is an agreement between Ireland and the UK, who are trying to get France and Spain to support them. Denmark, until recently, was firmly behind Iceland, but that might be a little flexible. However Iceland still disputes the UK claim. I am of the view that we may be deceiving ourselves into a false sense of security. Regards Lugnad (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Lugnad, sources? As far as I know (and available sources show), there is a dispute over the Rockall bank in regards to extended continental shelf rights (those beyond EEZ). Both territorial and EEZ claims are agreed and settled, and Rockall is within the United Kingdom's EEZ. See Rockall Bank dispute. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rob, all true, but .. as you correctly point out there are two separate issues. There is the EEZ and there is the rock itself. The EEZ difference is nicely illustrated on this Icelandic map: http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Frettamyndir/landgrunnsk_hatton_rockall.jpg

There are differences over the rock. At first sight they seem irrelevant. Both Ireland and Denmark agree that Rockall is in the UK EEZ. (Iceland does not). The Irish view is that Rockall cannot have an ‘owner’, for if it could be ‘owned’ it would be territory, which would then have its own territorial sea, EEZ, and fishing rights. http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013061100074?opendocument#WRD03250

“…Rockall and similar rocks and skeries have no significance for establishing legal claims to mineral rights in the adjacent seabed or to fishing rights in the surrounding seas. ... ... Article 121, paragraph 3 that: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” Rockall falls into precisely this category.”

Denmark “does not contest the sovereignty claimed by the United Kingdom over the Rockall skerry. The argument concerns the implications of that sovereignty …. The uninhabited skerry cannot be granted the status of an island.”

The UK claims a 12 nautical mile territorial sea around Rockall, as illustrated by this map: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2010/01/444469.jpg

So every year, on no particular date, the Irish Navy sends a vessel through that “territorial sea”.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-navys-show-of-force-off-rockall-28892820.html

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-navy-renews-claims-to-atlantic-island-of-rockall-in-flag-showing-ceremony-174089061-237533371.html

All of this matters little. UK, Irish and Danish fishing rights are exercised by the CFP. Any Rockall EEZ is within the agreed UK EEZ

- But – if the UK were to leave the EU?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnad (talk • contribs)

National identity cards in the European Economic Area

Hi, I don't quite understand why my change was reverted. It showed the exact same ID-card as on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_identity_card. I believe this page shows an example-card published by the Dutch government especially for purposes such as this. To make this sure I have asked them and I am now awaiting their response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavids (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have contacted http://www.rvig.nl/ and they confirmed to me, that it is no problem to publish an example ID-card for educational purposes on the internet. Here is their response, in Dutch:

Geachte heer Davids,

Uw vraag is door rijksoverheid.nl doorgestuurd naar de Rijksdienst voor Identiteitsgegevens (RvIG). RvIG is onder andere belast met uitvoeringstaken die voortkomen uit de Wet basisregistratie  personen en de Paspoortwet.
Op uw vraag of het is toegestaan om de folder met echtheidskenmerken te gebruiken voor publicaties, kan ik u het volgende meedelen.

Het Nederlands reisdocument (dus ook de identiteitskaart) is een door de Nederlandse wet beschermd document. De paspoortwet (artikel 61) spreekt over het volgende:
Het is een ieder verboden drukwerken of andere voorwerpen in een vorm die ze op reisdocumenten doet gelijken, te vervaardigen, te verspreiden of ter verspreiding in voorraad te hebben.
Het is echter wel mogelijk een afbeelding van het (Nederlandse) paspoort of identiteitskaart te gebruiken ter voorlichting van het publiek door middel van projectie (film, dia's, video, internet en  televisie).

Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd.

Met vriendelijke groet
Lettie Lemmens
medewerker contactcentrum
........................................................................
Rijksdienst voor Identiteitsgegevens
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties
Turfmarkt 147| 2511 DP | Den Haag
Postbus 10451 | 2501 HL | Den Haag
........................................................................
T 088-9001000
info@rvig.nl
http://www.rvig.nl

Mdavids (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdavids I am no't sure if use at that article would be in accordance with WP:FAIRUSE, as per the licencing details in the image's description. See WP:NFLISTS. Anyway, I am not active at the moment so you will have to query elsewhere (maybe it's listing at WP:Non-free content review#National identity cards in the European Economic Area?), or just re-add it and see if anyone objects (I don't, I was just making sure you were aware it is listed as non-free). Rob984 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... I think

Why revert if you were actually making a different edit? My edit removed the ship from the Sea-Trials table, as it should've been, it's now active (I marked as such in the summary). I should've added it to the Commissioned table, but I didn't. (computer froze, phone rang, knock at the door, yadda, yadda, yadda...) then I forgot and didn't get back to it. Why didn't you just add it to the table instead of making it look like a revert? - ^theWOLFchild 10:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, sorry, I should have explained in the edit summary. It was easiest just to click revert and move the existing syntax, rather than copying from an old revision or typing it out again. Sorry if it was annoying or confusing. Rob984 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bah... it's ok. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Your edit removing the sovereign state columns at Constituent country was reverted 'per BRD'. That reversion was reverted by you along with subsequent edits to the article using Twinkle. Two points: 1. You are experienced enough here to understand WP:BRD i.e. if your edit is reverted, do not revert again, instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change on the article talk page to establish consensus; 2. Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool and not to be used to revert good faith edits. Please self-revert. Daicaregos (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Daicaregos, BRD isn't a rational for reverting. It's the predure we use when an editor makes a bold edit, and another editor objects to some extent with said edit, leaving a rational in their edit summary. Then there is discussion. This is contructive editing. Reverting with no reason, and then requesting other editors justify their edit on the talk page without knowing why you are objecting, is not constructive. I have nothing to comment since I already explained my rational for the edit in the edit summary, and I have no idea why you reverted. There are no specific rules on how Twinkle should be used. I am simply reverting an unexplaining edit which is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy certainly does not avocate arbitrarily reverting edits "per BRD". Rob984 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that I disagreed with your edit and the reason you gave. I have commented at the article talk page. Daicaregos (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Type 26

Probably best not to use BAEs marketing jargon to describe the T26. The terminology used on their site is aimed largely toward the export market.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great Well what is it? "Global combat ship" is very general. Anything from a guided missile destroyer to a anti-submarine corvette could be described as a "global combat ship". This ship has:

• Type 997 Artisan 3D medium range air and surface radar
• VLS canisters capable of launching Sea Ceptor (CAMM) air-defence missiles, Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and quad packed Sea Ceptor missiles
• Thales Underwater Systems Type 2050 bow sonar
• Sting Ray acoustic homing torpedos

So I definitely think the ship has sophisticated multi-role capability. The only reason a ship with this capability would not be classed as a "multi-role surface combatant" would be if it has some kind of specialism, like the Type 45 (its advanced SAMPSON Type 1045 air tracking radar allowing it to utilise guided missiles). Rob984 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

'Global Combat Ship' is simply the name given to the family of warship by its designers (BAE). Much like 'FREMM' is the name given to its respective family of warship. I agree, the term is very generic. However, on BAEs webpage for Type 26, we should be careful to avoid using their marketing language. Terms like "multi-mission warship" really doesn't mean anything in this context... and is used far too casually. Sure, Type 26 has a mixed bag of capabilities (CAMM, strike VLS, sonar 2087 etc), but it doesn't make it a multi-mission (or multi-role) warship. Multi-mission/role implies all of its capabilities are high-end, that is to say, its AAW and ASW capabilities are leading edge like an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Bottom-line, Type 26 isn't multi-mission, while it has high-end ASW capabilities, its AAW capabilities are limited to local area air-defence only.

To simplify:

• Arleigh Burke destroyer: specialised in AAW and ASW = multi-mission/role
• Type 45 destroyer: specialised in AAW = single-mission/role
• Type 26 frigate: specialised in ASW = single-mission/role

To confuse things a little, there are also terms like general-purpose or multi-purpose, but these terms are distinct from multi-mission/role. However as I said, these terms are used far too casually these days, especially by companies wishing to market their product or design. This is why I would suggest avoiding BAEs marketing jargon to describe the T26. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Rockall

Hello Rob984, Many thanks for your reversion on Rockall. I must confess in my haste, I failed to revert all the edits from the unregistered IP, with their own agenda. Regards and thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man

I have corrected your edit of the Isle of Man article. It is not part of the UK. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18251379 or various other sources. Robynthehode (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Robynthehode, A dependency (ie dependent territory) is not part of the state by definition, so that wasn't implied. The BBC isn't wrong, but it is not the correct perspective for an article on the Isle of Man itself. From the UK's perspective, the Isle of Man, and other Crown dependencies, are dependencies of its Crown (the British Crown). However in each Crown dependency, they are not "dependencies", nor have any relation to the British Crown. Within each jurisdiction, they are simply realms under the Crown in right of the jurisdiction—which happens to be the British monarch. See Crown dependencies#Definition which has citations for what I am saying. A Google books search returns 241 results for ""Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom", so it's not as common as "British Crown dependency" (2,100 results) but it's certainly accurate and I think it is more appropriate for the articles on the dependencies themselves. Rob984 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra clarification much of which I knew already. However the sentence as written in the article on the Isle of Man was still incorrect Robynthehode (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Don't thank me"

Previously you requested that I not THANK you for the good edits that you make. Did you know that, if you find it irritating you can switch it off in your User preferences tab? BushelCandle (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: But then I wouldn't see when someone thanks me? I think I asked you that because you thanked several consecutive edits. I don't mind you thanking my edits at all. I appareciate the thanks, but excessive thanking can be annoying. Rob984 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I think I now understand. Reading between the lines: you like being thanked - but not by me. Perhaps you could ask the developers for a "block thanking by muppets" feature?

However, if you are being truthful when you write I don't mind you thanking my edits at all, then would you give me some indication of how I can calculate what you regard as excessive thanking, since the last thing I want to do on this project is annoy anyone? BushelCandle (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Very simple. When you consider thanking an edit, consider both of these two things (if either is "don't thank"... don't thank):

Are you actually thankful for me making said edit or comment?

If yes → thank

If no → don't thank

Did you thank my edit directly before the one you are considering thanking?

If yes → don't thank

If no → thank

If you still don't think you can figure it out, simply don't thank. I can live without your thanks. I have never had anyone else spam thanks and thank changes that they clearly aren't thankful for. If were to abuse the feature to harass me then I would report you. But I am sure you wouldn't want to do that, right?

Rob984 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, (long and deeply felt sigh of relief that I've finally understood your prickliness)

I now realise that you have been editing without regard to one of the pillars of wikipedia: relentlessly assume good faith.

Your reply is extremely helpful by highlighting a very simple decision tree for me to follow. Since I almost inevitably only thank editors when I am actually thankful for them making an edit or comment, I only now need to check that I am not making successive thank you's for a series of great edits/comments that I see you making.

Thank you, Rob! BushelCandle (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

European Free Trade Agreement

Thank you Rob984. This change on Feb. 11 is completely acceptable to us. We found the statement that we were not a state as offensive and unacceptable. The description is now politically correct. Much better statement. Thanks again.Briefzehn 16:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Since you decide to be rude [3], can I recommend you start by reading WP:NPA and then WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not persons. Jeppiz (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have to be explicit. I don't see any violation of WP:NPA or WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:NOTAFORUM certainly does not forbid editors from discussing disruptive editing that has occurred on page, at its talk page. Rob984 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)