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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who suspects ya?

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

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) :)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

potential sources

• her eis an article from a foreign minister addressing MR Ripart as "Mr President of the SEcuriy Counsel"
• UN nations membo refers to Mr Ripart as "Security Council President"
• Fox news article detailing MR Rippart "As Security Council President"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Retirement postpond

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

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)

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)

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)

Poll

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

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)

British Isles

Hiya BW. I recommend ya delete the s-word, from your response to Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice goodday however i do believe it is a stupid move, The British isles is a location just like the continent of Europe. An attempt to have an article renamed or Britain removed from it just because we dont like something is just crazy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the article to remain at its current title. However, Britain and Ireland is an acceptable alternative. Anyways, here's to a solution. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We can not go around redrawing and renaming maps just because some people have a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Politics & Geography tend to be intertwined, as we all know. PS: See ya tomorrow, my 2-hours have expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cya Goodday, how u finding the 2 hour limit anyway? Glad u didnt retire full time? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher. Don't get too carried away by my comments. I was simply pointing out that Sarah777 is quite happy to force her Irish agenda down everybody's throats and trample over other nations in the process. The comments about the SNP administration were refuting her comments about Scotland's "failed independence referendum". If it is ever held, it probably will fail, but it's not up to her to decide the result. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And didn't she bite! I had a suspicion she would. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tut tut. That wasn't very nice, trying to get Sarah to bite. Jack forbes (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it was getting late, and it's been a long day and it's work in the morning..... Skinsmoke (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire map

Hey BritishWatcher,

In reference to your reversion of the edit of the text below the map at the top of the British Empire article, you stated in the edit summary that you did not see how the previous text (which you have restored) is misleading. The text in questions reads:

"The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire."

As explained in a previous edit summary, this is incorrect as not all of the countries colored in pink on the map were actually part of the British Empire. Specific mention was made of Egypt, which though de facto independent from 1805 to 1882 was officially part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914. When British forces first occupied the country in 1882, the British Government explicitly recognized and undertook to protect the legal status within Egypt of the Ottoman Sultan and the Egyptian Khedive. Even when the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty was terminated in 1914, Egypt was declared a British Protectorate, not colony or dominion. Note that the British monarch was never said to reign over the country, and that the British Parliament's writ never extended to the country. Though British forces occupied the country, and though the British High-Commissioner in practice had greater power than the actual Egyptian Government, including the Khedive (and later the Egyptian Sultan from 1914 onwards), Egypt was never formally annexed to become part of the British Empire. Indeed, the status of protectorate lasted for less than 10 years before Egyptian independence was recognized.

For this reason, the text was changed to:

"The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire, or otherwise occupied and governed by British forces."

Though the status of Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq (also colored pink on the map) is not identical, I believe that the status of League of Nations Mandate which applied to each country necessarily precluded them being part of the Empire. Once again, they were occupied and ruled by British forces, but never annexed to become part of the Empire.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you, and I would be interested to know what lanaguage you could suggest to improve the accuracy of the text in question. I will refrain from further editing in this instance pending your reply.

Thanks 81.143.30.137 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Breach of WP:3RR on British Isles

Be careful you don't fall foul of WP:3RR (not sure if you're aware of the policy, but you *can* be sure that every other editor on British Isles is). A trigger-happy admin might block you - although it would be much more preferable to agree the changes on the Talk page first. --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon

I'm a strong believer in WP:BRD, so, rather than edit war over the issue, I'd like to invite your comments at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon#Handling of Swine 'flu outbreaks.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and BOT's

The legislation relating to the British Overseas Territories seems to define the territories without the ambiguity you imply and without the term British Isles. As things stand the clear implication is that the reference uses the term British Isles, which it does not. If the synthesis is unintended then another formula of words is required or another reference. RashersTierney (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

BI

Make your mind up. Do you want that edit or not? Anyway - blocked again eh! and with the bad version as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.65.106 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with that whole paragraph, including the bit you removed. There is no consensus right now to make the change, so it should of been undone i just didnt like high king simply claiming it as vandalism and warning someone for making a perfectly valid edit. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irelands

Republic of Ireland to Ireland (republic) - to appease one group. Then, we leave Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) as is - to appease the other group. It has possibilities. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Id be fine with that, it is a reasonable compromise that most would be happy with i think. Although i do agree with Mooretwin that an agreement also includes the rights on certain articles to say Republic of Ireland in the text where confusion is possible like on matters with the UK and the other side accepting just Ireland pipelinked to the country article is fine in all other cases just to help prevent future conflicts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could pipe-link British Isles as Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, damn dont give people such ideas GoodDay :|. The trouble is Britain and Ireland doesnt actually equal the same area that the British Isles does. Britain is one Ireland and Ireland is another, the British Isles includes many smaller islands which are simply ignored with the definition people claim is becoming more widely used. Sadly some people on the British Isles article just refuse to accept that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the Ireland naming dispute & the British Isles naming dispute as inter-twined. Both alleged sides (British & Irish), should try giving up something, to gain something in return. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont, i see the two things in a very different way although i notice alot of the people involved are the same. On the Ireland naming dispute, i totally understand why people have a problem with it being at Republic of Ireland and it does lead to confusion with it being in the title but that is a problem with wikipedia. The British Isles thing is totally different, i understand why some Irish people hate the term "British Isles" just as many Brits would hate being called Europeans but that is not because of a wikipedia policy or decision. People may not like the unfair real world, but we cant change history or reality.

Anyway midnight here now.. Night Goodday, peace =) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be a mad man, but I see a link. PS: See ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay. I think your mad. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite possible. I've been juggling these British & Irish disputes (inside my mind), for years. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey BW, here's more (to "enjoy")! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of this...

[3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comments such as this are not acceptable. It could constitute a personal attack against another editor. If you continue to make such comments, in jest or otherwise, I will have no option but to give you a temporary block for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Military History of Britain

I have complained to the admin who made this most inappropriate move. Are you aware of any redress there might be? Could the situation regarding the external canvassing (almost certainly carried out by one of the editors who was contributing to the discussion - I have a good idea which one) be reported somewhere? LevenBoy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool

There's really no need for you to give gratuitous offence in your comments - I'm surprised at you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressions

British Watcher. Why do you give the impression that you are a BNP supporting racist who hates the Irish and anything to do with the break up of the "British Empire". Over to you. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made my feelings clear on wikipedia on several occasions about the BNP, i hate that party and most of the things it stands for. They certainly do not represent British values and the vast majority of British people would never vote for them, myself included. If the BNP ever came to power, im moving to Scotland and voting SNP =).

Im not a racist and i dont hate the Irish. On Northern Ireland i am happy for the people there to decide their future. If the majority clearly wants a united Ireland then that must happen and i respect their choice, however right now that is not a majority held view. The majority wish to remain British citizens and there for those who seek to impose their view of a united Ireland (in the past with terrorism) must be stopped and those who seek to push one view of history need correcting.

On the British Empire, its over i have no problem accepting that and infact its a good thing because i also believe in democracy. The Empire helped build that democracy which now exists in many places around the world so we should take great pride in the British Empire , which is todays featured article funnily enough. :)BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The British Empire helped to build democracy? Jeez, read your history will you! Am I talking to an educated person here or someone who has been brought up in the English education system? 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well India appears to be a more democractic country than China im sure British rule in India had nothing at all to do with that. How about Hong Kong because of its time as a British territory, it is now one part of China which has a limited amount of democracy and far superior human rights / free press compared to the mainland. The British Empire did many bad things, but you can not ignore the fact it helped spread technology, a legal system, a language (which u are using now), trade, science and yes democracy. Australia and Canada didnt fight to break away from the UK to become democracies, they were granted more and more autonomy as the Empire evolved over time. As for the English education system, yes sadly i am a victim of that. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls...

...don't feed them! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being able to respond to him is more annoying than his comment lol. Congrats on the BE getting on the front page today by the way. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was very surprised by that, as I thought "today" featured articles had to be nominated and go through a points system. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So it wasnt chosen today for a specific reason then? was trying to think if anything happened on the 13th of June. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How sad is it that the both of you still pine for the British Empire. Honestly, you should both get a life, there are more important things in life. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be sleeping now if u hadnt left a message on my talkpage, do you not have better things to do as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now? Nah, not really. I'm just trolling according to TRHOPF. Actually, my question was quite sincere. You do come across that way whether you do think like that or not. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. G'nigth Mary-Ellen.RashersTierney (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

G'nighth John boy. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Im proud to be British, but that doesnt mean i would support the BNP. They would destroy this country if they ever came to power but thankfully the British people have more sense and will never send such people to the British parliament (even with the awful education system in England). If i come across as hating Irish people you have misunderstood me, i dont hate a group of people just because of their nationality, i dont even hate some of the editors on wikipedia who push their agenda like trying to wipe the British Isles off the map, i just hate that agenda. As for the Empire, people take pride in their history im sure you do too where ever you are from. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a tosser. Go back to bed. RashersTierney (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell your friend not to call me a tosser. Oh, and by the way, it's she, not he. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wonderful, anyway i answered ur questions so now i think its time we all get to bed. night BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And good night to you. I would though like you to remove the insulting language used against me just as you removed my inappropriate response. 81.155.156.42 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BW - some of the language here sounds like Wikipiere back again, may be a sock. --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh nooooo, Nooooooooo!!. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What i

actually mean is that an article should start with a definition. Where is it?Phanar (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont quite understand what you mean by "where is it"? it was an empire, the intro makes clear it was governed by England and later the United Kingdom. Most were granted independence after WW2, several places remain as overseas British territories. lets take this to talk thougn, dont just add a section to the article (especially when its on the front page) to put none. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you.

Hi BritishWatcher. I appreciate your measured comments. Best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, ive seen you make alot of good edits to different Brtish politicians articles recently, i have alot of them on my watchlist =). night BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

"Run by a dictator" is not terribly WP:CIVIL. Could you hold it back a bit, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BW. Clearly Domer has decided this is the way he can achieve the outcome he wants, despite the fact he is obviously in a tiny minority. The way I see it, if Domer wishes to spend to time stage-managing his own outcome then leave him to his own devices. The only sanctioned resolution is going to come from the STV process that is being developed, not this sideshow. Lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction. Rockpocket 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)