User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The RoI discussion[edit]

Trust me, bringing up British Imperialism in that discussion, isn't going to help matters. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I doubt the British Isles article will be moved. No hard feelings, by the way. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis 1[edit]

  • You wrote this is a heading called "Matt Lewis" on British Isles talk (I moved it to my talk page): "Trust me, any satisfaction you find on wikipedia will be ephemeral if you have achieved little in the real world on your own merits. That is undoubtedly your real problem, and your disproportionate anger here reflects that real-world situation." That is a personal attack, with no merit other than to demean me personally. And this is a serious warning. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Are you the same Matt Lewis who has been making accusations of racism, obstruction, dishonesty and much else against numerous posters- all on the current Talk: British Isles talk page for everybody to see? You seem to threaten and personally undermine quite a few people there. (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis 2[edit]

I think you know what's coming.

  • >>>Yes, of course it could be... if you're a complete and utter gobshite and miss the opening line addressed to, well, a different person, for starters. I know, however, that you did not miss that opening line, GoodDay. :-) [[Special:Contributions/|]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)" So when GoodDay saw you being potentially aggressive, he mistook who you said it to. You have abused AGF to suggest that he did not miss it and call him a "gobshite". And you still happen to have said it, though it was not so bad as your response to it [1].It seems to me that because you are an IP address you feel you can comment like you are in a playground. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a silly claim (note: I did not call you silly). As this extract makes clear I specifically excluded GoodDay from entering the realms of being a complete and utter gobshite. I embraced AGF, not abused it, so please desist from these scatological contributions. (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Tis alright Matt; he/she is quite entertaining. Besides, 86 doesn't seem to respond on his/her IP talk page. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There you go, not a bother on the lad. (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hah! Thou does respond here, afterall. Jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Some days are a complete waste, and this was a gloriously wasted day on wikipedia, GoodDay. I achieved nothing in the real world. I did manage to chat up the fiery Sarah, who was having none of my advances at all. Alas. ;-) (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
She may be playin' hard to get. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles[edit]

Hello, I'm an administrator with, literally, years of experience of mediating conflict in this subject (and I have the scars to prove it). I have pretty much withdrawn as an administrator the the subject, but still have the articles on my watch-list and edit occasionally. A few editors have expressed frustration over the method by which you have been attempting to improve the British Isles article (you can see the discussion on my talk page). Having a look at the situation, I have some advice for you. You can feel free to ignore it should you wish, but my experience tells me that if things carry on like they did this evening, then sooner rather than later you will find yourself restricted from editing in some way.

So here goes. Firstly, comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Your comments about Matt Lewis and his achievements (or lack thereof) are not cool. Please keep personal comments out of it. Secondly, while some of your arguments were cogent to policy, as soon as you start quoting Pearse you cast yourself as some crusading Republican whose only motives are political, rather than someone who is interested in improving articles. In other words, in soapboxing you completely shoot yourself in the foot. So if you really think there is a POV issue on British Isles and are serious about doing something about it, you would be best advised to leave the Republican rhetoric for the pub, because treating Wikipedia as a proxy for to a bloody conflict, and all the acrimony that went with it, is the quick way to get yourself blocked.

Thats it from me. I'm not going to block you, but there are plenty of people at AN who will if this continues. Moreover, there is a specific ArbCom restriction for editors who are involved in this subject, and your quotation of Pearse is probably sufficient to get you on that already. You seem like a smart guy, so do yourself a favor and cut out the personal and political crap and you might see some results. Oh, and your really should consider registering an account. Not only does it protect your privacy (which is a good idea, believe me, there really are some nutters involved in editing this subject), but IPs tend to have a very poor reputation on Britain/Ireland related articles. It would be a shame if you were discriminated against because of the poor behaviour of others. Rockpocket 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Its unlikely you will be warned again, 86.xx. Your personal offense at being referred to as British is of no interest to anyone and is of no relevance to our article, please stop using Wikipedia to soapbox. Also, please stop using Irish language words in reference to other people, especially when the terms are less than favorable. The is the English language Wikipedia, if you wish to communicate in Irish, then you are welcome to do so at ga.wikipedia.
You have now been warned numerous times, if this scenario is repeated at the British Isles talk page, then you will likely be prohibited from further participation on that page, under the terms of the Troubles ArbCom. Rockpocket 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada[edit]

I've asked that question, all my life. Why not, a republic? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking to blog about the Canadian monarchy? Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Talk pages on articles are supposed to be only about improving the article, so please don't start debates there. You are welcome to discuss things on your talk page, so here are some answers.

The name of the Queen of Canada is Elizabeth Windsor, as I'm sure you are aware. See Monarchy of Canada for more details. God Save the Queen is not the national anthem of Canada, as a brief look at the article would tell you. There isn't really any significant republican movement in Canada. The reasons for this are open to debate; why doesn't the UK become a republic, and why doesn't the US become a monarchy? In my view, since the Queen makes no practical difference to how the country is run, and it costs the country nothing to have her as head of state, most Canadians take the practical view that we have more important things to think about. Replacing her with another head of state would almost certainly be more expensive.

Yes Canada has the Queen on its coins and banknotes. Again a quick look at the article would tell you this. If yo uhave more questions may I suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite likely, if you asked Canadians who their Head of State was? most would probably answer What's a Head of state?. Again, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Harte[edit]

I removed it because it looked like an advertisement. I've linked to a different page that seems to be more explicit of his employment there.--Macca7174talk 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)