User talk:Comnenus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:English Bobby)
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to chat but please be friendly. There's more chance of me listening to what you are saying if you're not rude or hostile.


Hello! Regarding your last comment, I don't know if alternate history is your cup of tea, but this timeline has some interesting stuff. Cheers, Constantine 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


I noticed you are correcting entries of Istanbul to Constantinople, when used before 1930. Please feel free to use this reference to back your edits.

  • Finkel, Caroline, Osman's Dream, (Basic Books, 2005), 57; "Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930..".
    --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've posted my summary of the Constantinople vs Istanbul argument, await comments. DNYHCA (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you reverted recent changes to the Halide Edip article, despite the note asking editors to consult the talk page before making any changes. I am now attempting to help us reach consensus and apologize for making a great number of edits previously without going through that process. DNYHCA (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I also notice that you reverted recent changes to the Ottoman Greece article, without noting that the change was purely one of trying to format the source you gave using the same style as the rest of the article. I really can't stand to see things out of alphabetical order. Sorry. DNYHCA (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Bobby. In your last edit to the Halide Edip article, your edit note said, "stop changing it please." But if you look at my last edit, I asked other editors to "please respond in detail on talk page." I have added my thoughts on the Caroline Finkel quote to the talk page. I will be glad to read about what you're thinking, but you'll need to put your thoughts on the talk page. Continually reverting edits doesn't do any of us any good. DNYHCA (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I am OK with the change on my article, Constantiople vs. Istanbul. However, you should know that a Cambridge University History professor sent me personal correspondence saying, "Istanbul is a very old name (<eis ten polin?) but Konstantinyye was usued officially in the Ottoman administration long after 1453. Istanbul would have been a familiar nickname for C'ple in [1478-1510]." So I don't think it is so inaccurate to have left it Istanbul.Albaniadave (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

re:Excuse me![edit]

Ah, sorry. I saw the change from British to English and simply presumed it was another American who did not know England from Britian. In this case it was wrong of me, I whole heartedly apologise. Consider the warning retracted and replaced with an apologies

Kind Regards, --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New Byzantium[edit]

Hello. I was wondering when someone here would bring these guys up... Sorry, but they are a really odd fake, they have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the Komnenoi and the Laskarides, let alone with Byzantium or Greece. For more info see the Eugenio Lascorz article and the links below. Cheers, Constantine 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bobby[edit]

When I mentioned trolls, PoV warriors, and other undesirable people, I wasn't including you. I just was talking with Justin about a negative experience with another user. Sorry for the use of the word "berserk", but I found it not so offensive, since I use to go "berserk" myself, here in WP and elsewhere. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask, why do you support English Independence?[edit]

Hi, I'd just like to ask, why do you support English independence, eg what opinions do you have and how would you think England gain it's Independence. I'm just intrigued, because I've never really heard of anybody supporting this, it usually Irish or Scottish separatism. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talkcontribs) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
  • Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
  • Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
  • Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
  • Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change British to English? (James Cook)[edit]

Why did you change British to English on James Cook? and don't give me a cock and bull answer, seriously it's commonsense. We can't ask Cook what he prefers to be called, so we must make a decision - he was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain and therefore British. I know you support Englishness and I respect that, but you can't just change important peoples' article to suit your political beliefs. Cook was in-the-eyes of the law - British.

I know this may sound rude, but I've seriously had it up to my eyes in people doing this.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talkcontribs) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:James Cook[edit]

Hi, your edit to James Cook is fine, I agree with it.
--George2001hi (Discussion) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

British or English?[edit]

Hi English Bobby,
Nelson is one of my watched pages so I read with interest the recent edits there. I have never considered it before, but I think may have a point. Although Nelson was certainly English, he was a flag officer in the RN which is a British institution. Any further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou.--English Bobby (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are Needed[edit]

Dear English Bobby, Seeing your English skills and abilities, i kindly request you to edit This page as it requires spelling and grammar check. Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

James cook[edit]

He was defiantly English I can totally agree with you, you type in James cook nationality and there are sources claiming he was English, I, like you am patriotic of being English and would much prefer English independents a chance of an English identity before England rips it's self apart, I believe Georgehi and Hilo are the same users trying to bolster up the edit war to keep James cook as British.Davido488 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know It's okay to create an article claiming English people through a little bit of Ancestry, but it's a big deal making a people of English descent for the Scots Irish or Welsh, that's when it's an attack on their country, I've given around five sources to the user Justin letting know that Cook is in fact as English a surname as Harold or Edwards, but he still wont have it. stay strong Lion heart!Davido488 (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, English Bobby[edit]

Hi English Bobby, may I ask - What makes you the card-holder? I've just realised running over the discussions, you changed British - English - Anglo-Scot, if I changed it, you reverted it - but without discussion you changed it to Anglo-Scot, it wasn't even mentioned before in the British/English talk. Why do you get to change it, simply because you believe your right? I'm a British patriot and you're a English nationalist - our views are therefore bias.
I do not appreciated the comments you made of me on the other editor's talk page, rather hypocritical in opinion, your recent edit to your user page somewhat backs my opinion up.--George2001hi (Discussion) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually believe when I changed it to Anglo-Scots I came straight here and asked you if it was acceptable. The conversation I was having with david was about the two-faced attitudes of Wikipedia towards English like me and Brits like you, it was in no way a dig at you. You don't like my comments "about you" well your recent comments on the James Cook talk page could be taken a jibe against David and me so don't act so innocent. Also don't try to put this across as a battle between Nationalists and Unionists because that's not what this is at all. Most Unionists are happy to call themselves English or Welsh or so on but at the end of the day they still support the union. I have nothing against them at all. You're part of a very small minority of unionist's who hate Englishness and do everything they can do eliminate any references to our existence. Funny that you're never seen doing the same to Scottish or Welsh peoples articles, you even thoght my latest addition to my user page was nationalistic (English History, really?), maybe it wasn't PC or something?!.
Its a shame its come to down to this but it happens I suppose, none the less I was not trying to bait you rather compare the situation on Wiki to a fellow Englishman.--English Bobby (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for commenting on the discussion if it wasn't aimed at me. I do not hate Englishness - I just hate what's attached to it; people using 'England' rather than the United Kingdom, the 'Queen of England' etc. But, I do believe famous British members of the Armed Forces should be known as British, I imagine that'd take quite a large all-round discussion about the subject. Let's just put the thing behind us, I'm sick of arguing. Politics doesn't have a place in a encylopaedia, well not a user-made one anyway.
--George2001hi (Discussion) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cayman Islands[edit]


Can you tell me your logic for changing British and Great Britain to English and England here please.

  • It is possible that some of the peoples are descended from Scots or Welsh
  • It is unlikely that the island was under the control of the England rather than the Britain which included England and Wales and the islands.

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As a matter for your own reference, perhaps you might not be aware, the correct title was Kingdom of England from 1542 (England and Wales) and a law was passed in 1746 (and indeed after the formation of Great Britain in 1707) to ensure that after 1746 references to England would automatically include Wales and Berwick-upon-Tweed

This would, of course, mean that prior to 1746 a reference to England would not necessarily include Wales. Logically if a country was "given" or "taken" by the Kingdom of England between 1542 (and arguably 1536) this would also inculde Wales.

Perhaps it would be better if substitutions for Britain or the UK should be replced with "Kingdom of England" ? Chaosdruid (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the reply - but hey ! less of the puritan talk ! lol - I am in Norfolk :¬)
The point I was trying to make was that from 1542-1707 it was the "Kingdom of England" which included Wales. Obviously Scotland and the Irish had no part in any land claims during those years and I was hoping that you may be able to avoid other editors' rebukes by putting Kingdom of England rather than just England :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Useful tip[edit]

To make sure that I don't ever edit while logged out, I use a custom skin. So if I ever see that Wikipedia is suddenly in the default settings, I know I've been logged out. DS (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do the same by using the MonoBook skin, which you can change to in "my preferences". Many of the time I've almost edited and this has stopped me. --George2001hi 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip guys. It only recently started happening, Something to do with my Google set-up.--English Bobby (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Map of the Balkans in (Greek Civil War)[edit]

Dear Bobby You've probably noticed that I have gone in and deleted your map of Greece in the chapter regarding the Greek Civil War. I have done this several times and several times you have replaced it with the same map. That is because this is not a current map and it does not represent the world as it is today in 2011.

I truly believe that civil discussion is the only way to resolve disagreements. That is why I am speaking to you like this. It is something I feel is very important and something that we as people rarely remember. The other thing that is very important is the represenation of history and historical facts. I can't tell if you are in fact English and if you live in England which is part of the EU. If you do live in that part of the world then you would be very aware of the sensitive nature of the Balkans for Greece. You might also be aware of the various attempts to hijack the historical legacy of Greece which is attached to the term Macedonia. For the rest of the world it might be a simple case of a people trying to define themselves within their geographical context. I don't know if you are aware, but the map you have supplied has a clearly delineated boundary of a 'Macedonian' state which does not exist as such. The question of this state's name is still being negotiated. It has been a long time but hopefully one day people will accommodate each other, somehow.

Of course no one denies the independence and sovereignty of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which arose as the result of the demise of Former Yugoslavia. The history of this political entity starts in the late 40s - before that it was referred to as Southern Serbia. Greece on the other hand is defending a legacy going back 2500 years. No one denies their distinct Slavic culture, langauge, customs etc. No one denies their right to exist as human beings in a democratic world, to define themselves and be. However it is important to remember that we should not be undermining a very sensitive process. The map shown should identify FYROM by its temporary name as it has been determined by the UN. The use of your map is not only wrong and unacceptable by most of the world, it is also quite insensitive to the Greeks. Of course I can't tell what your allegiances might be. Anyway, I don't want to go on about it. There is so much to say and so much to defend. All the best to you anyway, whoever you are and where ever you might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzos (talkcontribs) 11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

York meetup[edit]

Hi English Bobby. Just to let you know there is a Wikimedia meetup being planned in York for Tuesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


You have reverted my edit in the article, Abdullah bin Saud, and I have learned that your rv is totally right and based on facts. In fact, the used term for Istanbul was "‎Kostantiniyye" in the related period in Turkish. Thank you for your edit and edit summary.Egeymi (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome sir:). Regards.--English Bobby (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, your rationale about one of your edits is that "Constantinople was named İstanbul as recently as in 1930". Do you really believe it ? Actually İstanbul was already the name of the city before 1930s. In 1930 Turkey adopted Latin alphabet and Turkish PTT issued a circular about writing addresses on envelopes. It had nothing to do with changing the name of the city. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dominic Cooper[edit]

..but actually about the editor Erzan. Just to let you know I was warned by an admin for almost 3RR trying to prevent this editor's disruption, watch out and let others undo Erzan on this article so that you don't get blocked when admins look at this article/their edits, the editor has been reported for vandalism by several of us. regards Widefox; talk 20:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, will do.--English Bobby (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franco-Ottoman alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thermidorian Reaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mehmed IV may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • War (1645–1669)]]. They also fought successful campaigns against [[Principality of Transylvania (1570-17110|Transylvania]] (1664) and [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth|Poland]] (1670&ndash;1674)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh[edit]

Hello, English Bobby,

I thought you were the right person to inform of a problem I'm having with the article for the actress Vivien Leigh. I recently edited the opening line to introduce her as an "English" actress, but this was promptly reverted to "British". The reason given was that she was not born in England, but British India (though this is also true of the likes of Joanna Lumley, who is still introduced as "English").

Lumley has a citation, though; so I managed to find a citation for Vivien Leigh - an online newspaper article featuring a video of an interview in which the very lady in question describes herself as "English" (in her own words, straight from the horse's mouth, and all that)! Incontrovertible, you might think; but it seems this is still not good enough for some editors! Leigh was only "speaking extraneously" about being English, one editor opined, and asserted that British is the "correct" term.

Fortunately, my edit has not been reverted yet, but it feels like it's only a matter of time (probably as soon as someone can think of a better excuse to disregard Leigh's own words and delete a credible citation)! So, perhaps you could keep an eye out? Believe me, I am as sick of this double standard regarding UK nationals on Wikipedia as much as you are! Thanks in advance. (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a look at the article and your edit seems to have been left as it is. As you have a source of her describing herself as English then the article should state as such. I understand your frustration though, sadly there's a lot of Anglophobia on Wikipedia.

Regards --English Bobby (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huaynaputina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Estonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Patrick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulster Scots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Comnenus,

I thought I'd let you know about a user named Erzan (, who I have observed going around Wikipedia and systematically changing references to "English" and "England" to "British" and "United Kingdom". Articles he/she repeatedly targets include Greg Rutherford, Banksy, Idris Elba, David Oyelowo, and more - even when they have citations! I and a few others have undone some of his edits, but the guy doesn't seem to know when to quit. He has past warnings for edit warring, so I'd be watching my step if I was him, but he seems undeterred. It'd be great if you could keep an eye on the situation, as I don't want to get sucked into edit warring on my own. Thanks in advance. (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have had run ins with Erzan before and he doesn't seem to learn from his blocks, my advice would be to maybe find an admin (I'm not) and see what can be done since Erzan's edit warring, being disruptive and clearly here on some crusade, not here to actually contribute to Wikipedia. He gets blocked waits a few months then comes back and starts all over again. It's like an obsession. See what an admin has to say. cheers.--Comnenus (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm so glad I found this discussion. I've also had a few run ins with Erzan myself, mainly over the singer Adele's nationality (see Adele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and wasn't quite sure what to make of it. In that instance they cited an unresolved and archived discussion from early 2015 to justify changing her nationality from English to British, as well as adding sources where the subject has made some vague reference to the subject. I'm tending towards the crusade/obsessive school of thought, but didn't like to say so. This is Paul (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest bringing this up with an admin and seeing what they think about the guy since , like I told the IP, I don't think Erzan is here to add anything productive to WP. I've seen him on other websites and from what I saw I'd agree with your thoughts on him.--Comnenus (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)