|This is Rob's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Rob. Alternatively, you can email Rob.|
|This user is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
- 1 Royal and Parliamentary titles act 1927
- 2 Rockall
- 3 National identity cards in the European Economic Area
- 4 Thanks... I think
- 5 January 2016
- 6 Type 26
- 7 Rockall
- 8 Isle of Man
- 9 European Free Trade Agreement
- 10 WP:NOTAFORUM
- 11 3RR at Europe
- 12 Suggested name change
- 13 EU map
- 14 Good Article Reassessment: European Union
- 15 Amazon Video is not available to other European countries.
- 16 MfD nomination of Draft:Island of Cyprus
- 17 European Union
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)
- (Imperial Conference, 1926: Summary of Proceedings Cmd 2768, p. 15 (London: HMSO, 1926).) 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)
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”.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.rvig.nl
- @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)
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)
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 simplify:
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
3RR at Europe
Not sure if you know the three revert rule but you are just about ready to break it. Just in case, the paperwork goes like this:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Dr. K. 23:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Dr.K., I was reverting to the status quo. Still breaking 3RR but you have reinstated a change that has no consensus. I only reverted a third time because I forgot to warn him on his second revert. Now that has back fired I guess. It also wasn't a "nationality-based attack" [I have nothing against the Greek whatsoever...]. He was expanding the list of cities to include Athens and is Greek according to his user page. I was just implying he may be acting on his own POV. So I guess now you expect me to open a discussion on the matter? Thanks... Rob984 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, if you now think you have misjudged the situation, please self-revert? Rob984 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is an arbitrary cutoff that needs wider consensus. It would require further discussion at the talkpage of the article. I would also hope that no nationality-based arguments are used because they are contrary to AGF and simply in bad taste. See you at the talkpage of the article and thank you for your response. Dr. K. 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Suggested name change
Hello Rob, Just for your information, in case you don't follow that particular page, I have proposed to rename and move the article Research, Assistance, Intervention, Deterrence to "RAID (French Police)". I would appreciate your involvement - or comments - if you are interested. Thanks in advance and best regards, Bruno --Domenjod (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you've changed the map on the EU article and then reverted yourself with the statement that you "changed it to the version without internal borders (again) as there is no longer clear consensus for change". I don't know who told you to revert it back, but as a sidenote I want you to know that there is nothing wrong with changing it as you like as you don't need a consensus for every edit. It was actually WITH borders for a very long time until a year ago or so when someone wanted a completely borderless map (both for the EU and the rest) and that caused more annoyance among people than when it was with borders. A borderless map also doesn't add much to the information in the info box as it doesn't give a good impression of who represents the EU. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @18.104.22.168 I changed it back due to a response I received Talk:European Union#Maps, infobox and Member states section after I changed it initially. I don't have any preference as to whether the map shows the internal borders (I think the borders are not informative as you can't distinguish countries much clearer at that size, however it is an important stylistic choice as it affects how the EU is portrayed, i.e. as a federation vs an intergovernmental organisation).
- I opened the discussion because the map was changed by another editor to one showing the EU solely in Europe, rather than on a globe. This I am very opposed to because I the primary purpose of the map is to show the location of the EU in relation to other places. As the EU spans most of west and central Europe, it is pointless (for locating the EU) to show only Europe. Instead, considering the geopolitical significant and size of the EU, it is more informative to show it in relation to North America, Russia, the Middle East, etc..
- Anyway, back to the internal borders... from what I can tell the article has not shown a version with internal borders since at least 2013. The current variant, with borders of other states but not EU members, was added some time before 2014. My view is, unless there is consensus to change the map, it should remain as is. Hence my self-revert. I think you should put you argument at the discussion I linked above if you want to change the map.
- Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Good Article Reassessment: European Union
European Union, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujutsuan (talk • contribs)
Amazon Video is not available to other European countries.
I'm not sure why the source doesn't mention Austria, but Amazon Video isn't available in the Netherlands or Luxembourg or Switzerland, or anywhere that uses the .de site that isn't Germany or Austria, so I put Austria back. You can't use the service in any other European countries, including Ireland, even though the site promotes it until you go through the process of actually signing up for it.--occono (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Occono, I think you mean Prime Video, not Amazon Video in general? You can buy movies on Amazon Video from any country I think. Rob984 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Occono, Ah, I am mistaken. I found a source for Austria: https://www.amazon.de/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201422920 Sorry, I thought because I purchased movies on Amazon.co.uk when I moved to France, but that is because it only checks your billing address. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Draft:Island of Cyprus
Draft:Island of Cyprus, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Island of Cyprus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Island of Cyprus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)