User talk:Rob984

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

Celtic League[edit]

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

Political freedom for the Celtic countries is one of the fundamental aims of the League, because without this freedom it would be extremely difficult to secure our other aims. This freedom can only be achieved if the Celtic countries become independent states in their own right. In turn the Celtic League believes that all peoples have the right to pursue self determination should they so wish. This is one of the reasons why the League shows solidarity in its work with other peoples of the world who are also striving for that freedom e.g. Basques, Catalans, Tibetans, Maoris, etc. and are congratulatory of those people who finally obtain it.
Current Campaigns,
The organisation may promote self-determination in a wider sense, but I don't see how they "promote pan-Celtic self-determination". They promote independence of what they regard as "Celtic countries": Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany.
Considering this is one of their "fundamental aims", I think it justifies mention in the introduction.
I think it's in breach of WP:NPOV to state an organisation that campaigns for the independence of Cornwall, where in the 2011 census, 86% of the population stated they had no Cornish national identity, and 87% of population stated there national identity as English, British or both, "promotes pan-Celtic self-determination", solely based on there own claims.
I fail to see what activity of there's involves promoting "pan-Celtic" self-determination. Is there a secondary source for that per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV?
Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "promoting pan-Celtic self-determination" is poor and unsourced wording, but "promoting pan-Celtic independence" is no better. It is the organisation that is "pan-Celtic", not the self-determination. I suggest that what you need to do - rather than adding contentious wording to the lede without changing the main article text - is to use their own website text on the campaigns to expand the section in the article dealing with their campaigns - for instance, by adding a reference or two to a currently unsourced and somewhat thin paragraph. And, more importantly, what all editors - including me - need to do is to find references from independent sources commenting on the organisation, and rewrite parts of the article based on what those sources - rather than the organisation itself - say. Much of that article is in a very bad state, and is in great need of improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Official language of the UK[edit]

These sources provided by another user states that the UK doesn't have a official language;

[1], [2], [3]

Seqqis (talk)

@Seqqis An epetition? Non of those sources are reputably enough on official UK matters to dispute the British Government. And, the BBC article doesn't even claim English is not an official language. Rob984 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


I was intrigued by this edit changing the value in a "|density" field in {{Infobox England region}}, which in turn calls {{Infobox settlement}}. There are two points, firstly that I don't think that there is such a parameter, and secondly that it isn't obvious where you got your revised value from. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph I didn't mean to change that. And yeah, I don't know, I removed it anyway. Rob984 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dominion of Ireland" redirect[edit]

Hi Rob, I didn't understand the argument in your edit summary. The Irish Free State wasn't called Ireland? Certainly it's not correct, and possibly very inflammatory, to refer to the Republic of Ireland as "Dominion of Ireland". Currently, the Irish Free State article says it was a British dominion from 1922 to 1937, with the ROI listed as the successor state. The only mention of a dominion at the Republic of Ireland article says, again, that the Irish Free State became one in 1922. There's a redirect to ROI, Dominion of Ireland (1937–1949). I've poked around but can't find anything to support that designation. What's going on here? --BDD (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDD, the state named "Ireland" was formed in 1937, but it didn't become a republic until the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. As far as I know it was still regarded as a dominion by the British Government until 1948. However, the Irish Government would never had described the state as a "dominion", and the British Government would never have described it as "Ireland". So instead the UK used the phrases "Dominion of the Irish Free State" and after 1937, "Dominion of Eire".[4][5][6] I'm not sure what use the phrase "Dominion of Ireland" has, if any. Rob984 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So it could be called a dominion from 1922 to 1948, right? Surely it's less wrong to point the phrase to the IFS rather than the ROI. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@BDD Yes. And maybe if you regard Republic of Ireland as only referring to the post-1937 state, but in reality Republic of Ireland (the article, not term) covers the 26 counties during the entire period of being a dominion, even when they were the Irish Free State. Also I'm not sure Irish Free State is the primary topic and I don't think a reader searching that term really knows what specific Irish state they are looking for. Anyway, I'm not bothered really as it gets very little traffic. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've got it! We can retarget to Dominion#Irish Free State / Ireland. It clearly explains the extent to which Ireland was a dominion, and has links to both the IFS and ROI articles. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello Rob. I have a question: what map you think should be in the infobox in article of Malta. Current map [7][8] is standard map on based on map of EU and Europe, used in thirty articles about countries in EU/Europe. New map is 50% Europe and 50% Africa [9][10]. In my opinion, all member states of European Union should have the same - standard map in the infobox - according to the status quo. What is your opinion? Subtropical-man talk
17:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man Well definitely not that one. I commented at the article. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Supercarrier Dispute[edit]

I noticed that you are interested in developing the Supercarrier Article. There is currently an RfC whether to include a section "Proposed Supercarriers". And also a discussion whether INS Vishal qualifies as a Supercarrier? (Same as your doubt). I request the help of experienced editors like you to help bring a consensus in both disputes. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

What is the problem?[edit]

What is the problem? My edit summary stated what. I still see no reason as to why it needs to be in quotation marks. Anyways you should abide by WP:BRD when you are reverted rather than reinsert an edit that has been challenged. Mabuska (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mabuska It's pretty common in English to make a distinction between using a word or phrase and mentioning it. Mentioned words or phrases often appear between quotation marks or in italics, and some style guides insist that mentioned words or phrases must always be made visually distinct in this manner. Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can, in some instances, produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements.
I only reverted because you seem like you are oblivious to this concept. As does Snowded, who, from their edit summary, doesn't even seem to realise the word is being mentioned, not used. Putting the word in italic or quotations has no implication on the point being made: that the state is named "Ireland".
"Ireland" is the name of a state.
Ireland is a state.
If you don't think their is any point in distinguishing use from mention then okay.
Rob984 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see. I don't think there is any possibility of Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can, in some instances, produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements. in this instance, but I now see where you are coming from. Obviously with another editor having reverted, it would need discussed at the talk page. Mabuska (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Orthographic colour schemes[edit]

Conventions change over time. The colour scheme that I've used matches the wikipedia convention as it was at some time in the past, but may not represent the current scheme. FWIW, my script generates CSS at the beginning of the SVG file which can be easily changed for a different colour scheme. However, the globes produced by my script are more visibly shaded around the edges (making them appear less flat). For that, there is no convention and I'm making a stylistic judgement. gringer (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

State of Palestine - Map[edit]

Could we begin our argument agian? exept for the fact I was generaly raged last week, I think we have reached to an un practical argument. Bolter21 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rob984: well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs)
@Bolter21 I replied at the article's talk page. Rob984 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

Read the Talk of UK and thanks again for your good work. (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland (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) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Please can you take a deep breath and think about the changes you are doing. A county can - in the present in England - either mean a ceremonial county (as used by the Lieutenancies, High Sheriffs, etc) or a (non-)metropolitan county. They are two different things, though often are connected in some way.

Wikipedia's articles in these subjects (including unitary authorities) were actually almost entirely correct before you starting editing them, I'm afraid to say (though I see thankfully you have self-reverted in some instances). I plead with you to take the whole subject matter in hand, understand it fully, and only then go about editing.

For example, the point I made about Greater London not having districts is that it has no non-metropolitan districts (ie the districts established elsewhere in England - other than Scilly - by the 1972 Act)... London boroughs are not districts in this sense. In an article about (non-)metropolitan counties, calling the City of London "a county" is wrong/misleading - it is not a (non-)metropolitan county but a ceremonial county only and this important difference needs to be made clear (its administrative functions, similar to that of a unitary, are sui generis and do not derive from its ceremonial county status - indeed it's rather a case of vice versa). Many unitary authorities are non-metropolitan counties, though of course are not described as counties in day-to-day use (and indeed are often given borough status so that they can be described as something more than a mere district). The giving of non-metropolitan county status to a non-metropolitan district is an easy way (for bureaucrats and legislators) to create a unitary authority; it also happens the other way round, eg Shropshire was made a non-metropolitan district in 2009 in order to become unitary. The strange exception is Berkshire... which proves that the normal method of creating unitaries (with the unfortunate mess it makes to the map of (non-)metropolitan counties) is not actually necessary!

And so on and so on. You can tell this isn't the first time I've had to write/explain this stuff!!

Please, please re-consider what you are editing - I really can't be bothered to go about checking all your edits, though when I have more time this weekend I might do and might have to revert a whole load of them (I really hate doing this btw!). Have you had a trawl through the relevant discussions on various Talk pages? (eg of unitary authority, ceremonial county, etc, articles..?) Might be worth it. As I alluded to before, we've been through all this English local government/counties melarky time and time again, and it is settled. More interesting of course is the genuinely new stuff, like combined authorities. Cheers. Argovian (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Argovian. The problem is only the lack of clarity.
I don't see how my edits contradict your first point. If anything, I only tried to clarify that there are two different types. Before there was only a map of ceremonial counties for example. And there was no distinction between information about the two different types. Please have a better look at my edits before reverting them.
As Greater London does not have "non-metropolitan districts", then state that (although I don't see why that is necessary as it is already made clear here: "For administrative purposes, England outside Greater London and the Isles of Scilly is divided into 83 metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties"). Don't state it doesn't have districts, which is not true and misleading.
"calling the City of London "a county" is wrong/misleading" – I disagree. The City of London is a county with an administrative function. "Ceremonial" implies otherwise. Again, it is already made clear that the City of London is not a metropolitan/non-metropolitan county.
"Many unitary authorities are non-metropolitan counties" – again, no contradiction in my edits.
Rob984 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rob, but I don't think you fully understand what's going on here. I really can't be bothered. The only thing I'll state - to point out one example of where you're going wrong - is that the City of London is not a "county with an administrative function". It is a ceremonial county. And also has a very ancient local government. The two are different things. It is not a county in any administrative sense. If you think I'm wrong on this, then go ahead and you'll see when other editors challenge you, that I'm not. Sadly many of the old guard who sorted all this out years ago have stopped editing Wikipedia, quite possibly because every now and again this sort of thing occurred. PLEASE read into the matter more fully. Argovian (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Argovian How does the City of London differ from Northumberland? Both have a single council covering the entire county. Rob984 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
From your comments, you don't actually seem to understand the changes I have made.
"quite possibly because every now and again this sort of thing occurred" – hence why clarity is needed. For example, why is it not mentioned at the articles of unitary authorities that they are non-metropolitan counties, but it is at ceremonial counties? That is why I was confused initially.
Rob984 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)