User talk:Rob984

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

Royal and Parliamentary titles act 1927[edit]

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)
@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)

Rockall[edit]

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”.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-navys-show-of-force-off-rockall-28892820.html
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-navy-renews-claims-to-atlantic-island-of-rockall-in-flag-showing-ceremony-174089061-237533371.html
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 (talkcontribs)

National identity cards in the European Economic Area[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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
info@rvig.nl
http://www.rvig.nl

Mdavids (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@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[edit]

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)

January 2016[edit]

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)
It is patently obvious that I disagreed with your edit and the reason you gave. I have commented at the article talk page. Daicaregos (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Type 26[edit]

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 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)

Rockall[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Thanks for the extra clarification much of which I knew already. However the sentence as written in the article on the Isle of Man was still incorrect Robynthehode (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

European Free Trade Agreement[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

WP:NOTAFORUM[edit]

Since you decide to be rude [1], can I recommend you start by reading WP:NPA and then WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not persons. Jeppiz (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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[edit]

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:

Stop icon

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[edit]

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)

EU map[edit]

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. 51.174.227.172 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@51.174.227.172 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Amazon Video is not available to other European countries.[edit]

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)
No, you can't. Neither Prime Video nor renting/buying videos in general in Amazon is supported outside the five countries.--occono (talk) 20:27, 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[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg 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)

European Union[edit]

link what is MOS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viliam Furík (talkcontribs) 16:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Viliam Furík, See MOS:NUM, specifically "Format exponents using <sup>...</sup>, not special characters".
MOS is a policy of Wikipedia. See WP:MOS.
Rob984 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

English and Papiamento[edit]

English and Papiamento are in fact official languages in NL, see here. Adding them back. PPP (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

here too. PPP (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

City of London[edit]

Regarding edits on Greater London:

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the City of London only controlled by the Corporation and not the GL Authority? --TransportJone (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@TransportJone Nope, it's also a district under the GLA. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/introduction. Rob984 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi. I've noticed the good work you do on here. I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to this ambitious British Isles challenge to bringing about 10,000 improvements to the UK and Ireland. The drive is fuelled by regional contests every few months, but it is generally an ongoing content improvement development. If you'd be interested in chipping in with the articles you improve please add your name to the participants and start adding your entries to the big list. Diversity of input will make it much more interesting to peruse! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, Rob984. When you changed Apologist to redirect to a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Apologist" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@R'n'B Thanks for the notification. Sorry, I forgot to check for incoming links. I will redirect it back to Apologetics since I don't think I will be able to correct those links (although I suspect most should simply be removed). A modified hatnote at Apologetics will suffice however. Rob984 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Paris article[edit]

It seems impossible to make any major edit in the article of Paris without being approved by some few editors. This sounds like a WP:OWN.
As the result the article about Paris is more and more a tourist review of the city and less and less an encyclopedia article.
I saw that you intervened in August to face an attempt to remove references to the metropolitan area and the urban area from editors. Minato ku (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Minato ku, yeah, I see the article is being screwed with again regarding the urban area. Not sure there is much you can do about the ownership issue. There's a lot of articles like this, although I really don't understand why this is the case at Paris. I'll try to help where I can but I just moved into a new apartment and I'm quite preoccupied with studies and life so it's difficult to participate in discussions. Personally, I just make small changes over a few weeks, months or even a year, providing extensive justification in the edit summary each time. This makes it difficult for an editor to revert your reasonable changes because you have given good justification for each and every edit. Blanket reverting means many of your perfectly reasonable edits get revert because an editor has an issue with just a few things, so its best not to make consecutive edits all at once.
Rob984 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Minato ku, please stop trying to misinform contributors (to 'rally' them... you should know much better than to try that 'approach' by now); editors with rational arguments about article changes don't do that (they use article talk-pages).
I too have just moved to a new apartment and am in the midst of renovating it, so I won't have much time, either, for the coming months, but I can make time if the need be. For the time being, I just participate in article talk if I have something to contribute to the discussion, but leave the editing to others. Glad to see you so active, Rob984 ; ) THEPROMENADER   18:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Cannock, Staffordshire[edit]

This article has been vandalized by someone. Included are the "2052 census" results, and information about a Russian nuclear missile strike on the town. If Canock is outside your area of interest, could you pass this on to the appropriate party? Reporting these sorts of problems on Wikipedia is itself a huge problem (no obvious way to report them).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.180.56 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the change and replied to your comment at your talk page here: User talk:67.81.180.56. Rob984 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

BAE Hawk[edit]

Thanks for putting the link in. Perfect solution.

I wasn't being deliberately obtuse, I simply didn't understand why you'd need GB£ for a UK-made aeroplane - as I said, it's not going to be Sudanese Pounds, is it? The objector to my edit wasn't positing anything close to a convincing argument.

Looks so much neater now. Much obliged.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.126.253 (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean Geography Question[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my edit. I'm not a geologist by any means, and mostly research Sicily and the Mediterranean. I'm trying to parse the academic literature on oceanic and continental crusts in the Mediterranean. I think the concept I was trying to explain to the reader is that continental boundaries are arbitrary as you suggested. I think it would be in the interest of readers to understand that at least in this case there are several ways to categorise these islands, which have interesting cultural and political histories. As you know arbitrary lines can have large effects of self-perspective and identity. Would you be willing to help me understand this literature and communicate this message more clearly? If not I fully understand, thanks!Paolorausch (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyneside, 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) 10:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Functional urban areas[edit]

As you know, we European are not rabbits, so population in commuting areas does not change in two or three years. In this statistics of Eurostat there are some incongruities, as datas in some case vary too much in one year. I suppose they are improving their technics, but this is not a good reason to cancel actualized datas and, most of all, to cancel one of the largest metropolis of Europe to substitute it with a smaller one. Sorry But I must undo your edit because is inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q (talkcontribs) 06:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) mistake Sorry, I Mistake; It wasn't you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robur.q (talkcontribs) 06:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hi, I ran across this edit of yours, and it puzzled me. Can you explain the difference between a constituent country and a constituent state? I have always considered "state", used in this broad sense, as a synonym of "country". Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian If by "country", you mean "sovereign state" then yes, they are synonymous. However, the phrase "constituent country" is using the term "country" to refer to one which is part of something else, eg a country that isn't a sovereign state, but instead a constituent area of a sovereign state. None of those are federated states. That's not to say a federated state couldn't be referred to as a "country", like Scotland is. But rather than no constituent areas referred to as "countries" happen to be federated states. As far as I know, "state" only refers to either a "sovereign state" or a "federated state", and I have no idea what the article "constituent state" is referring to. Note that it lacks any sources defining the concept it covers. It takes a very broad, unconventional definition of "state". It doesn't have a clear topical scope either. Probably should be deleted and redirected to "federated state". Rob984 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Things don't seem to be so cut and dried. I've been looking into this, and I think there's a lot of fuzz and overlap between meanings in this field (in which, admittedly, I am not knowledgeable). Our articles seem to agree that "country" and "state" are at least reflections of one another:
  • Country: ...a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state...
  • State (polity): A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. States may or may not be sovereign.
To me, "constituent countries" and "constituent states" can be interchangeable. I thought perhaps there was some clear-cut political terminology or definition you were referring to in your edit. — Gorthian (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to revert your edit, sorry. Redirecting constituent country to country (disambiguation) just doesn't work, given the fifty or so articles that link to it. About half can't be fixed by substituting any of the links on the dab page. — Gorthian (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies! I got that all turned around; you had redirected it to the article country. It was a different editor that changed the target to the dab page.— Gorthian (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Gorthian, You are wrong. You can't just take those broad definitions and apply them to derived phrases with specific meanings. The four sovereign states which have areas described as "countries" are not federations, and do not contain entities described as "states". The UK, Netherlands, Denmark and France are each unitary states, which by definition is only one state. The article you are directing the redirect to does not list any of the areas which are referred to as "constituent countries". To avoid the incoming links issue, redirecting to "country" is sufficient, not some other irrelevant article. I changed the redirect a day after it was created. It should be deleted if we can't come to a consensus as to where it should point. There is no consensus to direct it to that article. Rob984 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW if we redirect it back to the dab page I can redirect all incoming links to appropriate articles (or remove them) using DisamAssist. Otherwise it will take forever. Rob984 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so R'n'B was in the process of disambiguating incoming links using DisamAssist (a dad resolver tool that allows you to quickly go through the incoming links and direct them to a page listed on the dab page). If you insist on redirecting it to an article, this wont be possible I don't think. Once the links are gone the page could probably just be deleted. Rob984 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

European Union Customs Union[edit]

Hi, a principal problem with this page is that it is entitled "European Union Customs Union" but its content is EU customs unions, four in number, namely the EUCU plus three others (those with Andorra, San Marino, & Turkey).

Two topics on one page is highly confusing for the reader. Particularly because of impending Brexit, there must be much increased traffic to this page; therefore it behoves editors to ensure that the text is crystal-clear.

Hence at 18:31 today, to improve this, I made an edit (after reversing my initial, erroneous, edit). Unfortunately at 19:39 this was undone by yourself.

I would just like to make these comments on your revision narratives:

19:39 This was your undoing edit. Importantly, & unfortunately, you offered no justification for your action. However you said, extraneously, "[n]o territories are coloured in the lighter shade of blue." Not true: most countries are indeed dark blue, but four countries are light blue (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Turkey). Please click on the map to make it bigger if you need to.

19:47 You said, "'non-EU territories' is a strange term, since they are 'UK territories' but not part of the UK." But your comment is mistaken: the phrase (or equivalent) was needed because it denoted both a state (Monaco) & territories of the UK that are not part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:440:490:287C:331C:93F2:A7AB (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I made the map haha. I know but they are states and "territories" infers dependent territories (Isle of Man, Guernsey, etc.) which are dark blue. Why not just refer to Andorra, Monaco, Turkey, San Marino as "states" to avoid this confusion? I don't really see how changing this helps at all. Fair enough removing states in bilateral customs union, but they need to be remove from the map as well, for consistency. Before the infobox was atleast explaining why they are shown on the map.
I think the bilateral customs unions are relevant to the article. The article is about the EU's customs union so it makes sense to mention which states the EU has bilateral customs unions with as well. Maybe they should be excluded from the infobox and map though.
Your explanation kinda just hurts my brain to try to understand. I'm not really sure what I have done wrong, nothing is inaccurate and I tried to explain in the edit summary. Make your changes again and I will explain what is the problem.
Rob984 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Rob984. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of EACU[edit]

Hello Rob984,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged EACU for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Onel5969 TT me 21:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:onel5969 I don't see a deletion tag on the page, is it still being nominated? It's a redirect to Eurasian Customs Union, since "EACU" is an abbreviation of that term. Rob984 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I self-reverted. I put the tag on after an ip changed the page to nonsense. A little too quick on the gun, but then realized I should have simply reverted. It's been fixed now. Sorry for the confusion. Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The european continent[edit]

Hi!

I just would wish to check if I understand the (present-day) customs and consensus at en.wikipedia correctly:

Am I right to assume that "the [[European]] [[continent]]" is:

  1. WP:SEAOFBLUE,
  2. WP:OVERLINKING, and
  3. MOS:SUBMARINE?

Cheers!
/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johan M. Olofsson Yes, and also WP:INTDABLINK. However, a link to "the [[Europe|European continent]]" is probably okay since "European continent" is ambiguous. Again, "Europe" is fine however. Rob984 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Great Britain (1801–present) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Britain (1801–present). Since you had some involvement with the Great Britain (1801–present) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

United Kingdom, listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom,. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom, redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)