User talk:Jack forbes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re:Hi

You discuss on the talk page whatever issue is bothering you. A good guide is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which you may benefit from reading. Happy editing and all the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you Jack. I'll respond to talk page messages in good time if a reply seems necessary, but it's not always the first thing I do when I come on the pedia. I responded to your first message, and your second didn't necessitate a response. I read it though, don't worry. Is that user box still bothering you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Scottish & British

Hi, the way I look at being British is the same way I look at being European. If the UK left the EU I wouldn't stop being European, nor would be any less allowed to be proud of European achievements through the years.

Similarly, if the UK breaks up I wouldn't consider myself any less British or proud of British achievement. I guess I just see British as being a geographic term. Although I would never be niave enough to use it to describe people from the RoI. Though possible in the future once there is no British State, British will return to just meaning just "of the British Isles" Scroggie (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's to improve the article Scotland, by making it more accurate (i.e. have it's map show it's a part of the UK). Honestly, I'm not a Unionist conspirator going around UK related articles with an evil laugh. PS- Along with wanting to improve the article? I'm also a consistancy buff. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
PS- I just want to note, in all the discussions at Scotland & the relating articles. I've rarely (if ever) have engaged in 'edit warring'. I've kept my differances on the 'talk pages'. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's regrettable that 'sides' do form, in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Content not contributors

Pretty much every one of your comments on talk pages concentrates on the contributor(s) not the content being discussed. Messages like this imply bad faith on the part of others which is against Wikipedia's principles outlined at WP:AGF. Just because a body of users take a simillar stance, that does not mean there is bad faith editting.

Anyway, some of your contributions to talk pages would be more constructive discussing the issues at hand, not the motives or politics you think may be behind it. Who knows, you may even convince someone round to your perspective. There is a person at the other end of the signature and established users usually have best interests at heart, which is certainly the case with myself. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out where I've "rehashed an old arguement" in bad faith? Again, this doesn't address the content but is focussed on the contributor. Discussion is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works; if one cannot challenge material, the project would be rather unsustainable would it not? Users who focus on "personalities" rather than material aren't likely to develop good relationships on Wikipedia. Certainly taking this stance just takes the spotlight off bettering articles and is more likely to cause harm via anger and/or upset due to personal attacks. One should be able to support their point of view through sound and scholarly debate rather than point a politicised finger surely? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My concern, consistently, has been that the word "nation" is used incorrectly. It has nothing to do with nationalist or unionist politics, it's a matter of good practice and proper English. If you must know, to me (and source material it seems), the English and Scottish folk are nations, but the territories they occupy are countries (albeit within a country). It's not a matter of "denying nationhood", I just find the term objectionable as a geographer contributing towards a modern, international encyclopedia. Perhaps that makes my concerns clearer. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello Jack. Inge was reverting a revert by an anon editor. As for myself, I thought UKPhoenix79's map had been accepted by the article (too optimistic, I guess) - thus my reason for reverting anon's reverts. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought most editors had accepted UKPhoenix's map (at least until the anon's reverts). Also, Rab-k & SFC haven't been participating in the discussions lately (thus giving me the impression they silently accepted the new map). As I informed Jz84, it gets disheartening when myself & others are faced with animosty accompanied with Unionist agenda charges (which the anon has accused me of). GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What ya mean by Hang on there? GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, have fun. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're not calling me a troll (which SFC has done twice, at his personal page)? I'm quite content with opposing views. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for Scotland article

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

protest vote

I understand your protest removing yourself from the strall poll. However, it should be pointed out that even if our particular viewpoint is not shared by the majority of current editors, our viewpoint counts. What if I create another option known as the protest option, where you could protest the lack of compromise demonstrated by the current poll?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Map at Scotland

Hi there, I would appreciate if you would revert your recent revert to this article (returning it to the version I unprotected it as). Stability is key to a good article, and content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page until consensus is reached. It is of no real consequence what map is left on the current version... It will be considered the wrong version by many. By letting it be you show that your are engaging in the process, save our readers from disruption and avoid further escalation of the matter. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted, GoodDay's edit got in the way. He's now reverted back to the version I was asking you to revert to. Please let that be the end of it. I do not want to protect the article and prevent the edits it really needs to improve it, or resort to blocking normally constructive editors. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Scotland. Thank you.

Furthermore, there's a discussion on the talk page about that last edit of yours. Editting to preference without citation, justification or commenting is likely to enrage others (like me!). Seriously, please don't assert nation over country given the material on the talk page. If you have a reliable, governmental source that Scotland is a nation, please bring it to talk. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:V trumps things here. Do you have a governmental source that Scotland is a nation before we continue? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Tharkuncoll gave an online, American English definition yes! The site he gave listed 10 definitions, but he alluded to just the one that suited his preference. Ultimately, Scotland is not a group of people, it's a country; what's so objectionable about that? It's what other encyclopedia's, atlases, governmental sources use. Why do you seek to say that Scotland is a group of people, without any reliable citation? It doesn't serve any purpose, patriotic or otherwise! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish journalist

He does exist, "Paul Williams (Irish journalist)", I read your input on Deacons page. Poor chap, he's getting a right bashing on his bio page. Most of the stuff is true, the Monk, and the General etc, they really exist, the General was shot dead in inter-gang warfare. Big problems on Wikipedia with BLPs. 78.19.188.146 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Headings

If I understand you correctly, this happens when you edit the section directly (e.g.) rather than from the tab at the top of the page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of trolls and sockpuppits

Jack we could all be feeding a troll so I suggest we back off a bit and let them shoot themselves (unless they reverse out evidence). See here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd)

Presumptions - Wales, countries etc.

I think it is you who presume too much. I do not support the renaming of constituent country. All I said on my talk page I'd give my opinion which I all ready declared as being going towards a sort of split with the subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. I don't care about the constituent countries article I wanted to divert attention from it as I thought it was irrelevant and as I wanted to sort out the Wales article which is a mess! Seriously, the proposed intro doesn't say anything about Wales not being a country! Principality is not in front of country because it is more important (???), its just for the flow if the sentence. Wales is defined as one by the UN and called as such a lot. It deserves to be there along with county. This compromise is about showing all the sides. Also who said a prinicipality isn't a country either?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 13:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Jack. I notice that since the sockpuppet label went up the activity has stopped! --Snowded (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Scotland Debate

Thanks for telling me about the vote.This sounds stupid but can I take part? --Duckie for broadway (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack. The recent disputes at Wales (which I took little part in), zapped me of any hope of consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
UK Prime Minister must be listed above all First Ministers. There can be no other way around it. If Harper were added to the Canadian provinces & territories respective articles Infoboxes? His position would takes prominances, over the 13 premiers. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. We'll agree, to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
PS- I'm just gonna make 'one comment' at Wales & Northern Ireland (if you bring your First Minister proposal there, aswell). Thus allowing others to comment on it, afterwards. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish independance

A genuine inquiry - from someone who really does not have any axe to grind - why Scottish independence? Is it just "we are Scottish, and up the English"? or is there more to it. Looking at it from afar there seems little practical reason - maybe a greater share of North Sea oil?, and honestly travelling around Britain, there seems little enough difference between Scotland and England, once you get beyond kilts, bagpipes and heather. As I said, a genuine enquiry, why do you want independence? --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Interesting. As for the republican vote - the vote came out of a convention, which adopted a model whereby a president would be chosen by joint sittings of Parliament, with similar powers and status to the GG now. A significant minority of the republicans wanted a directly elected president - and some of the more vocal convinced themselves if they voted against the republic now they might get direct elections later. The monarchists saw this as their best chance - so they campaigned for a directly elected president! The Queen hardly got a mention. The vote was therefore a vote against the model, not against a republic. Irony is, if the vote was "we are having a republic, which model would you want", most monarchists would support the more conservative model. So the republic was wedged. Everybody knows this, so next time around there will be a different approach. I guess the direct-election republicans didn't expect our late PM to hang around for so long, both his no. 2 and of course the Leader of the Opposition were republicans, so I expected most people thought it was only a matter of time. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Labour policy is for a new series of referendums, but there is no sign they are in any hurry. It needs a hero to push it onto centre stage and at the moment I don't see one. It will come back up, but don't hold your breath. --Michael Johnson (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Wales Info Box

Changes look fine to me Jack, not sure what colons would add --Snowded (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Wikipiere against the rest of Jack, so I think its time. Most of the energy game from the sock puppet . There seems to be a strange nationalist cabal, which takes a unionist position but claims to be for independence. I don't know what is going on but I think Wales and Scotland will get caught up from time to time and we just need to defend as it happens--Snowded (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country, out

Scotland and England articles, have rejected that term. Whatabout Wales and Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool; but whatabout 'Northern Ireland'? GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarify - what did I do? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I figured I had it at England and Scotland; so why not Wales (even though it hasn't been removed there, yet). I'll add it to Northern Ireland if/when the subject is brought there. My hopes of consistancy across those 4 articles, evaporated weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just post my RIP Constituent country thingy. Personally, I prefer constituent country for all 4 articles. But don't worry, my guess is NI will quickly adopte country and also put their First Minister above the UK PM. Actually IMHO, had you requested those two changes to all 4 articles all at once? Northern Ireland would've been the first to adopt you proposals. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contraty - NI hasn't responded to your First Minister/UK PM proposal yet. Go figure. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather keep constituent country; but I won't fight its removal. In a way, I'm sorta supporting your proposals, by not opposing them. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hope I was not the subject of your latest comment on talk wales! --Snowded (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that constituent country is preferred at Wales. However, I'm flabergasted that it has been accepted at England & not responded to atall at Northern Ireland. I'd of expected NI to be the first to accept the change & Eng to reject it. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipiere a Sockpuppet Master? I didn't know that. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipiere has explained to me, that his sock-puppeting was a mistake (which he regrets). I'm AGF on his part, that he won't create anymore socks. PS- Guess I'm just an old softy. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant!

This was a brilliant and strangely eloquent piece of writing! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.