User talk:Rob984/Archive

Hello, Rob984, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Edit to Kingdom of Great Britain

Hi your edit to the Kingdom of Great Britain has be reverted. It is relevant to include the information on the secession of Southern Ireland because it led to the name change for the country to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The information about both this aspect of the United Kingdom's history and that of when it was the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' provide useful links for readers to explore the history further. Robynthehode (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob

Thanks for your information on the talk page. I can see your point about it being contentious. However I still think the information should be there with links but maybe the wording can be changed to make the contentious nature of the change clear (but succinct). Leaving the links allows users to follow to other articles for more information rather than limiting a user's options to learn about the difficult history between Ireland and England and the UK Robynthehode (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

You may be interested to know that there is a task force for this period see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force. You are welcome to add yourself to that list. Also if you start a discussion on the proposed changes to the various articles you have been moving text between, I think it would be useful to notify the other three members as they have a different perspective from mine on the period. -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

English

Hello, Rob984. You recently edited English, adding piped links and removing several items. While you correctly note that pages which simply include the word "English" as part of their name should not be included on a disambiguation page, some articles on similar topics that are not called "English" are nonetheless appropriate for the "See also" section. In addition, DAB pages have their own style (described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages), which precludes using pipes in a way that makes the actual page title invisible. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cnilep, I have edited the page again, redoing some of my edits that I think were appropriate, but as you say, moving them to the 'See also' is better then removing them. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Cnilep (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please stop trying to throw your weight around, as you are doing at Talk:Prom. Your editing style is becoming increasingly opinionated, threatening and disruptive, and I strongly suggest that you cool it before action is taken against you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle I'm not aware there is any policies against being blunt, although it is not advised. I'm aware of my aggressive responses towards positions of clear non-neutral POV, however I think it helps get the point across. I do not intend to be threatening, and try to avoid making edits I believe will be controversial however, being relatively new to most articles, this often takes much time or is difficult to judge. Rob (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

British police

Hey there was an edit made on List of Law Enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom. Although Crown Dependencies, and Overseas territories are not part of the UK per say they do have British nationality and citizenship according to their respective articles and a British citizenship act passed in 1981.

Your edit of removing crown dependencies was reverted by me (I forgot to log in so my IP will be listed ha).

I feel despite this it could be helpful to list them in the article. Overseas territories you left alone but aren't technically part of the UK proper either. I'm going to say it could be helpful if they were included since they're British forces.

But I think you made that edit in good faith. If you still think they shouldn't be included I could suggest that a separate article that lists Crown Dependency and Overseas territories police forces be created separately and just linked to the current list of UK police agencies.

Most of what you did really cleaned up that article, and seems to look well. I just feel the dependencies and territories should be included because it could be helpful to people looking for all British forces. Otherwise a new list article that lists the dependencies, and territories separately could be created and just linked with each other in a see also section.

Mrld (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mrld Personally, I don't think they need to be listed anywhere but at List of law enforcement agencies. Each dependency only has a couple of agencies, and they're independent of each-other as much as they are independent of the United Kingdom and therefore having an article listing them together wouldn't be any more accurate. That said, although it might be politically incorrect to list them in a list of UK agencies, it is a place where many readers would expect them to be listed, so I'm happy to leave them there. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Mia Frye

Hi, I have made an article about an actress called Mia Frye she appeared in the Nikita film etc. If you know french and can update her article please do. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockall

I see you have reverted my deletion on the Rockall article. I was well aware that the comments were on the Talk page, but they were rambling and poorly written and contained original research and POV - against Wikipedia policy. I note that by your Wikipedia history, that you have a poor understanding of the community's guidelines and would reiterate the warnings given above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@David J Johnson There's no policy against discussing original research on a talk page, as this can often lead to sources being discovered after help from other editors. They also provided sources for some of the information, so to revert the entire comment is unreasonable. I believe you have simply taken advantage of a new editor, by reverting their edit, knowing full well they wont feel comfortable contending. You're not superior, stop trying to intimidate others editors. Rob (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Once again, you are you are insulting in tone and aggressive in attitude. Please take some time to read the comments from other editors on your Talk page and their warnings. I rest the case. David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@David J Johnson @Rob Dear fellow editors David J Johnson and Rob984,

Thank you for the 'Welcome' section of your talk page David J Johnson, as a newbie, I promise to read this through carefully when I have the time. I will not make a second topic talk-page edit on wikipedia before reading all the recommendations I find therein and adhering to their instruction.

Also, thank you Rob984 for your warm empathy in regard to my current inexperienced situation.

I am politely asking you both, whether you would consider helping me edit my post on the Rockall talk page. This would be helpful to me to show me how to discuss and edit future talk pages. I genuinely am interested in the subject I chose for my first wikipedia edit and fervidly believe I had suggested a few third-party primary sources to further discussion. Especially in response to the assertion from a fellow editor that there was 'no evidence for what it [the English name for the islet] originally refers to' and 'there is no reliable proof that anyone even knew of [the English name for the islet] in medieval times'. In addition to these sources, I attempted to inform my fellow editor, by providing possible tertiary sources to prove the existence of story that I am certain, albeit through anecdotal evidence, existed beyond the timescale in my fellow editor's suspicion.

However, I fully understand now that my post was about as far from wikipedia guidelines as it is possible to get. This mistake was purely my fault and for it I humbly apologise. In hope of self-improvement and in good natured endeavour to further knowledge, Jwtcat (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

David J Johnson, I am in complete agreement with Rob on this one. There is no justification whatever for deleting a post from a talk page on the grounds that it was "rambling and poorly written and contained original research and POV". If it is a bona fide attempt to contribute to the improvement of the article, then it is as valid as the most polished, literary and neutral post. One of the principle purposes of the talk page is to allow editors to discuss ideas without putting them directly into the article. Any polishing of writing style etc. can then be done before the content is added to the article, if it is to be added, or a helpful editor can explain why the suggestions are not suitable for incorporation, if it is not. Per Talk page guidelines, "The basic rule...is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission (emphasis in original). Jwtcat has nothing to apologise for. You owe Jwtcat an abject apology. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire, If you feel that an apology from me is needed, then I humbly apologise to Jwtcat. However, Rob does need to moderate his tone in his communications and edits with other members of the community. He has already been warned by several editors. Due to moving house, I have very little time to keep this subject in mind and will leave the discussion to others. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Rob (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ireland

The "status quo" you refer to was one of the unilateral echanges that you made two weeks ago. What I said here applies to Kingdom of Ireland too. I am aware that you have reverted me again even as I type this. I will not be drawn into an edit-war with you, but I will warn you again to be very careful how you go. Self-reverting would be a good idea in this case. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Scolaire No thanks. Two weeks is still the status quo, and my reasoning for that is clear. What you said is completely irrelevant. If you are so sure, I guess I will be looking forward to my first block. Rob (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of England

Concur really, Scotland has had another significant personal Union too, that with France. If you're referring, in the English case, to Philip II of Spain or Cnut and his sons, 4 years and 26 years respectively, the first a dynastic marriage (as was Mary Queen of Scots'), the second by conquest. Not really personal unions, in my book. I would actually suggest that the personal union thing is more relevant on the KofE page however, as it was the Scots King who succeeded the extinct English line! Anyhow the weighing up of the significance of one nation against another , much like beauty in the eye of the beholder, is relative to the individual and is WP:POV. Regards. Brendandh (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Brendandh. After the Norman invasion, England was, to an extent, a client state of Normandy; which had a similar amount of significance as the union with Scotland, arguably more. I just don't think we should list these relatively short intervals in at the top of the infobox, when the state existed for 800 years. Thanks, Rob (talk | contribs) 18:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but Normandy wasn't a state, they were vassals of the Kings of France since Rollo to 1066 and beyond...A duchy, with the subject kingdom of England maybe 1066-1204. No Union there, in the modern sense. I agree with the leaving out of frippery if you feel, but you cannot compare the self serving robber barons of the Norman-Angevin period, who would have have little national feeling, with that of the nascent nation-states of the Early modern period, of which both Scotland and England seperately were. Brendandh (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Brendandh. If you want to show the constitutional formation of England in the head of the infobox, from sovereign to subject, then you would have to show all significant formations, not just one. The article covers England since it's formation, and should cover each period, and the significance of events, in relation to the composition of the state at the time, not in relation to what the state was at the point before it was dissolved. The Normandy conquest was on a similar scale to the union of the crowns, in relation to the composition of England at the time. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Rockall

Hi Rob, I've tinkered with the Rockall article and removed the bit about it being disputed as that doesn't seem to be the case amd added a link to the FOI response by HM Government. Perhaps you could look it over? Cheers Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what I've done, but thanks! Rob (talk | contribs) 21:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Rob. Thank you for improving the Falkland Islands article and for asking questions on the talk page. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MarshalN20, no worries. Although MOS:INTRO states otherwise, in this instance, I can see including more British-centric names for the islands, and islanders, when the current name is already controversial, is probably best avoided. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Standard of England

Rob984,

I am contacting you in regard to your removal of the Royal Standard of England from the Wikipedia page on England on the basis that you 'strongly suspect it has no official, or even informal use today'.

The Royal Standard of England, otherwise known as the 'Three Lions' has been used extensively in English culture for centuries since it's adoption by Richard I on his ascension to the throne. This in turn comes from the Royal Emblems depicting lions from the Norman Dynasty. You are correct in saying that the Royal Banner does not represent any particular land or area, it does however represent the sovereignty of the Royal Family. To say that it has no informal use today is a very poor reflection of English culture, the most famous example of the three lions being utilised is on the crest of the English National Football Team, where the 'three lions' is used as a metaphor for England. A more official use of this is in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants of the current Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, and on other royal/governmental insignia and logo's.

Any Englishman is aware of these things, and the Three Lions forms a proud part of their heritage. Any resident of our country is aware of this proud emblem of our nation. Patriotism aside, I find it highly unprofessional for you to remove the Royal Standard that has represented my country for well over 800 years on the basis that you individually 'strongly suspect' - or in other words your own opinion.

Therefore I would like to strongly recommend that you restore the Royal Standard to the page.

- H — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

List of military special forces units

The reason I broke them out was because of units like SPAG, or the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron mention in the talk, that are not combat units. The section at the bottom is the beginning of a proto separate article page. Thus I've reverted your edits. Please let's start a discussion about this, centered on the talkpage, especially if you disagree with my actions. Hopefully at least its clear why these units are separated out. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 I'm not sure those units meet the criteria of special operations forces. SPAG are just a parachute and diving capable assistant force. By this, there no more elite then 2 Parachute Regiment or Northern Diving Group, for example. If there are non-combat units that meet the special operations force criteria, then I would prefer not to have them separate from the main list; although I'm not really bothered either way. – Rob (talk | contribs) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is why it would be good to have a discussion about them. My rule so far has been only to remove units that are clearly not in scope - like 2 PARA - or that cannot be referenced. Thus I'm keeping a bunch of very highly trained specialised units that work with real special forces (the JSOC units and things like SPAG). But it's good to discuss this, which is why I'm copying this entire discussion to the talk page and hoping your further comments will be there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, I'm trying to include a map of the political borders in ireland, however I don't want to do away with the satellite image that is already there, I was wanting to put it below the current map. How do I do this as the edit page it shows this image is below the orginal one? Cbowsie (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cbowsie—A better option would be to add borders to the locator map (the map showing all of Europe), with an insert zooming in on Ireland, however I'm not sure this would be favoured as the article is primarily about the island's mutual aspects, as oppose to its division (although this is discussed). Since it's an article about a geographic entity, political borders aren't necessary. You can attempt to seek consensus at the talk page however. Personally, I'm neutral on the issue, but if we were to favour the political borders, I would advise modifying the locator map (which I could easily do), not slapping a third image in the infobox. You probably can place a third image in the infobox (by using a little custom syntax), but it's not standard for island's infoboxes to have three. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New gTLDs with UK focus

The new Welsh gTLDs aren't specifically country code TLDs but are geographically targeted. The .wales/.cymru are good examples. There is also a .irish but that's going to have a less stringent set of registration rules than .ie ccTLD. From what I remember, there were some talks about a .england gTLD and a .scot. If Scotland votes for independence then the .uk situation is going to become a lot more complex. There was a set of discussions (mainly started by the same person after each attempt failed) about .ie's inclusion on the NI page and basically it ground down to .ie and .uk being included. The .ie ccTLD is available on an all-island basis but people in GB are not entitled to register domains in .ie unless they can prove a business or other (trademark etc) relationship with the island. There's also that parity of esteem thing under the Good Friday Agreement that can be applied. If Scotland votes for independence, the whole .uk thing is going to become a bit more complex (even without Nominet's introduction of .uk rather than .co.uk/etc later this year). Jmccormac (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jmccormac They are TLDs for entities with connection to Wales and the Welsh language exclusively. Only exclusive domains should be listed on a regions article, as domains regarding regions they form part of are already listed at the actual regions article, which is where the reader would most likely look for these. Otherwise, you could claim any region in the UK's TLD is .uk, which is pointless. Regarding Northern Ireland, I'm currently contending any TLDs being listed there for this reason. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 21:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The NI situation is quite complex from a domains point of view (excluding politics). Ordinarily there is what is known as an "adjacent market" effect between TLDs sharing borders or languages but the NI and Irish markets are far closer than that. The .uk ccTLD is actually the largest ccTLD in Ireland (North and South) after .ie ccTLD. There are approximately 20K .uk domains on Irish hosters (most of the larger ones operate on the basis of a single market). It is not as simple a situation as that of Scotland, England or Wales in that a major section of the population uses .ie as their ccTLD and politically there is the equality of traditions that allows someone in NI to have Irish and or UK citizenship. Some of the ISPs operate on both sides of the border (U.TV being a good example). The discussions are worth reading through to see the complexity of the situation and why the non-committal three TLD are mentioned are there. Jmccormac (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:England". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding another user

Hey, Rob. I am not sure what to do anymore. I've contacted an Admin regarding this specific user's editing (I'm waiting for a response). I've messaged him on his talk page, hoping to reach some sort of understanding, but got a generic reply, where asserts that it's not his duty to help improve these articles. I just don't get it. It's giving me a headache. Anyways, I highly appreciate you finding sources. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Afro-Eurasian I get the impression he's just trying to be difficult. I would avoid edit warring, as you may get banned. I'll see what I can find in the way of sources, however this may require a dispute resolution, or admin intervention. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area

I undid you edits to List of countries and dependencies by area as you edit summary did not make sense with your edits and your edits changed the name of France away from the convention used on the page. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@XFEM Skier I started a discussion here on the talk page. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

France

When you last edited the article on France, did you notice anything unusual about the previous editors contribution? :P Green Giant (edits) (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant Yeah... I only looked at the last revision from the diff on my watchlist, which I reverted, and forgot to check for previous revisions by that editor. I realise that's very misleading to other editors, as it looks as if I've looked over them all. I'll be sure not to do so again. Apologies, Rob (talk | contribs) 11:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it happens more often than you'd think. At least your copyedit was done in good faith. :) Green Giant (edits) (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin peoples article deletion

Article Latin peoples is nominated for deletion. I'm notifying everyone involved in the related merge discussion. Diego (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I've removed the sentence you added about the term "regions", because this source does not sufficiently support your edit. In that BBC text, the term "national" is used for E/W/S/NI differences, and "regional" for differences within England. We do not know, from the context, whether the mortgage broker used the term "regions" to refer solely to differences within England or not - and in any case it's a trivial source, people make mistakes. The use of the sub-heading "Regional rises" in a single report by a single BBC sub-editor is not sufficient to support the inclusion of your text. Just raising it here as it could be (!) a contentious issue, and I'm trying to remove any scope for edit warring over it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

List of police forces of the United Kingdom‎

"Removed former Scottish forces, there's an article for defunct agencies."

WHERE?

Kookiethebird (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kookiethebird Here. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kookiethebird Sorry, I didn't see the discussion on the talk page. If you're opposed, then I will discuss. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I will have a look through that other article at some point. Not sure about your changes to my user page but will leave that as well for now! Kookiethebird (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Patrick

Please join the conversation. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Northern Europe

It makes much more sense to place the United Nations' map first. Who has even heard of EuroVoc? The United Nations geoscheme includes the United Kingdom within Northern Europe (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_Europe#Northern_Europe) and wherever the UN defines "Northern Europe" it includes the UK. 79.67.246.138 (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@79.67.246.138 According to the United Nations, the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories. Thus, it is essentially irrelevant to the article. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at a map of Europe with latitude lines, you will see that the Irish Republic is at the same latitude as Belarus, the Netherlands and Poland; non of which are also considered part of northern Europe in the UN geoscheme. The EuoVoc definition at-least uses consistency in what is 'northern'. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthem

God save the Queen is the national anthem of the UK. The anthem has also never been officially declared as the national anthem of England, it is the royal anthem and where the monarchy is the head of state her (or his) anthem is the state’s anthem. Cbowsie (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cbowsie You're telling me this because? – Rob (talk | contribs) 13:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the national anthem on Northern Ireland Cbowsie (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cbowsie 'God Save the Queen' is the anthem of the UK and England because it is used as a anthem for the UK and England. There's nothing else to it. You could argue Northern Ireland's anthem is 'God Save the Queen', as it is used in this sense on some occasions; but generally, it is not regarded as such, and it is not used exclusively. For the same reason, I don't agree that 'God Save the Queen' is the anthem of England; and I don't think the situation there is significantly different. I recommend you start a discussion at Northern Ireland's talk page if you want to add an anthem to the infobox. Most the content you added to the article was already included under Northern Ireland#Symbols. A subsection under Northern Ireland#Symbols, named 'National anthem' would allow a link (probably piped as 'Various') from the infobox's 'Anthem' section to that subsection. In hindsight, I realise I was discourteous in my edit summary. Your edit was in good faith. Apologies. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Hello Rob984, you might be interested in a discussion I started here: Talk:Potential superpowers#Should Russia be removed from this article?. Would appreciate someone like your self expressing your opinion on the subject. Good luck and happy editing. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation but I'm currently preoccupied. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "England, the Kingdom of England". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Police Scotland revised logo (blue version).svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Police Scotland revised logo (blue version).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2 Not really sure how to discuss the matter if the alternative image can't be displayed. By the way, there's three non-free logos at Police Scotland#Force logo and the Court of the Lord Lyon which are not being used for visual identification at the top of the article. I'm not sure if that is in line with WP:NONFREE. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I'm not going to template you, but you should know better. Take it to the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Do not be putting flags into info boxes. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

They look snazzy though :(

It's become almost convention among British articles to include them. I wasn't aware this was contrary to MOS.

Thanks, Rob (talk | contribs) 14:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it's convention not to include them :) NP Rob. Murry1975 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

County

You wrote "There's two ceremonial counties within the Greater London administrative area, 'Great London', and the 'City of London' " - please source. It is generally known, City of London was ceremonial county in XIX century. Is there a source saying that the City of London currently is ceremonial county? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenancies Act 1997 – schedule 1, paragraph 4. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Paring down

If you're interested in cleaning out excessive material, there are some shocking London Borough of ... #Demographics sections that I've chickened out of tackling by myself such as London Borough of Newham#Demography, London Borough of Ealing#Demographics and more. NebY (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stanley

Hi Rob! I noticed your recent edit and I neither support or oppose your edit, but it made me think, is Stanley classed as a Cathedral City per Christ Church Cathedral? It's just a thought we could look into. Of course by size alone it isn't a city, but St Davids and St Asaph in Wales are similar in size and have city status. I'm unable to find a proper definition as to whether Stanley is a city or a town. Also I'm not sure if the term 'Cathedral City' applies to BOTs. Regards IJA (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I believe a settlement with an diocesan cathedral no longer inherits city status. Nonetheless, this isn't England and Wales, and Stanley has a population of less than 10,000, so unless city status has been granted by the sovereign, or the Falklands' government, I doubt it can be defined as a city. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 20:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

London photo collage

Hi Rob, I am afraid I don't think the top photo - of the skyline - is good enough. the skyline looks a bit ragged as shot by the photographer. It would probably look far far better with the Cheesegrater and Walky Talky finished. The way docklands can be seen in the distance is good, but it needs a bit of zoom to bring it closer. Someone needs to take the shot again with the new buildings finished and a bit of zoom. Until that is done we should go back to the previous collage, imho. A P Monblat (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (List of law enforcement agencies in England and Wales) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of law enforcement agencies in England and Wales, Rob984!

Wikipedia editor TheMagikCow just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very good. Good style.

To reply, leave a comment on TheMagikCow's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (List of law enforcement agencies in Scotland) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of law enforcement agencies in Scotland, Rob984!

Wikipedia editor TheMagikCow just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A very good list

To reply, leave a comment on TheMagikCow's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

European maps

Hi Rob, I noticed you updated the map of the UK, the map of Germany and the map of Ireland. I was just wondering if you could also update the maps of other European countries as your versions are a lot more accurate. I also wanted to ask if you could add the South Sudan borders to the small icon of the world map on the top left corner of each of the maps of European countries. Thank you! --KronosLine (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi KronosLine. Sure. I also noticed I partly obscured Iceland by accident. I will update them all as soon as I can. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) --KronosLine (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for file clean up

Hi Rob, thank you for your great work on maps of Europe! I wanted to ask you to fix up two files as you seem to very good at it. I have stressed for these two files to be fixed for quite some time now, however no one took the time to actually fix them. The first file is Time zones of Europe.svg, it depicts the time zones of Europe. For some reason it cuts off half of European Russia and the entire Caucasus, can you please extend the file to show all of Europe. Can you also update Crimea as it switched to Moscow Time back in March. The second file is Greater Middle East.svg. There are a lot of problems with this file and no one ever fixed it. There are a lot of articles which use this file, including Wikipedia in other languages. It would be great if you helped! --KronosLine (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. As soon as I have time. Thanks, Rob (talk | contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the changes you made to the map of Greater Middle East and it looks great, the only thing is can you fix Crimea on that map as it is over-exaggeratedly connected to Ukraine. Can you please do the same for the new map of Jordan that you made. Other than that I just want to say thank you for all your hard work! --KronosLine (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say no because I have priorities and orthographic projections are inevitably going to be updated with more accurate ones eventually. There are many maps that could do with having Syvash added for neutrality. Simply drawing a border wouldn't be NPOV. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding the Syvash is what I meant. Many people mistaken Crimea to be entirely connected to Ukraine as if the Syvash didn't exist which is not the case. --KronosLine (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree but I don't have the time and it will inevitably be done. The widespread location map scheme project is currently creating high quality orthographic projection for countries. I derive my maps from these if they are available. See United Kingdom (orthographic projection).svg, for example. I assume they will do all countries eventually. Rob (talk | contribs) 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

London edit war

We need to settle this because this is just annoying. We need a vote or something to see which picture should be used. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wackslas, the current collage has consensus. If you would like to suggest changes, then please contribute to the ongoing discussion. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Coloured maps

I notice you have been replacing some multi-coloured maps, where different areas are different colours. by maps where all the areas are the same colour. (E.g. this and this). Why do you think this is an improvement? -- Dr Greg  talk  23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Consistency (most locator maps use that colour scheme). I don't see how having them multicoloured really helps either. Rob (talk | contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the map you put in Regions of England is designed as a "location map" (not "locator map") over which pushpins can be displayed. The "locator maps" are derived from the location map by colouring one of the regions red. But the map in that article is functioning neither as a locator map nor as a location map, so I don't see the need to use that style. It seems to me that multi-coloured maps can be digested more quickly than uncoloured maps (especially for more complicated maps than this one). There are lots of multi-coloured maps around on Wikipedia, e.g. in France#Metropolitan regions, fr:France#Découpage territorial et décentralisation, Germany (infobox), de:Deutschland (infobox), to choose a few high-profile articles. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Area maps (multiple areas) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Historical maps (which, despite the name, can apply to modern maps). -- Dr Greg  talk  20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a locator map, sorry. I should stop going on Wikipedia at 5am...

There's a lot of non-multicoloured maps used too (obviously). See Regions of France for example.

I don't think having this map multicoloured helps. The regions are clear without being different colours. On more complicated maps, I agree it helps with clarity.

You can revert my edits if you disagree.

Regards,Rob (talk | contribs) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it doesn't cause any problems being multicoloured, so I don't have much problem with that. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided to "split the difference"; I've reverted the template but not the infobox (which means, for a bit of variety, we get to see both versions within Regions of England). -- Dr Greg  talk  21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:United Kingdom article

When I changed the infobox parameters relating to languages I hadn't realised Brendandh had attempted the same edit a few days prior, and had been reverted with good reason. Just want to let you know that I wasn't being deliberately confrontational, I hadn't checked the page history! - Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland

Hi Rob. Re. you comment on the talk page of the above article, I agree it should be changed to reflect the terminology at the Royal website. If I could remember my log-on I'd do it myself. Sadly.... No Objection from me if you wish to proceed with the change. Regards. Endrick S. 86.131.90.237 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. Can you include a re-direct from the current article name to the new. Cheers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.90.237 (talk)

86.131.90.237, I don't know what the most common name is for the banner but I have modified the page to show the official term. Rob (talk | contribs) 05:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Android Phone

Sorry but in playing with a new phone, think I may have messed with one of our edits unintentionally. I hope I fixed it but feel free to revert me if I didn't. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maps

Hi, I noticed you are a good expert in updating maps. I wanted to ask you to please fix the map of Serbia, the map of Kosovo and the map of Europe whenever you have the time. --Leftcry (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can you also fix commons:File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg. Please don't feel overwhelmed by all these requests, you can fix them whenever you have the time. --Leftcry (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Andorra

Hi Rob, thank you for the edits you made to my requested maps! I was just wondering why the circle for Andorra is missing from the small map on the top left? --Leftcry (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry Do you mean Kosovo? If so, because it's pointless. The small map illustrates what the map is showing in relation to the rest of the world. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean Andorra. It is a very small state and requires a small circle just like Vatican City, San Marino and Luxembourg, but it's missing. All other small states have a circle to represent it but Andorra doesn't. --Leftcry (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The small map on the top left is also missing Nagorno-Karabakh. --Leftcry (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry I'm confused. It does have a small circle :S Rob (talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the small map of the world located on the top left of all the European countries maps you have made. When you zoom in on that map you will notice that Andorra, a small state located between the borders of Spain and France, is missing a representation circle, Nagorno-Karabakh is also missing from that map. Another thing I wanted to say about that map is that I don't think Montenegro needs a circle to represent it as it is actually larger than Kosovo and Kosovo does not have a circle to represent it. --Leftcry (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I also have an urgent request. The main map of the European Union has been replaced on the article so if you could fix the accuracy as soon as possible that would be great! commons:File:Europe EU laea location map.svg --Leftcry (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry I uploaded a new map and added it to the article with labels. I could probably modify the existing one but I would have to keep the alignment and crop identical. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And I see what you mean. I will add the circle for Andorra on future maps. Kosovo probably doesn't have a circle because it's treated as a disputed territory rather then a state. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you for everything! :) --Leftcry (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

EU growth GIF

This will probably be my biggest request to you so far, I wanted to ask you to fix the GIF of the enlargement of the European Union. This is a very major file and it is used on over 100 articles all over Wikipedia. I would like this to be fixed as fast as possible, however I understand that this is a big file and will probably take a long time to fix so take your time. --Leftcry (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That would involve creating new historical maps of Europe. I don't know how to do that. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine maps

Can you update this map File:Europe-Ukraine (with Crimea).svg and make another map where Ukraine is shown without Crimea. They will work as alternative maps (just like there are maps of Russia with and without Crimea). --Leftcry (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I've looked over your changes, again & am now in agreement with them. My apologies for reverting them, yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom disambiguation re: United Kingdom of Great Britain/England

Refer you to recent edit of Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin, with my correction of erroneous reference to United Kingdom of Great Britain. If mistakes of this kind are being made elsewhere on Wikipedia, the disambiguation pages should be where they are clarified and not muddied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms as national identifiers

FYI Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms as national identifiers -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

European Russia map

Please fix commons:File:Europe-Russia.svg, the template is off and Crimea should be a disputed territory. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

BrE infobox

Why are you trying to sneak the infobox back in? One look at the history of the article and there's obviously no consensus for having it there. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Maybe you should ask the editor who added it to the article? Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought it was you. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom

Rob, I've reverted you again on that page.

In general, if the title of the article doesn't appear naturally in the lead, we don't bold anything. So, in this case, if the exact phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" doesn't appear than don't bold "countries" or "of" or "the United Kingdom" just to have something in bold.

The relevent example is the The Beatles in the United States example at MOS:BOLDTITLE. --Tóraí (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí 'Countries' is an alternative name for 'countries of the United Kingdom'. See U.S. state and Regions of France. Rob984 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough given that Country (United Kingdom) redirects here. But I wouldn't object if someone else reverted you again. --Tóraí (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

12 October 2014

you are on 3RR by GhostlyLegend, but somehow, he didnt! Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rob984 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

NI anthem

Please can you discuss changes with me before making them. The info box has a list of what the offical things are within UK. For example, why is the national anthem of the UK irrelevant in 'Northern Ireland' page but not the Prime Minister of the UK. David cameron is not the PM of Northern Ireland but of the UK which the NI is in, therefore the same applies to things such as the anthem, both apply to the UK as a whole. I agree with the argument you made about what could be consider the predominate anthem in NI, however what there is no dispute about is the international recognized anthem of the UK. No one disagrees that NI is in UK, furthermore that 'God save the Queen' is the UK national Anthem. Do you not think that it is appropriate to keep the anthem included? Cbowsie (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

SPAG

It looks like there used to be an article on SPAG, but it was removed as a copyright violation. I was thinking about kicking one off, as there is a reasonable amount of coverage, albeit media. I think it's a fairly short article, as there's not a lot to say about them.

Any thoughts?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've raised the article at Submarine Parachute Assistance Group, so if you want to weigh in on it then that would be helpful.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Military of England

I do not think that anything should be moved from the English Army article into Military of England. For a start the English Army is not just the Reformation army it also encompass the New Model Army (and in many ways the precursor of the professional British Army).

I think that the Military of Scotland is a similar article in concept, but the difference is that the Royal Navy has history of the Royal Navy before the act of union (which was the history of the English Navy), and a similar history of the British Army is in the English Army article which with the name change became the British Army.

I think that the only choice to be made is if the Military of the English Military should remain a short stubby/summary article (rather as it is now) or if it should be turned into a dab page. If you want to change its in any significant way I suggest that we continue the discussion at Talk:Military of England, and invite others to the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS I think it can be expanded with summaries of various military encounters involving the English state, but looking at English Army again, most of the content is within the scope of that article. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Irkutsk Oblast

Rob, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but with Irkutsk Oblast, the applicable portion of WP:NC:CITY#Russia is "when the name of the locality is unique, but conflicts with the name of a different concept..." The "locality" here is an inhabited locality (a populated place); not any other type of division. Please let me know if you have further questions, or comment at Talk:Administrative divisions of Irkutsk Oblast. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 14:30 (UTC)

@Ëzhiki WP:NC:CITY#Russia states: "This naming convention covers all types of inhabited localities in Russia: cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and all kinds of rural localities, as well as administrative divisions"? Rob984 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you are defining "locality in a different country". "inhabited localities in Russia" refers to Russian "cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and all kinds of rural localities, as well as administrative divisions". But "locality in a different country" does not refer to administrative divisions? Rob984 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rob, the "administrative division" portion is there to clarify that when two different administrative divisions (of the same type) share the same name, the methods of disambiguation are the same as when different inhabited localities share the same name. This is why, for example, city disambiguators are used for all entries on the Promyshlenny City District page. But when two different concepts share the same name (as is the case with Chunsky), that's where the last bullet kicks in. Having an article titled "Chunsky, Chunsky District, Irkutsk Oblast" means, in WP:NC:CITY#Russia's parlance, that there is at least one other locality in Irkutsk Oblast (in a district other than Chunsky), which is not true at all. The "urban-type settlement" disambiguator here pairs up with the "District" disambiguator of "Chunsky District" (which is not parenthesized as "Chunsky (district)" because Wikipedia does not typically parenthesize the administrative divisions' types but includes them as a part of the main title instead; a convention Russian divisions follow). Consider also that if there were, say, a company by this name in existence, we'd link to it as "Chunsky (company)"—that would also be an established disambiguation practice and one that the "(urban-type settlement)" convention follows. Makes sense?

With different countries, it's the same principle. We pair up localities in Russia with localities in other countries, and administrative divisions in Russia with the administrative divisions of the same name in other countries. If there is a district called "XXX District" in Russia and a district of the same name in, say, Ukraine, then the Russian district would be at "XXX District, Russia" and the Ukrainian one would be whatever title the Ukraine-specific naming conventions are calling for (I sure hope it would be "XXX District, Ukraine").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 15:37 (UTC)

P.S. I do see how the current wording of the guideline can be confusing. But since it was me who added the "administrative divisions" bit last year (with the intent to clarify that the titles of the articles about the administrative divisions follow the same principles), I've just copyedited it a bit in hopes it makes the intent and guidance more clear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 15:56 (UTC)

Oh, I probably should have figured that anyway. Thanks for explaining. Apologies, Rob984 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Thanks to you, we found and fixed something that needed to be clarified! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 17:14 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hi Rob. Thank you for your message about edits and your interest. I am happy to accept your last edit on the disambiguation note. Is clarifying the difference between the Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland unimportant? I don't know. Unlike your last edit at least it now says what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello AlwynJPie. I doubt a significant number of readers find the link helpful. Readers may have ended up at Republic of Ireland from piped "Ireland" links, or searching "Irish state". I think they are significantly more likely to be looking for Ireland or Irish Free State than a short lived revolutionary state. I haven't seen any evidence the revolutionary state was referred to as the "Republic of Ireland". In fact, I think "Irish Republic" should be redirected to Republic of Ireland and the article moved to Irish Republic (1919–1922) per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Rob984 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

Rob984,

I responded on my talk page to notes you left there.

Thank you for your words.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No bother :) Regards, Rob984 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Thanks for editing the part on the second carrier.Phd8511 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation - Style guide - Table entries

Hi Rob. Just to clarify on country of origin, all RAF Typhoons are built at BAE Systems Warton, RAF Tornados were also manufactured in Britain. That's how WikiProject Aviation defines the country of origin, regardless of it being an multinational project.

Also under role we tend to only mention its primary or most notable role rather than list its many secondary functions. So we might want to trim that down a bit as well. As an example with F-35: Fighter & attack aircraft → Multirole fighter. For Typhoon it would be Multirole fighter too, as its reconnaissance capabilities are neither its primary or notable role. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, And I agree Multirole fighter is more appropriate. Rob984 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal Army

I didn't understand the explanation for your edit. Mesoso2 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rob984&action=edit&section=30

@Mesoso2 "term" should not redirect to "term (disambiguation)". So you need to request Royal Army (disambiguation) be moved to Royal Army at Talk:Royal Army (disambiguation). However, you need to demonstrate "Royal Army" has other uses. As far as I know, the Royal Army of Oman is the only entry referred to in English as "Royal Army". I think Royal Army (disambiguation) should be deleted considering the other entries are only referred to as "Royal Army" in other languages. Rob984 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely the existence of a disambiguation page demonstrates other uses, and someone would have to offer some evidence that Royal Army normally refers to the Royal Army of Oman. The redirect of "Royal Army" to Oman's, when the disambiguation page shows many other possibilities, is not discussed on its talk page. Mesoso2 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's two sources for the Royal Army of Oman:

• The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars, by Spencer C. Tucker
• Guide to Oman, by Peter J. Ochs

Editors assume partial title match = alternative use. It doesn't. It has to be demonstrated that the entry is referred to by that term in English.

Rob984 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain

Hi Rob. You changed 2 of my recent edits. Here is my reason for editing in case you misunderstood: Great Britain is the more accepted term just for the island as the term Britain is often used to mean the whole of the United Kingdom not just the island. The political meaning of Great Britain is extended to include all the offshore islands that come under England, Scotland and Wales not just the mainland (e.g. the Shetland Islands and the Hebrides) i.e. all of the UK except Northern Island. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie Politically, you're absolutely correct. But conventionally, "Britain" refers to either. When talking about the history of Great Britain especially, eg "Roman Britain". Rob984 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your examples Rob984. That won't go down well with some of our Irish cousins who regard themselves as being born in Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Britain can mean a number of different things and therefore should not be described in the lead as another name for Great Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rockall

Why did you remove Category:Territorial disputes of Denmark from Rockall? They still claim it and the UK claims it, or have I missed something? ClemMacGána (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@ClemMacGána Only the UK claims it. Ireland has formally rejected the British territorial claim. Not sure why, I think it is covered in the article. There was a lot of original research on the article a few years ago about Danish and Icelandic claims. That has since been removed. Rob984 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the Danish submission of December 2010 in which they recognised the 200 mile limit, and since Rockall is 198 miles from North Uist, they now accept that it belongs to the UK. Previously they claimed that the edge of the continental shelf (the Rockall Trough) marked the UK limit. The area beyond 200 miles is still disputed. Denmark continues to claim most of the Rockall Plateau overlapping UK, Irish and Icelandic claims. Nonetheless Denmark does not now dispute UK sovereignty over Rockall. Curiously Iceland, which does not claim it, does 'not consent' to the new Danish position.

You mention “Ireland has formally rejected the British territorial claim. Not sure why,”. Ireland accepts that it is in the UK EEZ, but rejects that it is “territory”. It is a rock incapable of sustaining human life and therefore no different than the sea bed. If it was territory then it would carry other rights such as : airspace, EEZ (minerals including oil), and fishing. But it isn't so it doesn't. Regards ClemMacGána (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordship of Ireland

In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus unfeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice.

Replying to your question, that happens to all of the Wikipedia articles about polities that doesn't have a flag/coat of arms. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, it's a period of Irish history. Personal, I would rather only have polities in the successors/predecessors. Anyway, I disagree with the "universal common practice", words are better then no representation at all. Not sure why they wouldn't fit. Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rob,

Regardless of the fact that if it is a polity, historical period, nation, state or any stuff (anyway it has got nothing to do with our topic at all), I'm fine with having historical periods for predecessing/successing sections as with polities. What matters is that the 'universal common practice' doesn't come without a reason. I can guarantee that the Lordship of Ireland (together with the Kingdom of Ireland) is the ONLY polity article that used words in the predecessing/sucessing section, and ALL THE OTHERS just leave it blank. Blank boxes existed in plenty of articles and for a very long period of time, and the existence are just FINE. The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but the act of cramming itself is already wrong in principle. Besides, format and uniformity plays a crucial role in Wikipedia. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

British people

I know newspapers often use Brits or Britons to refer to British people but the term Britons really refers to the natives of Roman and pre-Roman Britain. I wouldn't say Britishers is archaic as it is still commonly used.

I don't like the term informal. Who decides what is formal and what isn't? AlwynJPie (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie Given context, I'm sure "Britons" can refer to either the ancient people or the modern nation. As for formality, I think "Britons" is formal, while "Brits" is informal, but I agree it subjective, and unnecessary. Also, I don't think including "Brits" is necessary considering it's a short form for "Britons", as oppose to a entirely separate term, but I don't really mind either way. As for "Britishers", I've never heard the term, nor seen it used, so I can't comment. Rob984 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wales

I understand your frustration. PS: It looks like I'm being slagged :( GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please be careful around those articles. I don't want you going through what I went through, a few years ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland (1921–1922)

Hi Rob. I don't object to this page move, although I wish you had joined the discussion on the talk page before I did my move. If you look at my contributions you will see about 50 articles where I changed the links following my page move; you will need to change all of these again. There are between 100 and 200 more articles here where I was sitting down to change the links when I saw that you had moved the page, so you will need to do those too. I hope that's not too much trouble. If it is, you can always reverse the move and throw the responsibility back on me. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the discussion. I've done the articles you hadn't yet changed. I will leave the redirects for the time being because someone may change the title again. If it's stable for a few weeks I will change them also. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Scolaire (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation

In the course of performaing some routine maintenance work, I noticed this edit of yours, whose summary reads, in part: "general infobox formatting changes. Unbulleted lists create large line-spaces so aren't really appropriate for infoboxes."

If I find I need to correct an infobox, then as well as correcting the duplicate parameter error, I also take the opportunity to run a little tidy-up script that, inter alia, replaces hard-coded HTML line-breaks using {{plainlist}} (but only where they're used to separate list items, not in other cases). The main reason for doing this is accessibility, see WP:ACCESS, especially WP:VLIST. The plainlist template was, in fact, specifically designed for use in infoboxes/sidebars, see its documentation for further info and links.

It is true that the infobox is now a bit longer, but this doesn't matter on such a long page. Personally, I think the infobox looks nicer and is easier to read using the correct list formatting, since it is easier to distinguish the separate list items. But that doesn't matter very much, the main reason is accessibility.

Regards, --NSH002 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

NSH002 OK, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I agree it's easier to read, but I think it looks odd that the line spaces are larger then other line spaces in the infobox. That said, I don't think it matters very much either. I think there is a parameter for the plain list template that allows changing the line spaces however. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, see Template:Infobox#CSS styling, but such tweaking tends to be frowned on (for an admittedly extreme example, see the fate of Sardanaphalus). Generally better to stick to standard formatting where possible. --NSH002 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

largest cities in the eu

"It states "Largest cities". Paris and London are the largest cities in the EU. What's the problem?)"

Well according to Wikipedia London has a population of 8,400,000+ and Paris 2,200,000+ while the number for Berlin for example is given as 3,500,000+ So perhaps I should ask what is wrong with clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:European_Union/Archive_28#Largest_city. Bring up the issue at the article's talk page if you still have any concerns. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Source

What's you're source for the British army not being a combatant in the Irish dissident campaign any longer? Citadel48 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Citadel48 Operation Banner ended in 2007. Is there any source that current UK military forces stationed in Northern Ireland have a domestic security role? Rob984 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello - 'Paris urban area' and 'Paris' distinction

Hello,

Writing you here because this is a longtime point of contention (by those trying to skew things for foreign ignorance to make things look 'bigger' (to better 'compete' with other international cities)), and it would be good not to blow it all open again.

You are are right that the urban area is more important than the metropolitan area (no such apellation exists for that little-used demographic tool, anyway), but the common distinction in use here is the 'Paris agglomeration' (agglomération Parisienne) when talking of the urban area, and 'Région Parisienne' (a vague reference to the Île-de-France) when speaking of an area outside of that. 'Paris' is the city within its adminsitrative limits (as a commune and department - divisions very strong in the local psyche). I think if we stick to that language, everything will be okay (and factual!).

Take care, cheers, THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know why I mentioned the region.

I agree mostly. The Department of Paris is the City of Paris, while Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne are Paris' suburbs. However I think all are consider "Paris", at least by there inhabitants. Claims such as "La Defence is not Paris", and should not be covered on Paris' article are wrong in my opinion.

I think many editors like to use the city limits to give London a marginal advantage, even though London has no city limits. I managed to get a compromise at European Union at least.

Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wales

Walk away from it, Rob. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Official language of the UK

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

[1], [2], [3]

Seqqis

Density

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)

(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)

"Dominion of Ireland" redirect

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)

Opinion

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
(en-2) 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

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)

What is the problem?

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

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

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 (talk • contribs)

@Bolter21 I replied at the article's talk page. Rob984 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work

Read the Talk of UK and thanks again for your good work.151.40.78.43 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Counties

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox country UK

Template:Infobox country UK has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ireland in the "British Empire"

Hello Rob984. First of all I just wonder if there was a British Empire to "remain" in back in 1707, since there was no Britain before that date. And if Ireland "remained" there it would have had to exist beforehand. I always take what is called the British Empire to be the KoGB or the UK and its colonies, dominions etc. Since Ireland remained a separate realm outside Great Britain, I thought it better to leave the words out. I do think the concept is problematic there and superfluous as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hebel thanks for clarifying. I restored you're edit. And sorry, I must have seen your comment then forgot. Rob984 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Schengen image

He Rob, I saw you changed the country image to a more Accessible one. Now I am not very knowledgeble regarding WP:Accessibility, so I won't change it, but could you make the microstates with open border more visible? Because they are so small, they need loud colours I'd say. Furthermore, there seems to be a white spot near Luxembourg, that doesn't belong there... Thanks in advance, L.tak (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello L.tak,

I fixed Luxembourg and made a minor adjustment to the colour of the microstates. I could make them a different colour (such as turquoise or green) to make them more visible? I just think having them a shade of blue conveys that they are effectively part of the Schengen.

Rob984 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

I changed List of aircraft carriers in service to say that the UK has 2 aircraft carriers in service (plus more under construction), rather than 1. You revert my edit, but I think my edit was good, and you just misunderstood it. In your description of your revert, you said, "That refers to HMS Ocean, a Helicopter Carrier. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers are not in service yet." The UK really does have 2 in service: the Ocean (L12) (commissioned in 1998) and the RFA Argus (A135) (commissioned in 1988). I wasn't counting the Queen Elizabeth class as in service yet. And the List of aircraft carriers in service page is supposed to include both fleet carriers and helicopter carriers. It says that near the top of the page. If you want a list of just fleet carriers, there's a separate page for that here. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The article gives the definition: "An aircraft carrier is a warship with a full-length flight deck, hangar and facilities for arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft". Argus doesn't have a full-length flight deck, and she isn't purpose built either. Even if she was, she is designated a "Hospital Ship" The UK has other similar ships such as the Bay-class. I don't think these meet the criteria, but you could try the talk page. Even the San Giorgio-class is excluded, and those have a full-length flight deck. Rob984 (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero-width spaces

If you think you can help, could you chime in at WP:HD#Zero-width spaces? Somehow one or more ZWSP characters are caused by some of the coding you placed at Chagos Archipelago to prevent incorrect linking in the infobox. Of course I'm not suggesting that this is a fundamental problem (at worst, I'm mildly annoyed that the software makes you do this kind of workaround); I just find the situation a bit confusing. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth free trade

There are no media stories about the FTA because it is not an active proposal though this article wrongly treats it as such. A comparison to the general feeling about the commonwealth is the only way to show how incredibly unlikely this propsal is from a Canadian perspective. On a different note, para above is not cited at all, why remove one that had two sources? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevlar, in my opinion, the proposal is unlikely from any perspective. The second source has some interesting ideas. I have no problem with adding content based on that source, but from a neutral perspective, reflecting the fact that it is one view. I added a CN tag to the paragraph above a while ago, but I don't think that content is bias and I'm not obliged to removed original research (you can if you want). Also it's best to intervene when content is added so the contributor is aware and can modify it accordingly. Rob984 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Spanish ID card

The old image is taken from PRADO, as is the new one I replaced it with. Why should the new one be treated differently from the old one (acceptable for Wikipedia vs. not)? André Devecserii (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

André Devecserii, the files were removed from Commons by Natuur12, with the explanation "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing ". You will have to ask them. It may just be because you didn't provide licencing details, which is not allowed. Rob984 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

please help

i am done editing that union state article because i dont care anymore but can you can you please elaborate on what you mean in two things of what you said 1."Currently there is no pan-Union State legislative body It doesn't exist, and possibly never will." and 2."It is a legislature, as the agreements are directives that must be implemented into national law. This is how most laws in the EU are implemented.", i guesse with your help i wont need to edit the article for some time 95.128.118.58 (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@95.128.118.58 I suppose what I meant is that there is no body which can enact legislation that is in force across the entire Union State. However there is a law-making body (i.e legislature)—the Supreme State Council—where policies are determined in the form of agreements and then exacted in law by the two member states' national legislatures. It's difficult to find clear information on how this works because there was suppose to be a Parliament, with the Supreme State Council simply approving important legislation and agreements, however as far as I know this does not exist. Rob984 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@95.128.118.58, to be honest, maybe you're right and it's best left blank. I'm not sure. Rob984 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Countries with warships

In case you hadn't noticed already; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries with warships. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Guernsey

Hi Rob984, I am very unhappy at your destroying the Bailiwick of Guernsey page. You sent me a message and before i even had time to answer it, you had wiped all my work. Are you saying the information in the Bailiwick of Guernsey page is wrong or incorrect ?

Are you telling me that the Guernsey page is supposed to be the Bailiwick of Guernsey page and not about the island of Guernsey, when it has plainly been written about the island of Guernsey, not the Bailiwick.

Are you telling me the Bailiwick of Guernsey page should be called just Guernsey which is not its legal name ? its like having the United Kingdom page called England. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 01:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope that Rob984 will respond shortly; meanwhile I sincerely sympathise with your grief. No need for unseemly urgency in deleting! BushelCandle (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle I responded at his talk page. Maybe you should read what I have wrote there and at Talk:Guernsey#Proposed new page before undoing damage control, and creating an even more confusing mess. Rob984 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob, OK I accept the apology posted on my talk page, I will now try to sort it. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guernsey (island)

Hello Rob984,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Guernsey (island) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, 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. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Celtic League

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)

Ghmyrtle...

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, celticleague.net

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)

Are you serious

IMF staff estimates are legitimate estimates and no figures here are solid, every country that has a 2015 estimate on it was made by "IMF staff estimates" at least most. Also the the 2014 estimates are made by the same source so are you judging the competence of the the 2015 estimates and trusting the ones from 2014? Referring to your revert on my GDP update on the UK Orelbon 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Orelbon Yes I am. The source provides "estimates" for the next decade. It clearly distinguish between calculated past figures and future "IMF staff estimates". Do you really think the UK's GDP has reduced between 2014 and 2015, despite the ONS reporting growth every quarter? Rob984 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rob984 how about the current estimates in the wiki are wrong considering they don't even have a refrence. Orelbon 20:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Orelbon Yes they do. They are cited to the IMF and also present in the source you provided. Please look at your source, it shows both the calculated figure for 2014, and future "IMF staff estimates". Rob984 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your source here: [11]; it states in the top right corner of the table "Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates". All the cells from 2015 onwards are shaded. the data in that table for 2014 is the same as the data in the infobox at United Kingdom. The source provided currently is this: [12]. It is the same data on a different IMF webpage. The calculated data for 2015 wont be released until 2016. Rob984 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)