Created first archive period to 29th May 2008

As you see I have made some sweeping changes to Philosophy. I have tried to avoid the contentious bits, apart from the branches (but that was always part of the original). In addition, happy to change the 'wedded' bit. Well, not happy, but, you know. I'm off to watch the news. Peter Damian (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS On seeing your userbox: this user has a rotary dial telephone. Still works. Peter Damian (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I thought about saying that (..never speechless..). But, seeing as Matt's currently annoyed with me? I thought better of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I lost the rag with him on his talk page (and GoodDay's). And here's me with an even temper! Jack forbes (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt's view of me, is of little significants, (unless he chooses to somehow have me blocked for something). My instinct is to nominate the BI page for protection again. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may yet, be a conclusion at BI. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowded, I don't know if you have been follwing the "discussion" between Matt Lewis and myself where he accused me of being exactly the same as Wikipeire. I don't want to get you involved, but I need to ask you one question. Do you think he is right? If he is I might as well pack it in now, but perhaps I can't see things as clearly as everyone else. Jack forbes (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Roberts' Rules of Order, a motion to call for the question is always in order.

It seems to me that everyone involved has said everything they have to say on the subject at least twice, and that the current spate of sarcasm, hurt feelings, and insults is not moving the subject forward. Of course, if at a later date somebody comes up with the mot juste, further change is always possible. Nothing on Wikipedia is final. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Snowded. I probably allowed myself to get dragged into a bit of a brawl with constant accusations being thrown at me. What he does'nt know is that I've got too much respect for Wales to use it to get my own way on another article. I am going to take at least a month off and maybe I'll think differently after that. Thanks again! Jack forbes (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I thought that I'd contact you here, rather than add to the rapidly expanding page. Not everything on Wikipedia is correct, as the information uploaded is provided by people like you and me. Northern Ireland IS part of the U.K. but not part of Britain, so why would you call a person from Northern Ireland British? I was merely trying to raise a point that Chinese people come from China, Egyptians from Egypt, Swedish from Sweden but it doesn't work with U.K. People are called something else, usually by their country of origin; English, Welsh etc. This being the case, weakens, in my mind, at least, the case for the kingdom being a country. I am not saying (at least, I hope that I have not said) definitively, that this is the case but I have never known it to be one but a nation of peoples from a group of countries. I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Perhaps, when I have had time to read through the virtual reams of posts, I may concede. I do love a good debate! (Zippstar (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hallo, again. I do have knowledge of history and if you look at my post, which was more of a question trying to find some kind of accord, you will see that I did state that I am new to this and hadn't had time to read through everything which had been written. I had also observed that the debate had been taken in a direction I did not wish to go, so I was quite clear about what I was querying, hoping that I might get an answer, sooner, rather than however long it might take me to read all that had been written. I was, however, met with hostility and forced to take a defensive position, which was not what I had wanted at all. Seeing how quickly this was developing, I took the debate off the page and directly to the people who had responded, trying to keep things light hearted - hence the comment about loving a good debate - but still questioning. This has obviously not been your perception and as I said before, just because something is on Wikipedia, it does not make it correct; Wikipedia is, in fact, notorious for being inaccurate and unreliable. I also tried to show that I am not someone who is always right. I have never known the U.K. as a country but as a nation of countries (see nation), so when I saw the article, to my mind, it was incorrect. Was I wrong to ask the question? I don't believe so, particularly as I see people often confusing the U.K., Great Britain, the British Isles and the constituent countries and was seeking clarity. I am sorry if I upset you but if we did not question, Wikipedia would have no place at all. Please, feel free to contact me any time. I am always asking questions (Zippstar (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I did read alot of what has been written and I did explain that I hadn't read everything and apologised for any duplication but what I did read did not pertain specifically to my query, which is why I raised it. Perhaps I am a little sensitive but given how clearly I thought I had explained myself, I was a little surprised at my reception. (Zippstar (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

consistancy

Hello Snowded. I noticed you've brought up my old consistancy argument at talk: Scotland, -- good luck. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll stay away from the Scotland talk page for a few days, it appears to be getting a little argumentative and I've had enough of that for a lifetime. PS, Your idea to name it country sounds good. Jack forbes (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowded, what do you make of this. Am I being paranoid or do they appear to be one and the same? Jack forbes (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a report here and would be grateful for you opinion. Thanks.Jack forbes (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snowded! Jack forbes (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I thought that myself, but was unsure whether I should include that in the report or not. Jack forbes (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One comment the ip made to me "Please do not continue this as it won't end well for you" seems very similar to what was said on the Wales page. Jack forbes (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through the Wales archive pages and could'nt find anything. Ah well, I was pretty sure I had heard it before. Jack forbes (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, do you know who it was? Jack forbes (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at the talk page of Bencherlite. Jack forbes (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I support semi-protecting Tongwynlais. It keeps getting vandalised by I suspect the same person. How do we go about this? harris 578 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I did some detective work and found they edit quite a bit without logging on as well. 92.20.105.190 and Cardiff123098 are almost certainly the same user. Can you put the warning on there as well. Cardiff123098 changed the population even though it was well referenced. harris 578 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a hell of a boy! Why does he want to move Tongwynlais further from Cardiff and closer to Pontypridd? Good fast spotting thanks. harris 578 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell he did it again. harris 578 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we've never formally met though I do often see you around (British articles being my primary interests) Anyway, I've long admired you and your work here... Cardiff123098 seems like a harmless, if deeply misguided, kid. I was wondering if perhaps you would be willing to mentor him? I'd like to think that mentoring inexperienced Wikipedians is the only way this project has a chance of working. Nice to finally formally introduce myself, I look forward to seeing you around! -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the user seems to have targetted you the most, you may be interested to know that Fonez4mii has been accused of sockpuppetry. --Cameron (T|C) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have reached a solution. Please have a look. Fone4Me 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that the current "compromise" was a joke by me at how cluttered the wording was becoming... -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've said, any solution reached at UK - would likely be rejected by (at least) 1 of the 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why that discussion occurs at Talk: United Kingdom, is beyond me. It should've occured at Wikipedia: WikiProject United Kingdom. Afterall, whatever's consented to at the UK page? would only apply to the UK page. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about giving him so more advice (is it possible for an editor to develope Talk page ownership issues?). Anyways, I think I'll let an Administrator decide as to whether Fonez's conduct is unbecoming. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might've had a chance if that discussion occured simultaneously on the 4 articles-in-question, aswell. And, you're welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. And if there was any doubt as to whether or not there is a POV being pushed the fact that they dropped constituent country like a led balloon answered them quite convincingly. I'm considering nominating the whole thing for WP:LAME-MichiganCharms (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually do this kind of thing but would you please sign the Come back Jack petition. Our fellow Wikipedian and respected editor User:Jack forbes has sadly decided to retire. Hopefully when he sees how many other Wikipedians really value his edits he will decide to come back! Thanks, --Cameron (T|C) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time someone start preparing a request for one of those for this country business. It's been an issue since the very start of Wiki, it appears, and I think it's time to bring it up a notch... that said I have no idea how to go about requesting such a thing! ha -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am forced to wave this at you. There is not even any need for me to point out the diffs since they are so numerous. Mess up again, and you will receive an official warning. Fone4Me 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snowded, you are welcome to wipe this message off, this guy is a complete knob, he quite obviously has no life to speak of,and if he ever came here he would get a right good Glasgow kiss! :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]