User talk:Chickenfeed9

Notice to users: I reserve the right to clear this page of any nonsensical rubbish.--Chickenfeed9 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

unamed users
unamed users stop immediately from writing on my discusion page. It WiLL be regarded as vandalsim and WILL be deleted. This is becoming quite tedious. Get a username or get lost. This is a final warning. I am quite sure it is the same person vandalsiing this space. I have kept the above as proof. I apologise to anyone else that is affected by this, but getting a username is the best way to prevent these misunderstandings.--Chickenfeed9 11:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello there wikipedians!
I have noticed large scale activity on this discussion page. I do not have anything wrong with a little messing around my good fellows, but is there such a need to continue on such a large scale? After all, users whom you dislike should really be registered. However, I do accept the views of this unregistered user. Maybe a little more sincerety in your user page my good fellow?

Lofty 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I wish to apologise if any offense has been caused in the messages added to this user page and will ensure that all new comments are both signed and relevant

User: Ash_online 12.35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Remebrance sunday
Per the redirect guidelines, I have redirected Remebrance sunday to Remembrance Day. Cheers! Urania3 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

English/British
I have noticed that you are changing articles with "British" instead of "English". I would ask you to stop doing this; where the categories say English to have British in the opening line is confusing and unnecessary. These people are English or they wouldn't be put down as such. People should only been down as British in certain circumstance (say they always call themselves British, or they have Scottish/English background). People like Sacha Baron Cohen, Charles Darwin and the others you changed should be described as English. --Berks105 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In retaliation to this, i would like to note that Charles darwin was a famous briton, and should be noted as such. I find it unfair to classify those who represent a nation to be labelled as English, they are afterall, more accuartely described as british. As wikipedia is a factual enclycopeia, i thought it best to give it the most accurate and up to date facts. These people are famous britons, not englishmen. --Chickenfeed9 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, but I disagree. All people from the UK would correctly be described as British, but you like to change Sean Connery or Charlotte Church to British. I think such a change would last a few minutes before being reverted. English is just as factual as British. --Berks105 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This dispute is a very common one indeed, and I must say that I am in accordance with chickenfeed. every other nation on Earth on wiki says their respective nationality i.e. French, German, Indonesian. the United Kingdom seems to be the only nation not to follow this rule which I believe ought to be a wikipedia policy. This is not about imposing an identity but about creating factual continuity. Lofty 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Chickenfeed9, says in "certain circumstances", how do we define such circumstances? Why should Sean Connery be Scottish, but Charles Darwin not? Charles Darwin is known as a famous Victorian naturalist, I don't think British is particular part of that. In addition, you cannot have British at the top of the page, but English in all the categories at the bottom; that is not "factual continuity"!. And while I agree with Lofty that the UK does seem to be the only nation that differs from all others, there is a reason for this. The UK is in effect four seperate countries that were united by the 1707 and 1801 Unions, but these unions have not diminished the idenity of the four countries. If, as Lofty suggests, it was Wikipedia policy to have all UK people as British, it would cause considerable upset. Many people, whether they be Scottish, Welsh or English, could not be acturately described as British. The UK is a special case when it comes to nationality, and it is not as simple as being able to describe all people as British. --Berks105 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People like to have their own regional identities, but nationality of one born in the United Kingdom is British, which is a pure and simple fact. Many places in the world have strong regional identities, but still the nationality, rather than the regionality is used. I see no sense in your argument...Would We put "Lancastrian" for some-one who felt Lancastrian and not British? No, then why should the regions of N. Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland be an exception? Lofty 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not merely "regions" they are four countries that are united by Parliament (to an extent) and Crown. I also believe that many people of the four countries would object to being called "British" (I somehow think that Sean Connery would object for a start). It would be impossible to call everyone British, and you should not think that it is as simple as all people from the UK are British because they're not. We shouldn't always go be legality. --Berks105 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is senseless and poorly constructed. The idea that the regions of the UK be seperate nations with their own nationalities is intrinsically flawed since any-one living in any of these regions holds a British passport and British nationality, recognised as such by every single international organisation you care to name. Although some may dislike the fact, one cannot ignore that anyone from the United Kingdom, which is composed of four parts; England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland is a British citizen. The national sovereignty of each of these places was removed by acts of union, by the terms of which they are no longer countries, but areas united under, as you say, a common parliament to create a new country, thereby abolishing the regions thereof as indepemndant units. Just because some-one from Scotland for example may wish to be know as a Scot, we can't suddenly re-invent Scotland as being an independant nation. I suggest that you study the facts carefully in order to be more aware of the Status Quo. Should you wish to change it, then that is an entirely different matter, but I am dealing here solely with facts so please stick to them also. As you appear to be slighly misinformed, you may like to see this very informative article. British nationality law. And please remember, this is about people's nationality according to fact, not according to personal identitiy. Thankyou. Lofty 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And may I refer you to Constituent country. The UK is made of four constituent countries. Calling them regions is what the EU wants to do to get rid of all our power all togeather. And calling somewhat Scottish doesn't assume the nation has to indepedant, its just saying they are from the country of Scotland. And basing your whole argument on legality is in itself "senseless" as it is totally impractical. For example; If we became the United States of Europe (as some would wish), would you want "is a European actor" on people's pages. Afterall, that is what would be legal with the UK just a "region" of the EU. Legally, everyone in the UK is British, everyone knows that, but that doesn't mean that is what their pages should read as that is not how they identify themselves. --Berks105 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have changed the debate into one the European Union. And what you say is perfectly feasible. Were we to become a United States of Europe, I would support the usage of "European" on wikipedia as it is the best factual accuracy. So your argument based on the Eu, when in fact we are talking about the United Kingdom is senseless. Lofty 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is a Constituent country, not a country. As such, you can look to the greater of the two. You cannot say that the united kingdom is not a country, for it is. An if indeed the European Union does become a country, and we all become Europeans, then that is what wiki shall have to adopt. It would be the most factual thing to write. senseless regional nationalism with the European Union is narrow minded and pathetic and will only make the nations of Europe weaker on a global scale, against the econoic might of China (atleast from an economic point). United we are stronger, and so that is what we shall be! --Chickenfeed9 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent Chickenfeed. Well said. The UK certainly is much better off as a united nation, and all of this wikipedia nonesense just encourages regionalism like mad. It must be stopped! Lofty 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe you think that all people from Europe would be put as Europeans on Wikipedia, you must be mad! Do you really think people would agree with that! In addition, if you really think that whether Charles Darwin is described as British or English on Wikipedia affects English nationalism you have far too higher opinion of Wikipedia! You are both living in dream land (especially if you think England is better off giving money to Scotland as well as having their MPs voting in Westminster on issues that dont affect their constituencies), so I will not continue to having this delightful discussion! Luckily, most people on Wikipedia are intelligent enough to see the differance and the overwhelmingly consensus to say English, Scottish etc in most cases. --Berks105 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The last refuge for him who has lost the argument : insults. And I bet that you respond to this ;) Luckily, most people on Wikipedia are intelligent enough to see the differance between the perception that England looses out from the union and the reality... And I was not saying that all people would WANT to be put as Europeans, I wouldn't myself. Read Carefully..I was just supporting factually continuity. Lofty 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template Debate
Thankyou for your continued support for the great template debate. For more information see: Talk:United Kingdom. Thanks again --Ash online 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'LL HOLD THAT BARNSTAR WITH PRIDE, THANKYOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!! --Ash online 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Pioneer of the great template debate)

Sockpuppets?
This is just wrong. There are several reasons why this makes no sense. for instance: As I have already said, i shall delete the template within a day if this is not responded to.--Chickenfeed9 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Check my userboxes. i obviously have different views to lofty.
 * Check my grammar. It is obviously far worse than that of user:lofty, who uses perfect grammar. He even has a bunch of useboxes saying so.
 * We have both been online at the same time
 * If you wish to make an official complaint, please log in first. I cannot take this seriously and will delete it soon if this is not responded to within a day
 * We have had conversations together, which, if we were the same person, would be very sad
 * it says to check contributions, yet we have both contributed on wildly different things.
 * we both have different Ip's


 * This is pathetic. Why are you my sockpuppet. What is a sockpupet? Someone pretending to be someone else? I am offended they think me that sad! So if that were true, I am talking to myself at the moment? An amusing thought. I must categorically say that I am not you, I am not user:chickenfeed9. Please get this sorted out someone. I suggest that the user accusing you of being a sockpupet is a sockpupet himself! He has made no contributions. Maybe it's Mais oui? Mais oui, is it you? Lofty 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the banner now, on further investigation it was revealed that the user made 2 edits, one banner on my page and one on User:ash online. there is no evidence or support, so i deleted it now. --Chickenfeed9 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppeting
As I am sure you are aware I have been accused of being a sock puppet along with yourself! Obviously this is an abserd suggestions, as we have even had conversations with one another, as well as with user:lofty! I think that this user (who has chosen to remain anonomous by the way) is playing a game, which needs sorting out as soon as possible. Maybe it is a Scottish or Cornish nationalist who is not happy with my campaign... maybe, as user:lofty suggests, Mais oui! --Ash online 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

a joke to lighten your life...
"Two men are on a train. one, a fervent Communist named Rudolf, is sitting quietly in the corner, reflecting upon the values of Mother Russia. The other is a businessman on his way to Moscow. Suddenly, the air goes grey outside, and Rudolf says, 'You know, I think it is raining.' The businessman says, 'No, no, it's quite obviously snowing.No, I assure you, it rains.' Later that afternoon, the business man talks with his wife. 'you know, the Communist i met on the train was wrong.' 'well, dear, i'm sure Rudolf the Red knows rain, dear ...'"'' WHY WHYDaniel is online 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Strategy games
Hello.

WikiProject Strategy games has finished it's first collaboration: Risk (game). We are now asking for nominations and input for a new one. Please voice your ideas at the talk page.

Clyde (talk) and WikiProject Strategy games.

WikiProject Strategy games
Hello.

WikiProject Strategy games finished it's first collaboration on Risk (game). We have voted for possible candidates for the next collaboration, and three finalists have been selected:


 * 1) . Stronghold (2001 game)
 * 2) . Age of Empires
 * 3) . Age of Empires II

If possible, please vote here on which of these articles to collaborate on. Thank you.

WikiProject Strategy games



it was a joke you did not get a not gate right on friday did you Daniel is online 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k
Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated
The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated! Protonk (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
 * Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
 * New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
 * Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Project activity
This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox (User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' barnstar
Just saw a barnstar you gave Jimbo Wales and, whilst you display proud badges on your userpage indicating support of British English and a shunning of Americanisms, you use one yourself:

"For doing something totally surreal, like creating a huge online encyclopaedia. Congratulations!"

I would question if creating a huge online encyclopaedia is "totally surreal". Surrealism is an abstraction from reality, and encyclopaedias are very much a part of reality. The creation of encyclopaedias is also part of reality, as is the creation of large online encyclopaedias. Now, if he'd created a huge, online, underwater megalomaniac called "Fred" whose hobbies were flying, killing purple penguins, eating bacon from cows and driving a square-wheeled car... the word "surreal" would be more than justified.

I wish not to insult or offend, merely to point out a mistake. A quick glance at your badges reveals many common interests, so I would be disappointed if "accepting criticism" was not also common between us.

Thank you :) Yoda (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)