User talk:Phoenix79/Archive 4

Hay!
Stop it. I dont' want ninety thousand messages on my talk page later tonight. Will (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to violate the 3RR rule and I can see no choice when a user does not listen to reasonable rational. I am only informing people that have also stated 3:1 against this move that you are not letting the process to work. Yes I know that polls ate not binding and I know that being bold can be a great thing. But polls are designed to get a feel about how the community thinks of certain ideas and often there is no conclusive result from polls. But in this case it is rather conclusive and should be taking into account and respected :-). I don't know how you feel about the 3RR rule but I think highly of it, but it can be interpreted differently as such it is hard to tell if the next revision of yours would count as the last one you can do in the next 24 hour period or if mine is. I would say that yours is since you did take it from the norm but I would rather that other editors get involved as talk pages are generally where disputes are resolved and where we were discussing this very issue in the talk page. -- UKPhoenix79 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By reading the first sentence, you're pot calling the kettle black. If everything worked by majorities, "I like it" and "It's interesting" would save crappy articles. Consensus works by strength, not number, of arguments. Seeing as the "Star Wars" argument is glorified WAX and the "three episodes" argument has been disproven by both me and another editor, it's got less of a leg to stand on than Heather Mills. Will (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that I was going to break the 3RR rule I was saying I saw no choice in letting people know what was going on and asking them for help. I know that you have rationalized this and the fact that you use popups shows me the type of user you are and I know that when I am dealing with people that monitor wikipedia as such they do not let go when they believe that they are right. I am sorry if I am incorrect in your case in my assumptions but when a user states that we had 22 hours to prove our points when the discussion is ongoing in the talk page and the opinion is overwhelmingly in favor in keeping the page as it is and you revert to your version after another user restores it.... it does not bode well for the communication portion of the conversation. If you would halt your revisions you would not be in danger of committing a 3RR violation that by my count you are one away from violating. As they say please come back to the table and lets try to get this right and not just walk out from the round table discussions.... Even if your point is not taken the inclusion of an editor as yourself into this page is needed and wanted. But if people do not agree with your opinions do not just push there opinions aside for yours and say well mine is the only one that counts here. I am sorry if anything I said was harsh, believe me it in no ways intended to be harsh not even on a subliminal level. I am just stating what I am seeing and from my personal experience with other editors in the past. I will wait before I restore it back to the previous version but I do hope that you listen to what I say and do not revert it back again... I do not think that blocking you will accomplish anything but make you upset and create ill will that I have no intention in creating since editors like yourself are necessary for wikipedia to be a success. Thanks for listening. -- UKPhoenix79 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Imaginationland‎ Merge
I did that once, but it got reverted. Appearently, that one user you were mentioning said that it's about consensus for his actions, not how many people want to keep the article separate. Actually, that is a Wikipedia guideline. However, I also do want to keep the articles separate (I have the same opinion for Cartoon Wars as well). I've done my little part, and now I'm gonna keep my nose out of it. T he  C hronic  04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well all is quite right now and thanks for the help. It is now back to the way it was. Is there a discussion going on about cartoon wars now? -- UKPhoenix79 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have to bring the situation up with the admins at the admin noticeboard. As for me, I have dropped my weapon and have backed away from the battle. T he   C hronic  07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I've already posted a message at the noticeboard. T he   C hronic  07:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that is the right course of action? People like yourself have chimed in and it looks like it has returned to normal. The one involved in reverting the pages has stopped after the 3RR notice and another has done a Request for comment. But thanks for the help. -- UKPhoenix79 07:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I got your message on my talk page. I agree with the idea that an appeal to this decision should be made through something like Request for Comment. Since I feel I'm a party to this (I've voted that I am against such a merge), I better not get involved in separating the parties. Feel free to keep me updated if this gets accepted for a request for comment. --Bobak 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Not sure what you mean by separating the parties, but if you can monitor the situation to make sure that nothing fishy goes on that would be great :-) -- UKPhoenix79 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I'm sounding like a hypocrite, but can you leave the poll in its limbo state and allow an uninvolved admin close it or let the RfC reach a conclusion? Will (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure that sounds reasonable :-) We obviously need to discuss this more. -- UKPhoenix79 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another user disagrees... do you think that we should still open it? -- UKPhoenix79 10:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We should leave it suspended until a conclusive outcome in the RfC is reached. Will (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok but I don't think that suspending it is right since a definitive close date is usually better to try to bring the debate to a close as well -- UKPhoenix79 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Imaginationland reverts
Okay, seeing your message, it's apparently over. Do you want the page protected so we don't get into a revert war and arguments? I know the merging was decided against, and apparently you warned him on his talk page.

Just making sure, someone probably nominated the page for semi-protection already. Mr. Raptor 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That might be a good idea, but it would stifle useful edits. I think that we should wait and hope for the best. If it ends up that this becomes a problem and this continues we should ask for protection. Thanks for the reply. -- UKPhoenix79 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have an admin lock the page while it is in discussion or have them ban him from the specific page until discussion is over. Sorry for the late response--Cs california 11:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The user was nice enough to stop upon reaching the 3RR limit, and another user has got an admin to protect the page. I didn't want it protected, only for communication to be restored, but its happened now and I guess we will see what the future will bring with this page. -- UKPhoenix79 11:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the two users (seeing as there were two trying merge the episodes) were violating the vote, but apparently their justification is that the majority vote doesn't count.
 * Wikiality haters? If the admin wanted to settle the matter, so be it. I believe someone also wanted to merge Cartoon Wars and the like. Mr. Raptor 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They convinced themselves it was the right course of action, but they should have stopped when someone else came in and pointed out that the discussion was ongoing on the talk page. According to another user Cartoon Wars was also merged. I don't know if it was by them or not as I have not become involved with that debate. We might have to check it out later to see what went on there. -- UKPhoenix79 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag
Sorry for this late response. Yes, it looks good now on Mickey's Christmas Carol‎. The reason it was added to the film guideline was overkill. Sometimes there were 10 flags in an infobox. Just text is much better. You said that "one should use a flag icon in a template if your going to state the country along with the image to avoid confusion." That is not really true though, if you are going to use a flag, the name of the country should also be mentioned to avoid confusion, but that does not mean a flag has to be used. Also, a flag could be more appropriate for the USA than for Iceland, but the manual of style still seems to prefer no flag at all. Garion96 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. The icon & name thing is actually directly lifted from the official guide so it wasn't me saying that I just thought that it was interesting. I do think that most flags like US, FR, UK, etc are just fine... I noticed that this is a recent change to the policy but I have no prob I just thought that using a shorter name made the template look better, glad you liked :-) Chat to ya later -- UKPhoenix79 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a sockpuppet comment
Hi UKP, saw you interim edit on the talk page. I now see how my statement of "similarly voluble" might have come across as a sockpuppet dig. Not my intent. I was just ribbing you guys cuz you use a lot of paragraphs to make a point. Just a little bit of editorial teasing.

Anyway, we probably can work better together on this article than we have been. I've tried to be balanced in improving it. I think you and I disagree is that Bose's different approach to product design and marketing is an interesting element that should be part of the article. They've really taken a different approach.

Perhaps we should create a section that deals with this issue head-on - Bose advertises a lot, has products that are uniquely designed, and doesn't follow the convention rules of the industry. This has downsides when it comes to comparison which is where a lot of the sensitivity seems to arise. Also, it may surprise you, but I own Bose products!!! Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea I figured out that wasn't what you meant later. They say don't drive angry, I guess you shouldn't wiki angry either. But your comments were clearly not about sockpuppetry I just assumed that they were. I guess I was just frustrated and looking for a fight and I read what I wanted to into your statements. I always try to do what is right and believe that people are honest editors but I guess I messed up this time. Glad I erased it but it sucks that you read it. I try to keep things impartial and this article has dragged me in because almost all the other editors out there are single minded about the company that I feel like I am a lone voice out there trying to fix that. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Powers
Although your list of Great Powers is sourced, I reverted your edit because it left Wikipedia contradicting itself. The list of middle powers is also sourced. I have now tried to compromise by pointing out that this reflects contradictory views among authorities. Reword this if you wish, but please do not restore the version which will leave the contradiction unexplained.

Incidentally, that Germany's leaders consider Germany to be a middle power is surely as good a source as any for the claim that it is a middle power, and hence not a Great Power. And if Germany, with the EU's largest economy and population, is not a Great Power, how can any other EU country be a Great Power? Viewfinder (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Conversation taken up at Talk:Middle_power but your point on Germany is true but don't forget that the other European powers have Nuclear weapons and are a part of the Security council. -- UKPhoenix79 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Great power
Actually, I don't have an opinion on whether India is a great power or not. A good case can be made for India as a middle power.* I do think that Italy is not -- but it's harder to show a negative than a positive. What I have trouble with is having a list of great powers that includes Italy but not India, a point of view I find hard to defend. India has a higher GDP and more military spending, being the two largest factors in the realist analysis (money and guns). Almost all of the sources on Italy used in this article in the last year or so have used the term "great power" without actually using the jargon meaning of the term as we do in the article.

Now, on the sources. I'm really going to have to go back to the library to get good sources for this, but of the ones I threw together Perkovich is probably the most obvious. It opens by questioning whether India is a middle power or a great power, and concludes that India is a great power -- although the article spells out several troubles that could consign it to middle-power status.

I think what the article really needs is a rewrite that removes this whole issue of "what is included" while highlighting more of the debate.

* Great power arguments: Large military, nuclear power, not aligned with existing great power, ability to 'get its Xs' w.r.t. US nuke agreement Middle power arguments: regional influence limited by powerful neighbors, spending restrained by redistributive efforts by the government, otherwise low influence on world affairs

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually couldn't find any information on Italy either and it was also removed, if you check the prose of the text it is mentioned there. I read over Perkovich and he comes to the conclusion that India is not a Great Power (I gave the quote before) so he would disagree, in fact almost every accredited source believe that India is an upcoming Great Power not a current one. I guess we need to work on the page a bit more. Thanks for replying to my message :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that works for me then. The current text is actually fairly close to what I want (thoughthe citations need a massive overhaul IMO): a list of countries that are generally considered great powers (not Italy or India), plus reasons why Italy or India mighr be great powers.
 * And yes, the article does need a lot of work. I appreciate your 'coming on board' to help out here.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Continent edits
Hi Phoenix,

I recently added the word 'Ireland' to the following sentence:


 * The term "the Continent" (capitalized), used predominantly in the European isles and peninsulas, such as the British Isles, Ireland, Sardinia, Sicily and the Scandinavian Peninsula, means mainland Europe, although it can also mean Asia when said in Japan.

I did this as I believe that British Isles alone did not clearly include Ireland. While I realise that both of us are Irish and understand that the term is extremely contentious, I believe in this instance that the use of 'British Isles' alone is unacceptable, as the term is meant in a political rather than technical or geographical sense; i.e. those referring to Europe as 'the Continent' include lay citizens of the entire island of Ireland. Were it merely a scientific reference, it would be less of an issue (if any). There can be no harm in adding the word 'Ireland' - in fact, it makes the passage clearer. This may seem like semantics, but I believe in cultural terms it is significant.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

--Conor (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice message. You see saying British Isles and Ireland is kind of like saying North America and Canada. Its redundant. Canadians have an issue also believing that North America makes one think of only the United States of America giving the continent a political term. But the continent itself has no political meaning and saying North America and Canada is not realistic. The phrase would have to be changed so that it would not be redundant. One way is to say the United Kingdom and Ireland, making it purely political but that leaves out the channel islands, the isle of man, and most of the other 6,000 islands there. Not only that The British Isles is a geographic term for a group of islands. The UK and Ireland are two countries which happen to be located within that archipelago. Also if you say British Isles and Ireland it would be synonymous with "Great Britain and Ireland", and apparently implies that Northern Ireland is not part of the British Isles, this causes problems in itself. The link to British Isles takes you to a main page that immediately shows the image of Both islands. In this case it would be much better to go with the common understood vernacular until a better term for the isles are accepted. Hope that makes sense :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thanks for getting back so quickly! I didn't mean to open the British Isles debate on another page - I've been following it on the BI article talkpages and it's certainly controversial. My difficulty is that the phrase 'British Isles' is clearly contentious (It says in the BI article: The Irish government is opposed to the term "British Isles" and says that it "would discourage its usage".) and can be easily avoided. As you can see in the British Isles article, there is a general trend away from the use of the term, and while some American sources may use the term...


 * Encyclopædia Britannica, the Oxford University Press - publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary - and the UK Hydrographic Office (publisher of "Admiralty" brand charts) have all occasionally used the term "British Isles and Ireland" (with Britannica and Oxford contradicting their own definitions of the "British Isles")...


 * Redundancy can be avoided by using the terms British-Irish Isles, UK and Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland etc. I'm not trying to rehash the debate from the BI pages, but I do feel that it's unacceptable to use a potentially offensive term when a more neutral one could be used. Conor (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops
- thanks. We really do not want to move it to the location I suggested! Neıl ☎  11:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Powers
Hi Phoenix,

I missed the contradiction you pointed out, when I edited the text. The sources use the word "Mittelmacht"->Middlepower but this has a different in German than in English. In Germany the term is of historical origin: Germany at the end of the around 1900 being the dominating power in continental Europe and geographically lying in the middle of Europe. The term "Mittelmacht" come from the geographical position, at least thats what I learned during my history classes in german high school :). I'll edit the text, trying to avoid the contradiction. Feel free to undo if you think I'm wrong, but myself being german I'm quite positive that the cited source are supposed to be interpreted as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.124.4 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please can this matter be discussed on the talk page. I reverted the changes because they were not accompanied by any edit summary or talk page contribution. I had not noticed the above comments, but I think they should have been made on the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You both have good points. If you can take this convo to the pages talk page that would be best. If you are correct about the translation of "Mittelmacht" it probably should still be mentioned if only so that it can be explained. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Wondering why you made Talk:Heath_Ledger/Archive 1 when Talk:Heath_Ledger/Archive1 existed?  m ir a nd a  10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the creations date I actually created it first 07:06, 24 January 2008 UKPhoenix79 vs 07:22, 24 January 2008 Miranda. I guess we both had the same idea. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.  m ir a nd a  10:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag at Heath Ledger
Hi, I would appreciate it if you would restore the BLP tags to the article, rather than forcing a revert of your recent edit. The article contains much content about living persons even if the subject is dead and the BLP policies still very much apply to much of the content on the page. This is something that contributors to the article need to be made aware of. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It will be ignored by other editors as nonsense since the article itself is only and specifically about living people. What I would recommend is creating a tag at the beginning warning people of liable writings & not to make this into a forum, give links to articles about those and other applicable policies and that would most likely work. To sum up if a tag doesn't fit, just create one yourself so that others will pay attention. :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Liable information can still be added to a recently deceased person (i.e. cause of death, chronologies, etc.), because the investigation is still in progress. I really don't want to revert war over this.  m ir a nd a  12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about your reason, but not by using an incorrect template. Use a different template or create one on the page. If you don't agree take this to the Heath Ledger talk page since thats where this should be discussed not here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you or someone else can make one.  m ir a nd a  16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Why did you revert the picture to its darker version? I think the alternative was much better. -- lucasbfr  talk 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile getting some consensus on which images are preferred on the article talk page, rather than just blindly reverting good faith contributions. It'll save tempers flairing all round. Nick (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nvm, that was a caching problem, all should be good now (hopefully). Well the brighter being much superior than the darker and UKPhoenix79 not using an edit summary to explain his change, I reverted and engaged conversation (the article talk page is a mess at the moment). -- lucasbfr  talk 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Blpo
Template:Blpo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Countries
Well a fabulous contribution on your part simply getting involved for (seemingly) no reason other than to provoke me into breaking the 3RR rule. As is obvious i have taken it to talk (which is ridiculous because the facts are totally uncontroversial) and in reverting me you have reverted from the version which is historical fact, orthodox - and prior to TharkunColl's ridiculous tampering - the existing entry for the article. Congratulations again on doing your bit to drag the quality of wikipedia just that little bit lower. siarach (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And now that you've smugly stuck a pompous warning on my talk page i assume that you will be doing likewise on Tharkuncolls? He has, after all, reverted precisely as many times as me. I wont be holding my breath. siarach (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remember Assume good faith Civility Etiquette Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point all of which you seam to forget. You are rather hot headed right now and I will also go to his page, but since you were taking it away from the agreed upon position that other editors put this page at he was only returning it back so I wont put the template up but warn him also to leave it alone. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Had you made the minimal effort of checking the history of the article to place the conflict into context you would see that Tharkuncolls version a matter of days old and is agreed upon by him alone. Quite frankly this ridiculous controversy is so one-sided in terms of which argument is backed up by orthodox opinion and facts that Tharkuns edit is better viewed as vandalism. But i'l leave it at that. siarach (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ive just noticed that you were actually the first to insert this nonsense about Athelstan into the article. That just about explains it. siarach (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Then explain to me how these dates make sense? If they are correct then my original thought that it should be Bill of Rights 1689 or the Acts of Union 1707 are void. I brought this up here. Your argument is not with the UK but with how the article looks at Date of statehood. If you change it from modern statehood then I am 100% behind you but until then you are incorrect since this article seams to believe that historical ones are better. Just go to the talk page and have others join your crusade to change ALL of the silly dates and you will find support... hopefully.... But PLEASE remember Assume good faith Civility & Etiquette because your not showing any! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * China on December 22, 221 BC Unification of China by Emperor Qin Shi Huang
 * Denmark in the 10th century Organized as a unified state by Harold Bluetooth around 980.
 * Egypt in 3100 BC Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Menes
 * Ethiopia in 980 BC Beginnings of a state forms in area that will become Ethiopia (traditional date of founding)
 * France in August 843 Treaty of Verdun, whereby Charles the Bald receives West Francia, the precursor of modern France
 * India 320 BC Unification of India by Emperor Chandragupta Maurya
 * Iran in 728 BC Establishment of Median Dynasty by Diyako
 * Israel in 1006 BCE David consolidates the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah into a single state
 * North Korea in 74 when Goguryeo under Taejo consolidates remaining states of northern Korea
 * South Korea in 668 AD when Unified Silla under Munmu gains control of the southern portion of the Korean peninsula
 * Myanmar in 1044 when Anawrahta's establishment of the First Burmese Empire
 * Norway in 872 when Harald Fairhair creates the first unified Norwegian state by uniting the Norwegian petty kingdoms
 * Serbia in c. 800 Višeslav unites medieval Serbia into one state
 * Sweden in 995 Olof Skötkonung became the first king to rule both Svealand and Götaland
 * Viet Nam in 2897 BC Rise of Văn Lang Confederacy from Văn Lang Tribe

List of countries by formation dates
You should also note that your habitual failure to use Edit summaries is likely to gain you few admirers in the Wikipedia community. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we both gave each other 3rr warnings apparently at the same time so what happens now??? And I generally do create edit summaries on this page (just not always my talk page). What are you referring to? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wasting your time with Mais oui! - he is not only persistently rude and unpleasant, but also insane... never talks, only rants. Don't let him get you down ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to talk and discuss our difference of opinions. Are you sure that there is no hope? I have worked with him before and he seamed rather nice then. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I have had no sensible discussion with him at any point, so you've done well if you've worked with him productively. The only concept of differing opinions that I've seen him exercise is that he's right and everyone else is wrong. He is at the very least unpredictable, and extremely stubborn. The best thing about him is that he eventually goes away and pesters someone else. Good luck :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess that was because we agreed at that time... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha probably :) He's taking another potshot at me now... happy editing! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates
Another editor has added the  template to the article List of countries by formation dates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of countries by formation dates
An editor has nominated List of countries by formation dates, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

UK constituent countries' Maps
As a consistancy buff? I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Hopefully all 'four' articles will adopt the same Map. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we shall see. I hope this conversation can get some standard going. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear we may not get that map changed, without editors (on both sides) getting blocked. A very pathetic situation, it has become. I can't understand why it's such a terrible thing to fall in with the 3 other articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales map
Thanks for placing the Wales map within the British isles. I have a thought I was hoping you could help with. For the map... I wished to use the standard style as common with out maps... if this makes sense. And have it of the British Isles and the extream north of France. I think this is important for context.

On that map, I was hoping to have various contries in the British Isles and France (and Britany) listed... I dont mind the shading of the UK, with Wales highlighted... but think for consistancy we should have the same style of map. Also, the map of NW Europe (British Isles and N. France) should also have a small map in the lower right-side showing the British Isles within Europe as a whole. Can you help me find this kind of map?Drachenfyre (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Left message on the Wales page regarding map and edit reversions, please can you post your comments there?Drachenfyre (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Relocation of others' comments on Talk pages
In your edit at 7:49 this morning, you relocated my comments on the Scotland Talk page, so that the comment no longer sat next to the text on whose factual accuracy it was commenting. You did not consult me before doing so. I do not regard that as appropriate behavior. AllyD (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but that was not where comments were supposed to be placed. I moved it down but did not change your text, nor did I relocate it to a location that would change the meaning of your comment. Also what you wrote was factually incorrect I have checked 193 countries and found out that even Belgium does not use the map you said. The article you provided was not even the article about the region (equal to a US State). Check all my work if you wish! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re maps
Not wanting to get drawn into the argument over there - just noting an interesting anomaly for your map survey. For France the department maps don't all follow the Bretagne example, the overseas departments like French Guiana use a different style of map, each one unique. French departments are an unusual case where standardizing would definitely make the maps less useful. Bazzargh (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad that you find the conversation as fascinating as I do :-) But the Overseas departments in France would the the same as the Crown Dependencies in the UK. I don't think I have the ability to create them for you but were you trying to do the same as what is done in the US for their non-continuous states (i.e. Image:Map of USA AK.svg)? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the legal status of the overseas departments is more akin to that of Hawaii - they elect members of the French parliament and the European parliament, indeed Réunion, off Madagascar, was the first place to use the euro. And I wouldn't want to do to those articles what's been done recently to the AK/HI articles, I don't think that map is undue emphasis. Its more important to the USA article to show all the states, but for the Alaska article to show it less than 1/4 of the correct size, and in the wrong place is difficult to justify (and indeed there were multiple discussions on their talk pages about the problems with that particular map). I think a better solution would have been to recolour the maps that were there, perhaps showing some of the Chukchi Peninsula on the Alaska map to avoid Canadian objections similar to the ones to Ireland on your earlier map. However, I don't want to waste my life dealing with a second front of the Scottish dispute, and I expect User:Yksin will fix it when he returns. The situation is more acute for the French case though, because while most people would know where Alaska should have been, plonking Réunion in a box over the Mediterranean wouldn't improve the article. Bazzargh (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I'll have to do more research another day and get back to you on that one. Maybe I can help with the Alaska one later also :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
It seems as though most of us prefer a map that shows Scotland within the United Kingdom. I fear if/when the map is changed, it will quickly be reverted (again). I'm dissapointed in the apparent recent 'lack of participation' in the discussion by some of those who oppose a change of map. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the key on your new map for Scotland read Scotland "red" UK "Cream". I figure "Camel" is that colour shown for France/RoI? I could be colour-blind of course... Rab-k (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot that you'd brought this up already Rab-k! I've just fixed it on Scotland to read 'light yellow', since that is the nearest SVG name for the colour. Just popped over to drop a note that this needs checked on the other pages. Bazzargh (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your map is being rejected at Scotland by an anon. Sigh, just when I thought this was settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I'm working on a sandbox version of Scotland's lead which includes your map. It is found at User:Jza84/Sandbox1 and consists of what I think is a befitting lead. The second paragraph is weak, but feel free to jump in. --Jza84 | Talk  16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for Scotland article
As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does something this small really require a mediation? Checks Talk:Scotland ok I'm in... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Double maps
I was thinking we could have the X only maps placed in the 'constituent country articles' history sections (example: Scotland only map in Scotland's history section). GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then were back to there we began? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By accepting the X only maps in the articles at all? is a huge concession on my part. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that that map should be used in the Kingdom of Scotland article so I see no problems with it being shown with the articles prose. I just object to its uses in the info box. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having the X within the UK map only, in the article's Infobox & the X only map in the article's history section. Having both maps in the infobox? is too crowded & topheavy for the 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps for other pages
Hello UKPhoenix! As such a talented map maker, and our own dissagreement on the Wales/Scotland pages notwithstanding, I was curious if prehaps you can help me by creating maps for use in mideival Wales? We desperatly need some new and improved maps there. Thank you for your consideration ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not that good and can only work with the source material given to me. What specifically are you looking for? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am currently rewritting the artical on the Kingdom of Gwynedd, and need a few maps of Gwynedd with the pre-conquest cantrefs (pronounced as cantrev). The good news here is I have found a map written in French on the French version of Kingdom of Gwynedd that we can get an idea of for the cantrefs. Also, I will need some maps showing the Norman invasion routes into Wales (I can instruct on the path they took), as well as maps on Pura Wallia and Marchia Wallie, and on the Principality of Wales page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the French language map on Gwynedd... but there are slight inaccuracies that I could talk you through.
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaume_de_Gwynedd


 * I was hoping to get the maps somewhat in the style of David Liuzzo's. Is that possibel? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow thats a tall order... I can see what I can do. Since I have not done this before I cannot guarantee the outcome but if you want I will make the attempt. Do you have examples from other invasion maps on what you'd like to see? I'd also have to get David Liuzzo's permission for any editing done to his maps. It will be a few days before I even get a chance to sit down and start this. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I and J options
Hello Phoenix! The I and J options are not the same. J would have Scotland high-lighted within the UK, but within the EU as well so three different colours would be needed for that... and that would be on the EU contienent. This map has not been created as yet. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood your voting, I understand now. Might you create a Wales within the EU and a Wales within the UK within the EU maps by chance? We do not have these options to look at yet. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Map of Wales
Our hopes of getting consistancy across the 4 UK constituent country articles, has got a new challenge. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JacquesNguyen
Would you please help watch Template:History of Burma? User:JacquesNguyen changes it several times a day, accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary (I wrote the template, I am not vandalizing it, I assure you), and has never once justified his slander or changes. I see you have also had dealings with him, and would appreciate your help. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow that was mighty kind of you to give me a Working Man's Barnstar. I know not what I did to deserve this but I graciously thank you for the very kind gesture. It reminds me of a quote from Napoleon Give me enough medals, and I'll win any war. Huh my 1st Barnstar in over 3 years of contributions... I guess I'm finally doing something right :-) Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen your good work plenty of times, you have been doing "something right" for a long time. The only reason you got one this time was because I was there to witness just how much work you put into it and how rational your decisions were. Thanks again! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS:Love the quote on your userpage! It is so true!
 * Well thank-you again. Yes I love that quote also. I even have other quotes if you want to check them out. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
We agree on most things, concerning the 4 UK constituent countries. I just wish nation was removed from the content & a simple Scotland within UK map was adopted. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea I think thats because we have the same goals. We wish for this article and all the UK articles to eventually become FA. But the only way to do this is to remove contested statements or work out an agreement that is not OR but based on rock solid facts. Since Nation/Country is debatable, contentious, poorly defined and confused with other terms they should be removed/avoided. By doing this it would make the article stable. Then work on making it and the other UK articles FA can begin :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to replace Nation/Country with sub-division. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt thats going to work. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Prediction
I hope I did not offend you by predicting your opinion on Mr. Stephens workshop draft. It's just because you are the one who is most frequently pointing out what I find the most important with respect to the map discussion. Tomeasy (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not offended in the least, I actually thought it was funny ;-) I'm at least glad that someone else thinks that was important also -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my message from Talk:Scotland
I do hope that this was done accidentally. It was a genuine message and its purpose should be clear as being an attempt to get at a suitable form of words. DDStretch   (talk)  10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oops sorry it said that their was an edit conflict I re-inserted what I typed then I guess it didnt catch the new info you inserted. Sorry about that! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's all right. IT sometimes happens. I agree that the article needs to be edited with a view to always moving it towards getting at least GA status and, preferably, FA status. If the response is that "country" would be better, then we need to gently point out how difficult it will be the convince reviewers for FA status that words to the effect of "Scotland is a country within the country of..." make sense, and that it will almost certainly be a huge stumbling block to the article. If they just want to say, then "Scotland is a country within the EU...", then it will be challenged for reasons of its lack of independent status by them as well.  DDStretch    (talk)

Well, I was asked some time ago to comment, but seeing as I've now been effectively told to "f off" by notuncurious, along with a rather uncivil general comment from Mais Oui!, I will leave that article in the hands of the ones who seem to have taken WP:OWNership of it by virtue of having edited it in the past. All I can do is shake my head and wonder what they think of the various wikipedia policies they are ignoring by their actions. DDStretch   (talk)  03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you havent left :-( We need people who are willing to help improve this article to stay. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
Hello UK, I have put a proposal on the Scotland talk page and would like your opinion of it. I may be a little naive bit I feel I have to try! --Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was registered, but found I was labelled by some editors to the extent I got thoroughly fed up with accusations banded about by some regular contributors to the Scotland article. I find anonymity preferable as I can't be accused of being in any particular camp, and my edits can be taken at face value without any baggage or pre-conceived POV attached to me by others - sad but true! Keep up the good work! 80.41.231.246 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about ScotlandRulesForever would that be a good user name to look more NPOV on the Scotland Page :-P The more I think about that user name the more I like it! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Errm, nah, no ta! A bunch of numerals which change from time to time could be something I could get used to. guess I'll have to live without ever obtaining a 'Barnstar', but hey, I'll get over it! 80.41.231.246 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hay it took me 3 years to get one so I don't think you have to worry. But its nice to recognize usernames. I think I know who you are, I might be wrong, but don't want to say to ruin your anonymity... How about Scotland_rules_the_waves... nah I still like my previous choice :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Highlander series season 1.jpg
Hello, I noticed you uploaded this image on Wikipedia. Can you please specify on the image page the source from which you got it, so that I can use it on Highlander: The Series (season 1) which is going for FLC any time now. Sorry to bother you with that, I know it might be difficult to remember it, but the FLC reviewers are very strict regarding the matter. Thank you, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I got all my Highlander images from Amazon.com. I hope that helps :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you very much ! Image back on the page and article clear for take off. FLC, here we come ! ;D Rosenknospe (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Power list
Hi. I can't understand why you have reverted my edits? I think we can all agree that China, Russia, US, UK and France are Great Powers. Germany and Japan are certainly economic powers only. I think the article clearly states that Brazil and India are only potential Great Powers. I don't know why you reverted my edits to the statement about Brazil as I was changing the statement to a more neutral stance. I am happy for you to add the neutrality tag if you wish, but I don't believe original research tag is justified. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok try to edit from here. You were editing from a version that was incorrect. The tags were added by someone else that had them mistakenly removed during all the edits so I only re-inserted them :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

 * Thanks :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great power
I will report Special:Contributions/24.205.234.250 for violation of the three revert rule. Pending that please make no more reverts. Species8473 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, but I didn't want it to come to that... I wanted to reason with him/her. I guess I was feeding the troll. I leave this in your hands and will vacate the discussion. Thanks for the assistance. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this has developed into people vandalising your user page - I reverted it but I did mean "user pages" not "talk pages" in my edit summary, of course *duh* Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * I thought that reverting vandalism was exempt from that because it was considered unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material and was Simple and obvious vandalism. But there were a lot of edits so if you disagree I guess I'll understand. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That you were using the talk page does not also give you liscence to violate WP:3RR. There was a clear content dispute, and instead of violating 3RR the proper path is to take dispute resolution such as getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment even while leaving the Wrong Version visible.  In the future, please seek discussion instead of reverting, not while reverting.  — Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I knew I was in a gray area dealing with vandalism I'm glad that you saw I was trying to seek assistance during this time. I thought that policy backed me up but I do understand your decision. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Phoneix, just wanted to let you know a couple of things. I see that you had been an active editior at the great power page. Its just been unprotected, don't let the templete fool you. Also, the Russia fanatics at the power in international relations have been labeled as sock puppets and have banned for six months, with the puppeteer banned indefinitely. Best wishes! --Hobie Hunter (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
L'Aquatique [  review  ] 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
Idontknow 610 TM 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI report
I have reported the long term edit warring at Great power to WP:ANI. (link) =Species8473=  (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Hey Phoenix, I've already undoed one of the edits by Colliver55 listing Brazil as a great power without any references. Can you make sure there are no other portions that need to be reverted since he made a slew of edits. Thanks! Nirvana888 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War
The constant edit war going on in the Great Power page is not productive and quite irritating. There looks to be no end in sight with the Indian nationalist insisting that India is a great power - and doing everything he can do make his case by including any source he can find that supports his case. He is also not using the Talk page that we need to use to settle the issue. Perhaps we need to bring in the admin again or protect the page for a while. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Luna to come back a couple of times but I haven't gotten a reply. Maybe you can ask. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Protecting the page or bringing in an admin won't work. They've already been tried, and, unfortunately, haven't worked. We could try just ignoring that user, it could work. They might be just looking for attention. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, indeed that the first thing he did when it was unblocked. Rest assured he's been blocked again he agrees to stop edit warring. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)