User talk:YourPTR!

It seems to me that your contributions are exclusively related to confrontational positions on highly controversial issues and are calculated to stir up argument (homosexuality is a mental illness (and a choice at the same time ), the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, the Republic of Ireland should rejoin the United Kingdom, Holocaust denial is a valid historical subject ). If you continue to edit in this manner, you may find that people will label you as a troll. I'm not suggesting that you are a troll, but if you wish to avoid being labelled as one, I would advise you to broaden your editing to include some less controversial subjects, and to adopt a less confrontational tone. Thanks! Demiurge 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to provoke argument on talk pages. Thank you. Demiurge 00:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! Demiurge 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Nathan Bedford Forrest High School (Jacksonville, Florida), you will be blocked from editing. Sylent 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Do you really think what you wrote is PC? 'Beginning in the mid to late 1960s, school district rezoning introduced a less racially pure population.' That sounds pretty segregationist to me. 'Blacks say it is unfair for them to have to appreciate the culture of white people despite white people having to endure Black History Month every year.' That statement also seems to deviate the article from a NPOV.--Sylent 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does what I write have to be PC?! Less racially pure is just as accurate as saying a more diverse population and I think much more appropriate seeing as the schools name was chosen as a protest towards de-segregation and the secularization of society. If blacks were really interested in de-segregation they wouldn't have a black history month. Whites don't have a white history month. Blacks are so intollerant they can't even stand a school being named after a white war hero who would never support their supremacist agenda. The article must stress that the ones that are attacking the school's name and campaigning so viguriously to have its name changed are blacks. Attempting to restore some balance to an article does not constitute vandalism either. YourPTR! 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms you are using seem to be racist in nature. Either way, the article is pretty neutral. It states the facts: the school WAS named after a Confederate War Hero; there already is balance. You're trying to make it biased, and in a sense, it seems you already are, as you seem to think that blacks are 'intolerant' and 'supremacists'; somewhat stereotypical, don't ya think? --Sylent 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The blacks actions aren't stereotypical? If the article is so balanced why does it not mention that it is black students that are campaigning to change the name? By failing to mention who is behind the move it implies that whites are joining in and supporting the black's campaign when those that control the school have consistently refused the blacks demands. YourPTR! 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling talk pages.
Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to provoke argument on talk pages. Thank you.--Vintagekits 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trolling, stop with your baseless accusations and as a self described Irish keep your nose out of British affairs!YourPTR! 13:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Baseless? Replying to yourself in a provokative manner in a discussion that is 3 months old like here. Opening up another 3 month old discussion here with another provokative comment and trolling about the "Derry/Londonderry naming dispute". Same again on the Eddie Irvine talk page. And that is all just today.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's just your opinion and I wasn't replying to myself I was adding an additional comment. The fact is Irvine is British and has rejected the nonsensical concept of Irish nationality. Good for him. It is a pitty more on the island wouldn't follow suit but most of them are deluded sheep. I'm a unionist so that's my perspective. Tough if you dont like it but you Irish are never getting your grubby hands on Ulster. You have already STOLEN 83% of the island from us and the British wont let you get away with stealing anymore. It's British and if I had my way so would be ALL of Ireland! Now please stop commenting I don't care what some nationalist thinks. Your opinions are worthless to me and you are one sick individual if you would defend a terrorist like Gerry Adams just coz he wants some stupid concept like a "United Ireland". If you want a united Ireland its simple. Rejoin the rest of the UK where Ireland belongs! YourPTR! 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you consider editing. regards.--Vintagekits 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Liquid Kids
Whoa, you're pretty famous, aren't you? :) You wouldn't go very far if you make biased/controversial commentaries. You should calm down. You could collaborate on another articles, like you did to Liquid Kids. I moved the Amiga info to the Trivia section and now I think is better. Greetings from Argentina. Bolt 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment
I have removed this from my talk page.

"User 212.58.233.129 is a republican troll! Only hardline republican terrorists/sympathisers have a problem with calling the British Isles by their correct name which is the BRITISH ISLES. The whole world calls them the British Isles except said republican scum. Southern Ireland simplyly refers to all of the terrority of the island of Ireland outside of the British province of Northern Ireland. I'm putting those details here because that POS doesnt have a username or talk page! YourPTR! 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"

My talk page is not a place that you can use to launch attacks against other editors and politican view groups. While I may agree with some of your sentiments, I do not agree with your tone or attitude. That piece of text is an attack against those with Republican political viewpoints and I will not have you using my talk page as part of your attack crusade. I am also giving you a warning for these attack comments, stop attacking other editors and concentrate on editing the encyclopaedia. If you continue in this vein you may be blocked from editing. Ben W Bell  talk  14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Palau
You have been blocked for 48 hours for your edits to other talk pages as well as to Talk:Palau. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

South Georgia
Hello. I have just reverted your change on the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands page. The curators of the museum lived here a long time (14 years with a handful of short trips away for holidays, lecture tours, medical) but retired last year. Strange not having them around. And they were not really inhabitants - nobody can live here except when employed to help run the place. For reasons too dull to go into in detail. But that what makes it one of the special places to be - man hasn't quite got his tendrils entirely into it. There are millions of inhabitants of course, but penguins and seals don't vote! Cheers, Pat. PatLurcock 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Kinda sad though that this British oversea area no longer has any permanent residents. Who is going to run the territories' one and only museum now? YourPTR! 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There will be staff in the summer. With the recent major refurbishment of the buildings complete, and the displays pretty well finished, the necessary work can be done in summer. And that is when nearly all visitors come anyway. The Museum is now run by the South Georgia Heritage Trust, who have just appointed a new curator and summer assistants. Cheers. Pat. PatLurcock 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
Hi. I noticed you have "Irish nationalism is a cancer on the British Isles, a vile propoganda machine that is worse than the Nazis." on your user page. This is offensive, can you please remove it? Thanks in advance. --John 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to something much more suitable.YourPTR! 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's much better now. --John 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually its pure still soapbox and offensive.--Vintagekits 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out how its still offensive? Just like the Irish nationalist wants all 32 counties for himself, so do I as a unionist want all 32 counties back in the union and least all 32 were part of the United Kingdom at some point, there has never been an all island republic so at least my ambitions have some logic to them.YourPTR! 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish republic joining the UK
I noticed your comment on anotther users page. I have to say for anyone to think the Irish Republic would even consider joining the UK it is quite a luaghable prospect. The UK has just lowered its security level from the highest it could possibly be and ever UK citizen (including myself) understands and knows we have a serious threat upon us and to think the Irish Republic would consider joining the UK and possibly have to SEND TROOPS TO IRAQ and fce the threat of terrosim is again laughable.

I dont mean to be rude but you are obivously not n touch with our politics. The Irsh governemt removed articles 1 and 2 of the Irish Constition in return for something even better and i bet you dont have a ckue what im talking about!

The Irish economy is booming see: celtic tiger and it is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. why would they join the UK?

The song a nation once again was voted THE BEST SONG IN THE WORLD as youll see so obivously republicansim is still ripe and GROWING. Im only 17 and im in Ogra Shinn Féin and Sinn Féin so im still in touch with republicanism. I could go on all morning but i wont.
 * You mean - Ógra Shinn Féin?--Vintagekits 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually A Nation Once Again was only voted the best song in the world in a vote directed at and for Irish ex-pats as far as i remember the news report on it. I also disagree with the Republic of Ireland rejoining the UK - its simply not workable. I don't want to see a united Ireland as part of the UK any more than i want to see a united Ireland outside the UK. Mabuska 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Republic REjoining the UK again, you make it sound as if the two never had anything to do with one another. Ireland will be a nation once again when that objective is achieved. Ireland would have its own united parliament within a new union compromising members from all over the island and GAIN representation within the UK parliament. How wonderful that would be! We have a very different UK since the Republic left each nation (except England bizarrely) is self governing now to a lesser or greater degree so the Irish would not be dominated by the English/British like before. You also make it sound like the UK is a backward 3rd world nation that is broke. The Republic is doing well and that's great but so is its neighbor and i'm sure we will be even stronger and do even better united! The UK is the 2nd most powerful nation on Earth after the United States thats what you would be rejoining. No one is forced to fight in Iraq either. Joining the armed forces in the UK has been completely voluntarily now for some time so there's no problem there. Republicanism is not growing. A signigicant minority of Catholics are unionists and last count only 22% of the population of Ulster wanted a United Ireland by the withdrawl of the British state. Relationships between the two dividied parts of the British Isles have never been better though and they will continue to improve. It is an exciting time for the Union to be living in! YourPTR! 06:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't explain why Ireland would want to rejoin the union - they fought to be seperate from it, they were not originally part of it, and there has always been a strong sentiment against it, there is absolutely no reason for the Irish people wishing to be part of the union. Your assumption that because there is not widespread support for nationalism in Northern Ireland does not mean that the people of the republic would wish to surrender their authority to individuals in Westminster who have no competence to know the interests of the Irish people.


 * Not orignally part of it? Ireland as a country never existed till the English conquered the island and brought it under one command. Before that it was an island of inter-warring kingdoms with a High King that had little authority outside of their own sphere of influence. Mabuska 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ireland was united in 1172 under British rule as a colony. On the 1st of January 1801 its colonial status ended and it became one of the nations of the United Kingdom alongside England and Scotland. It never existed outside of the UK as an independent nation much less a republic which is why I laugh when I hear all this talk of REUNIFICATION. You can't reunify something that never existed which is an independent all island Ireland let alone a republic! Why would Ireland want to reunify with the UK? Because it would also be reunifying with Northern Ireland, although probably as a seperate UK nation at least initially. Let's face it. Ulster is not leaving the union. Nationalists seem to be under this delusion that a united Ireland repulican style is just around the corner. Well it is not! The only way to reunify Ireland (and the British Isles) is for them to rejoin the union. It was of course their actions of breaking away from the rest of the country that partioned Ireland and only they can end it. Ball is in their court. YourPTR! 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ireland was only completely conquered by 1603 not 1172. And was only united politically from 1653 till 1921 and wasn't a colony from the start. Colonisation occured in the 16th and 17th centuries. Mabuska 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's something that will occur anytime soon, it's more of a long term prospect over the next few decades. Some sort of union seems inevitable in the future as the two divided parts of the British Isles (as well as Ireland) grow ever closer and the relationship between them improves even more. Reconciliation will be good and its something that needs to happen not just between the divided parts of Ireland but between everyone in the British Isles. No nation in the British Isles was originally part of the United Kingdom, England included. I think something like crown dependency status would be good for Ireland. You would be surprised how independent islands like Jersey are. They are even representing themselves internationally now when it comes to their own interests. There may be little to no support for the union at the moment in the Republic but that doesn't mean that is how it will always be. Gradually over time opinions of Britain will soften, become more accepting and positive and the Irish will realise their rightful place in the union amongst their neighbors and wish to take up that rightful place once more and not being dominated by England or the British but as an equal self governing nation alongside others in the union. Whether we are English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh we are all British and each one of these national identities is an essential and unique component that together define Britishness. Ireland will always be a home nation, it can only be united as part of the United Kingdom and it will never be foreign to us and we will always seek its peaceful reunfication with the rest of the nations that make up our British Isles. YourPTR! 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only union i see the UK and the Republic of Ireland enjoying soon is as part of an EU superstate. Why would you even want the Irish Republic to be part of the UK? Whats the point of vastly increasing the sizeable population of anti-monarchist and anti-British people being under a monarchist British state?
 * More than anything you should be firmly behind the idea of helping Northern Ireland outshine its southern neighbour and prove that of the two Ireland's, ours is the best. Such competiveness would be a better thing. Mabuska 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we are indeed seeing which of the two areas in Ireland are underperforming. Just like other areas of your UK, Scotland recognises it is underperforming too as part of the UK. They are increasingly becomming more Nationalist and I believe that this may cause the breakup of the UK. What unionists in the northern part of the island will do then is a question they will need to answer. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  06:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is ironic the republic left one union only to join another. Norway is not in the union and does perfectly well, perhaps the two counties could leave the EU and then unify with each other instead. Why do I want Ireland in the UK? Same reason China considers Taiwan part of its territory. I feel its part of the UK nation, that in the UK is where it belongs. That the UK is a nation of nations and one of those is (or should be) Ireland. Ireland is now 2 nations not one so it would come back in as a seperate nation to Ulster but they would be unfied in the sense they were both nations of the United Kingdom. It is not about who is the best, it is that sort of mentality that keeps Ireland out of the union. The British people should be together as one again and not divided and I believe deep down the Irish are British no matter how much they deny it. Republicanism would still be a minority viewpoint with Ireland readmitted to the union and although I do favour the Monarchy at the end of the day I do hold the national integrity of the Union in a higher regard. The most important thing is the state should be united not whether it is a monarchy or a republic. Save the competiveness for things like sporting events, I want to see all parts of the British Isles united, working together and prospering equally. YourPTR! 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They may be a minority in a united British Isles however every region of a country or nation should have the right to decide where they want to be, its not up to what you think is best or to the collective majority of the islands. If a region say county Galway or the bigger region like the province of Connaught voted to stay out a united British Isles then that will HAS and SHOULD be respected and those who try otherwise from outside the region should go ####. The people of a place are the only ones who have the right to say where they want to be and its their land and their home - if the government or others says no then they are guilty of still being imperialistic by hogging land that doesn't want to be part of them. Mabuska 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think you completely miss the point, there is no reason why Ireland would ever want to join the UK. It has a history of its own, and has due reason for remaining bitterly resentful towards the UK, who unlawfully invaded the Irish lands, stole wealth, oppressed the Irish people and then refused to recognise the right of Irish people to be independent. Their will never be a movement for the return of Ireland to the Union, it is not 'inevitable', and the very prospect shows a laughable misunderstanding! - Have you ever even been to the republic?

Unification with Northern Ireland is a perfectly decent reason why Ireland WOULD want to join the UK and lets face it if Northern Ireland is overwhelmingly opposed to leaving the UK to unify with Ireland how else would you achive unification with Northern Ireland? If there was national parliament covering the whole island but Ireland also had representation in Westminster as part of the UK would that be so bad? What is better to you, 26 counties that are independent in a European Union which is increasingly requiring more and more of your sovereignty to be surrended anyway, or a unified devolved Ireland with a home rule parliament united with the rest of the nations that make up the British Isles? The two parts of the island would be seperate nations within the UK to start with most probably, but over time they could possibly be one nation in the UK again like before except this time with home rule! Even if they remained two seperate nations within the UK, they would still be much more united than at present! YourPTR! 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will also add that there is ALREADY movements for the reunfication of the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland rejoining. At the moment they are small, but they are growing each day as is the co-operation between Ireland and the UK. The two are moving ever closer to each other and getting on better than never before. They are moving towards eventual reunfication! YourPTR! 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your delluded on that viewpoint. Just coz two countries move closer doesn't mean they will become one. If that was the case Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) would be an actual country not a region. Culture is a major factor in any form of unification and the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are as culturally compatiable as the Spanish and French are! Mabuska 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlawful invasion? I suppose when Europe was under the stronger influence of the Papacy that the Pope granting the English a Papal Bull to invade Ireland in the first place isn't lawful then? The Pope gave the Normans due cause to invade Ireland to impose Roman Catholism on the island as the island wasn't in the Roman Catholic faith. If it wasn't for the Normans, Ireland may still be of the Celtic Catholic church and its entire history different.


 * Before that the disposed King of Leinster INVITED the Normans to Ireland.


 * Infact it wasn't even the English who invaded Ireland, it was opportunistic Norman knights (owing more to Danish-French ancestry than English) along with Frisien (Dutch), Flemish (Belgium) and Brythonic (Welsh) mercenaries. Not many English truely involved.


 * Ireland only came under the British crown by accident. The Kingship of Ireland was granted to the third in line to the English throne. Nobody knew that his two elder brothers would die early meaning that instead of the two thrones being kept apart they became merged.


 * Shinners don't even know what the true history of Ireland is as they are too blind to accept the non-Gaelic elements to Irish history and the fact that even their own Book of Invasions makes it clear that they aren't even natives of this island but themselves invaders. Its like pot calling kettle black. Grow up and learn the real history of your island, not the Sinn Fein propaganda piece - our shared history is FAR more colourful and better than the narrow-minded stuff they expouse. Having said that loyalists too should accept the other half of their roots as well as accept that their ancestors owe alot to Irish nationalism.


 * Mabuska 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. We have much more similarites than we have differences. The people of the British Isles are one people and they shouldn't be divided like they are at present. We are stronger together united. One day the Irish will realise their mistake and they will rejoin. Other divided people have been reconciled and so will we. YourPTR! 19:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because we share similarities in either blood or culture doesn't mean we have to be united together. Seperation can be a good thing to. And there are very few truely reconciled communities in the world if any. Those that are have just plastered over the cracks which always come back up again. Mabuska 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * South Africa? Germany? Italy?, Switzerland? --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  06:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely unlawful - I don't know when the Holy Father suddenly developed some sort of international jurisdiction, but papal bull or not it remains wholy unethical to invade another country for the given reasons - let alone stay there during a time of civilised human existence! And I am sorry, but the notion that there is some form of support for the concept of Ireland rejoining the British politcal system (which is a complete mess) is not grounded in any reality! Sinn Fein is Ireland's fastest growing political party, and support for the union is at an all time low, the Scottish are becoming increasingly nationalist, the Welsh too voted for their own devolved authorities, the Cornish independence movement is supposedly growing, and even the Tories keep on harping on about how bad of the English people now seem to have it in the political union. I'm sorry if you don't much like it, but the fact is that the Irish have nothing to gain from joining the political union of an increasingly hated country. Furthermore, that there are some related historical factors is no basis for reunification, the most important historical factor is that there was no original union between any nation of the British Isles - that is the natural state of affairs, now that the British Isles is beginning to reach what looks like a peaceful compromise, there is little reason why anyone would wish to go and ruin it - just remember all the bloodshed because of the prolonged British presence!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.136.90 (talk) 17:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case the Gaelic invasion of Ireland was unlawful as was the spread of mankind from Africa to the rest of the world where we all live. But yes the British political system is a complete mess - i.e. Scots MP's can vote on English matters but English MP's can't vote on Scottish matters.
 * On the Holy Father (i'll just use Pope fromn now one) developing some sort of international jurisdiction. What else does he do? Until the last few centuries he was extremely heavily involved politically in Roman Catholic Europe and announced and backed crusades against the Cathars, the Muslims, Protestants and others. Even better though was the time when the Pope left his DAUGHTER in charge whilst he went off to visit castles his forces had captured!!! Mabuska 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps that we are arguing cross purposes - I can see the need for what occured in the past, I can understand why it happened (personally I don't accept the justification - I think it's still unethical no matter what year it is), but my point is that the time for the justification of there being any foreign presence in Ireland, as the ruling class even [debatable] was over - and the problem is that the British didn't recognise this and volunterially leave the country, instead centuries of violence errupted within a country that was perfectly competent to govern itself, and wanted to. I don't think it matters much how it came to be that there was a foreign presence in Ireland, the fact remains that they did not recognise the legitimacy of the wish of the Irish people to have political self determination. Empires fall, there time comes, there time had finished in Ireland and that Britain did not just recognise this and allow Ireland its independence from the union is quite appalling. And yes, invasions are usually illegal in a sense, in my opinion, people should be left alone - though I'm not quite so sure about the spread of people from the African continent, I think that was more a part of a natural process in that there was not as such a displacement of another peoples, but certainly the displacement of indigenous peoples is something to be looked gravely at.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.136.90 (talk) 18:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I am taking a great interest in your opinions here and though i am Irish Nationalist by nature, i do believe in greater co-operation of world nations. I can never see the southern part of Ireland rejoining the UK in its present form. As some have correctly pointed out, the historic maltreatment of the Irish people century after century was the main reason for division of the old United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This entity in itself was an un-democratic union, not voted by the Irish people, but forced by the British crown. Throughout history the British establishment, through empire would say that they brought democracy to nations, yet they were shipping young Indians to Trinidad and Tobago to harvest and labour for the crown. In Ireland, people were poor and no industrial revolution came top our shores. During the Famine, the British authorities turned away food-aid from the French and Spanish to Ireland. If Ireland had equality as an equal nation of the UK-GBI, perhaps that country may have still existed. As an independent Republic, Irelandcan better focus on her own domestic issues and finances, while her peoples issues are heard louder by an Irish Government, rather than becoming a minority voice in an English-dominated union. The problem with Federations and Crown Unions, is that constituent members may not get equal footing in the running of those unions. In the present UK discontent is showing in Scotland with the formation of a Nationalist Government. Until the UK stops giving precedence to one of its constituant members over the others, Ireland may be joined by other new nations. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick response to my comment. I have great respect for what you are trying to envisage and achieve for your country. I am actually from the northern part of Ireland, born and bred but have designated myself an Irish citizen as allocated within the Good Friday Agreement. This is not to disrespect people of British allegiance, but rather to become a part of a culture I have commonality with and share. For me, being Irish takes into account the rich celtic heritage, traditions, and language that once dominated the island and influences it today. From there, the beautiful songs stories and legends uniquely associated with Ireland by nations far and wide, were then added over time. Then i see the monastic works of early Irish christians, and the spread of my people peacefully throughout the world. When i think of a British term, I think of empire, and rather than a peaceful spread throughout the world, I see pride in their Empire eventhough this was a forced dominance of one culture over many. This is something i could not take pride in nor relate to and is probably correct when you say that the Monarchy forms an issue with Irish people, as we associate the Monarchy with this dominance. I respect that the UK has done much to change this in modern times, however i am also aware that within the present UK there is issue among UK citizens on what is Britishness and how should it be celebrated. Many Scots and Welsh would designate themselves by their countries identity before they would say British. More so, it is a significant majority of the English population and the unionist part of the Northern Ireland population that would choose to say they were British. If these issues were to be resolved, we would then have to look into our economies. The Irish Economy is growing faster than that of the UK, with a different tax system, currency, and regulatory regime. In the UK there is a North/South divide in economic terms. Ireland would only have to look to Scotland, in order to be put off the argument for re-union with Britain. Scotland is a nation slightly smaller than the island of Ireland with a population slightly less than that of the island of Ireland. Even so, they have a lower life expectancy than the southern part of England, an economy with a growth below the UK average and far below that of Ireland, and according to the Scottish Government, do not get the sufficient budget to run the country from the UK Treasury. Ireland in the south has grown into a diverse nation with the addition of new cultures, more Irish ex-pats are comming home form places like the UK, USA and Australia to gain our new found wealth. The Northern part of the island is still part of the UK, however like myself, over 40% of the population there would still form allegiance with the Ireland to the south over the Britain to the east. We have a British-Irish Council which is a good step forward in our nations working together, and i would also be in favour of the southern part of the island joining the Commonwealth (as a Republic) as an olive branch to our unionist brothers on the island. We work closely in an European Union context and it is the comming together of our people on a European continental basis that takes precidence over the comming together of the former UK-GBI, this is also a difference between our peoples, we in Ireland are pro-european with a European identity seen as second to our own. In contrast, the UK is euro-sceptic, seeing Europe as an entity out to diminish its own importance on the world stage. Ultimately Ireland in the UK will equal a surrender of autonomy for the Irish people, but a gain of control and resources for the UK. Who benefits ultimately? Could these issues i have raised be resolved? And what of the increasingly Nationalist Scotland? I look forward to your reply. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Crazy people
You really do run into some crazy people on the internet. Are you who I think you are? If so, we went to school together! Cavanagd 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you do and who do you think I am? I have no idea whatsoever who YOU are! YourPTR! 10:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

??????????
Are you taking the piss? What are you on about? Are you so fucking stupid that you can't see your beloved empire is actually in demise as it has been for the last 200+ years and it's not looking any better since Scotland will gain Independance in the not too distant future. You are the most deluded twat I've come across on wikipedia so far Kerronoluain 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You say Scotland will gain independence in the not too distant future and you think that it's ME that is "taking the piss"? Get out of here! You call ME the deluded "twat"? Pot meet kettle... Scotland will never be independent again. The English won't let that abomination come about! The English will not let another Republic of Ireland occur on our doorsteps. We HAVE learnt from our mistakes! Not only will Scotland NEVER again be independent the rebellious 26 counties are the ones that will SOON be rejoining the rest of the UK WHERE THEY BELONG!!! YourPTR! 10:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously YourPTR you aren't a believer in democracy but imperialism. People have the right to decide where they want to be. If the majority say they want out then you have no right to deny them. And on Scotland becoming independant in the near future? Thats like saying Ireland will be united in the near future - in reality its nowhere near happening. Mabuska 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a believer in democracy and not in imperialism. I'm not suggesting that Ireland should be a colony. I'm suggesting it should be part of the United Kingdom again but this time as an equal player with internal self government and only when it is personally ready. It will be through democractic peaceful means and not force. Scotland will not be independent in the near future because a majority in Scotland do not want it but even when or IF they do it still won't be independent. The British will not allow another Republic of Ireland scenario to develop, ESPECIALLY on the mainland! A state has a right to territorial integrity (that's what the UN says and I agree with them). The UK has the right to fight against successionist movements within its borders and deny parts of itself to break off and form new states. That's EXACTLY what it should have done with Ireland. Regions are not entitled to self determination and thats what the 26 counties were. But the UK as the state had every right to refuse the 26 counties to seperate and if I had been PM at the time that is exactly what I would have done! YourPTR! 19:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ulster people have nothing to fear with the Republic's inevitable re-admitance to the union. Ulster will remain with a seperate local administration within the union for as long as a majority in Ulster wish. YourPTR! 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet you say to me in my talk section that Ireland will be united in your vision of a new UK? And please state where the southern part of Ireland is inevitable in rejoining the UK? This is grossly misleading and a total distortion of fact. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe in democracy then you'll accept the Republic's wish to remain outside of the UK. You contradicted your suppossed beliefs with the rest of your statement. To paraphrase: you believe in democracy however if you where PM just you would be willing to deny millions of people the right to self-determination? Very undemocractic and very imperialistic in the sense of ignoring the rights of the people so that you can maintain their land and resources.


 * And on that UN article on territorial integrity, the UN also has a concept of humanitarian intervention in Article 73.b of the UN Charter: "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement". A complete contradiction to territorial integrity.


 * Territorial integrity is a remnant of imperialism. Its just a pathetic way for countries to try to justify holding onto as much land as possible no matter what its inhabitants say. Its undemocractic and any who support it are imperialistic no matter how they may not think it.


 * And on Irish reunification within the UK. Do you think they would so easily give up on all their history of trying to have independance only to throw away the sacrifices of their ancestors by rejoining? It'd be the biggest disgrace ever to the Irish Republic and would never occur because of it and because they don't want it.


 * And even being offered Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic will still say no. Why? Well they already have said no when offered Northern Ireland... Winston Churchill the big so called patriot he was, used us as bait to try to get the Irish Free State to enter WWII on their side so that the British navy could use the Irish ports. However thank god Eamon de Velera, president of the Free State at the time, despite dreaming of a united Ireland said no to maintain the Free State's neutrality and so he didn't have to help the Brits he so much detested. When WWII ended Churchill the two-faced traitor bastard that he was had the guts to praise Northern Ireland's efforts in the war!


 * You see they've already said no and thats when they cared about reunification more. Less and less people in the irish republic care about the concept now.


 * I wish people like you would learn and understand your history. Its near enough as bad as those republicans who believe in their warped version of Irish history.
 * Mabuska 21:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DeValera only said no as unification of the two parts of Ireland was not guaranteed, but going to be looked into and encouraged only after the war if Ireland agreed to partake. DeValera, being a realist knew that northern unionism and loyalism would have taken up arms and a civil war would have broken out as a result. He said no as it was best for peace at that time. If you understood history as you say, you would have known this. Ireland cannot be reunited under force, but in the natural comming together of both our peoples. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There will be no "reunifcation" as you put it without the occupied 26 counties rejoining the United Kingdom where they belong. Ulster will always be British. If Ulster left the UK to hookup with the banana republic (not that it would ever happen) that would not be reunfication. Ulster has never been part of an all island sovereign state let alone a republican one. You can't reunify with what you never were a part of to begin with. Reunification can only occur when the occupied 26 counties get over themselves, grow up and rejoin their neighbours in the British Isles in union. They are not special. They are 5 million out of 65 million and the only nation in the British Isles not in the UK. They are the odd man out, an anamoly that needs correcting, the loners of the British Isles and they need to come out of the cold and take their full part in the political processes of the British state. Now the Irish are in serious denial in two areas: Firstly unlike the vast majorty of those in Ulster, England, Scotland and Wales they deny they are even British and therefore consider themselves not worthy of being in the United Kingdom. Secondly they are living in a fools paradise by thinking that a United Ireland is just around the corner or even possible. Like I said Ulster is British and always will be. No surrender. Once the Irish wake up and realise that maybe just maybe we will see some progess made on the reunfication issue because the only way their will ever be a united Ireland is for the 26 occupied counties to give up their independence. Something they should never have been allowed to have in the first place. Ireland is not entitled to self determination anymore than my town is entitled to it. The UK is entitled to it as a WHOLE and the Irish are a small minority within the UK (or they would have been if the rest of the British had not foolishly allowed them to break away from the rest of the country). Ireland future is within the UK alongside the other British nations and Ulster has nothing to fear from this. Ulster and Ireland are seperate nations just like England and Scotland but England and Scotland are in union and so will one day all the nations that make up the British Isles. The 26 counties will have a parliament and Ulster will have an assembly they will be united in the United Kingdom like England and Scotland are united in the United Kingdom. Over time, the whole of the island of ireland could form one self governing nation but within the UK not outside of it and only with Ulsters consent. The 26 counties inevitable readmitance to a Union it should never have left will only strengthen Ulsters place within the union. Ireland will rejoin once it realises its the only way Irish unity will ever come about and its exclusion from the Union is nonsense, illogical, offensive and it needs to be corrected. Let's just hope they get their act together sooner rather than later because the ball is in their court. In the meantime, we are waiting for what will be the greatest day in the Nation's glorious history. The day the British people are no longer divided and Britain once more extends throughout the British Isles just like the good Lord always intended! A 26 counties taking their rightful place amongst their fellow British islanders and playing their full part in the government of our Nation. YourPTR! 14:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent trolling
This kind of addition to a talk page is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. garik 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Either grow up or go away. I am not sure how I can use smaller words to make that clear to you. Be tolerant or begone - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno who made those trolling comments there - it was some IP editor signing as YourPTR! But whoever, I can assure you that they are now enjoying a well-earned break from editing - A l is o n  ☺ 21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.
Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Lough Neagh is in the British Isles! Lough Neagh is situated on the island of Ireland within Britain. The whole island is in the British Isles not just the United Kingdom part. In this context British is a geographical rather than a political label until the occupied 26 counties rejoin the Union where they belong. Long live the Union between Great Britain and Ireland and God Save the Queen! YourPTR! 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary on William Greer
That sort of comment was inappropriate, and I see from this page that you've been warned about this behavior before. Please refrain from such comments in the future. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

size of Gibraltar
To be honest its hard to know what the current size is, there are a number of reclamations under way and the place is growing day by day, we acquired an island recently. --Gibnews (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as the Eastside, which is large, there is something going on the westside for government rental housing. Its educational to look at the map on the MAE website which shows Gib in 1704, where they claim all the reclamations are stolen from the sea, which is (of course) Spanish. No sleep is lost over these claims.

For a view of the island under construction, taken from the flight deck of HMS Invincible

http://www.gibnet.com/images/qq.jpg

the lens distorts the length. However all the buildings are on reclaimed land.

--Gibnews (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments
These types of comments are completely inappropriate. You have been warned repeatedly (and blocked) for this kind of behavior, so I strongly advise you to refrain from engaging in this type of activity again. What I find odd is that for the most part you seem to be a constructive editor (though there certainly have been other worrying incidents); in any event, we take biographies of living persons very seriously around here. If you make another edit like that, you will be blocked from editing. You're free to think whatever you want, and hold any opinions you want; but when you come to Wikipedia, check it at the door. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  11:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I came over here to block you for that comment actually, which was completely unacceptable. Don't pull a stunt like that again, or you will be blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And while you're entitled to your opinions, they basically stop at hate speech. Comments such as this are wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia. Please read Civility to understand why - A l is o n  ❤ 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of "Hate Speech"

What on earth did I say that was hateful? I was responding to someone who made the sweeping generalisation that mixed raced relationships were considered "acceptable now" by saying that not everyone feels that way and that that sort of lifestyle was not for me. I find it MORALLY WRONG. Not to mention unnatural (it takes a white man and white women to create a white child that is a FACT!), abnormal (it is not the norm as most people don't live that lifestyle) and if everyone engaged in that sort of behavior it would be the death of racial diversity. Apparently diversity is good unless its racial diversity and striving to retain it.

If God had only wanted one race, which is what would happen if everyone choosed a mixed race relationship, then he wouldn't have gone to the "trouble" of creating several different races. He would have just stopped at the White race, but he didn't he created all those others so he obviously favors diversity when it comes to race. Those are my opinions, I am entitled to them and expressing them is NOT "hate speech" just because it goes against the Godless agenda of liberalism. I thought liberals believed in moral relativalism, that we each have the right to decide for ourselves what is and isn't moral?

Well people are free to live as they please as long as it is legal. God has given us free will after all, but that doesn't mean that what they are doign is right or I have to jump on the miscegenation bandwagon just because that lifestyle is "cool" now. God's Word does not change. It is everlasting and I will choose a good Christian lifestyle over the latest immoral fad any day.

Lastly I mentioned what race I thought he looked like and I refrained from using any racial slurs, so there shouldn't have been a problem. I would appreciate it if you would stop harrassing me just for expressing a differing opinion of your own and persecuting me for holding traditional moral values. YourPTR! (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How the hell you haven't been indef blocked over the first diff posted is unfathomable to me. R. Baley (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indefinitely based on the overall record of expressions of hatred and bigotry (not a single isolated or questionable instance, but the overall record, including but not limited to the diffs above), and disruption and trolling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks NYB, though my earlier post indicated a block based on the one post, I had also looked at some of the other edits as well. R. Baley (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse block by NYB. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  20:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how liberals silence all opposition to their agenda. Blocking people. Taking away their rights to freedom of speech just for having a differing opinion. There's the real hatred right there. YourPTR! (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These comments counts as unblock abuse (please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox), and thus I have protected this page for 3 days. If you wish to edit this page further upon the protection's expiration, you must restrict your edits to requests for unblock. Thank you. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request Unblock
I would like to request an unblock. I know that referring to someone who is Jewish as a "kike" is totally unnaceptable and constitutes hate speech and within 5 minutes of the unfortunate remark being made I went to the articles talk page to remove it but it had already been seen. I don't think my latest comments about miscegenation on the Wentworth Miller talk page were hate speech and that is what I was referring to when I said I hadn't made any hate speech, my latest actions. They were probably though not the wisest comments to make and not entirely appropriate. I realise that Wikipedia talk pages are not to be used as soap boxes and I have been guilty of this several times in the past, that has been my main problem as most of the edits I have made to actual articles have been constructive and I would love to keep making constructive comments. I don't think my latest actions should have resulted in me receiving a ban, I had already been warned and banned in the past so I feel like I am being "punished" twice. My last ban (my second) was only 48 hours so to go from that to indefinate seems to be a little extreme. My "kike" comment was appaling though and should have resulted in a ban, but I think for it to be indefinite is a bit harsh. Lastly I would like to say that I am sorry for any offense my comments have caused and I do sincerely regret my past actions and would make a real effort not to repeat them if I could perhaps be unblocked sometime in the not too distant future. Thank you all for your consideration and understanding to my request.YourPTR! (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Denied. You have used the words in the past and been blocked before due to it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)