User talk:Red Jay/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Red Jay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Red Jay/Archive 4! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your comment on AIV made me double-check those edits. The editor has been blocked indefinitely as a result. Thanks! m.o.p 23:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You should read

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb/Archive - you'll recognise the latest socks. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I run this by you? (a new intro for Welsh People)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The change I made to the introduction of Welsh People didn't stick. I wasn't hugely surprised, but I think one or two of the smaller changes were brought back in by others. It's still barely grammatical, and it's all about the dreaded RR's now of course - which I think may carry in this 'UK-NATIONAL' area. Does the attempt below make any sense to you? I'm determined to remove the word "ethnic" from the first line of the existing edit (it really does make me wince), but it did need some work anyway. To some degree it needs to be built on what's already there. The problem with taking anything directly to Talk is that it immediately gets radically changed into someone's 'version' - that new version is then voted for by about 8 accounts, and a conclusive 'consensus' is claimed that people will point to for years to come (ok Wikipedia has probably permanently jaded me, I'll admit).

The Welsh (Welsh: Cymry) are a people who's national home is Wales, a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Like all of the British nations, Wales has its own distinct culture which also varies widely across its land. Whist predominantly English-speaking, Wales is especially known for its Welsh language, which was once the predominant language spoken throughout the country. Welsh is still commonly spoken in parts of Wales, most notably in the northern and western regions. Since 1998 and the creation of the Welsh Assembly, the celebration and promotion of Welsh culture has been at the forefront of civic life in Wales, perhaps most noticeably in the advancement of written Welsh, now routinely provided alongside information displayed in English. As is typical for all the countries that make up the UK, the people who populate Wales feel Welsh and/or British to varyingly different degrees. There are many internationally-famous people who herald from Wales, especially from the performing arts, and Wales has been home to many celebrated authors and poets, writing in both English and Welsh.

Thanks.

I do tend to write rolling sentences, but I wrote this article years ago (Counties of the United Kingdom) and to my genuine surprise, on scanning over it today I found that most of my prose is still there, and pretty-much intact. It certainly helps if you actually create the article though, as nobody knows it exists until the time when they eventually watchlist it.

These are some of my thoughts if you are interested.. (I can be wordy, so I apologise in advance)

I've included the various details that I think a casual reader, or actual visitor to Wales, might actually find useful - in a Wikipedia article's introduction at least. It gives a flavour of the newness of modern Wales (ostensibly an ancient country respun in 1998), much of which we are still quite undecided upon here. As only 25% of the electorate in Wales voted for the Welsh Assembly (it just passed on 50% of a 50% turnout) there is consequently a pervasive sense of uncertainty and even slight-insecurity about it and many of the decisions it makes, which has actually never gone away for us (I'm not sure that half of that amount would vote for it now sometimes, like the referendum in the 1970's, but that's another story). There is little chance of getting any of that into Wikipedia of course, but I feel it's important at least to mention '1998' and the Assembly etc - just to give a general informative flavour of modern Wales is actually about. People visiting Wales will see written evidence of bilingualism everywhere (sometimes actually Welsh-only, and often Welsh-first too - I've exaggerated absolutely nothing in this attempt), but they will actually hear comparatively little Welsh over most of Wales, and none at all in many heavily-populated estates and such-like.

Hence the very-particular content in my original attempt at a different intro, which I knew stood almost no chance of settling here. I did basically just balance what was already there though, so I hardly see how it could be reverted due to 'bias' (though it did need a ref admittedly - you do have to rummage through a lot of journalistic 'Media Wales' (and sometimes even BBC Cymru Wales*) bias and political polemic with Welsh issues, and I did 'slack out' a bit - but it's all out there somewhere though). *I actually got a phoned apology from them once after complaining about an instance of this.

The perennial problem on Wikipedia in this area is that a very-finite but very-strong amount people get really uptight over the use of the word 'British', and currently the article doesn't even mention the UK in the introduction. There is no sovereignty-first guideline on Wikipedia, and UK national issues get what I call 'ring fenced' and - in terms of encyclopedic content - ignored. It's almost as if they don't believe that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can handle it all, but of course it can - with a proper academic attitude. I've been made fun of by admin for even tackling these issued before now, and admin routinely warn newcomers of the 'futility' of getting involved. The edit-reverters basically claim that Britishness is 'irrelevant' to the article at hand, and that belligerent and tightly-held attitude (very convenient for a nationalist, although simply wrong) seems to have become even worse since I've last been editing Wikipedia (it's been a while before this effort).

But of course this article is impossible to write properly or usefully unless you include the concept of the UK. 'British' is official and it's sovereign - it's simply what we are. Over the years I've told people on here, some who I know do not live in Wales - that the vast majority of the people I speak to really do feel British. Sometimes I really wonder if they genuinely think I'm making it up (ie demonstrating the dreaded 'POV'). It doesn't mean that these people I see every day are any less Welsh - they just don't want to break up the UK, and they understand the naturally-divergent nature of culture. Wikipedia is often not the easiest of places, as I expect you probably know.

At the end of the day for me, without the sovereign and cultural concept of Britain I'm not personally represented at all as a Welsh person. So it not just a question of balance for me, it's ultimately a question of human rights. (Did I really say that?). It seems obvious to me that all our modern national identities in the UK (wherever we are from) have developed since the Enlightenment under the common umbrella of Britain. The Industrial Revolution, the Wars - everything that really matters. I'm simply not into pretending I'm from the iron age - the 'modern' (even Modern) period of our development is all that matters to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo notice (just corrected), and for responding. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sneinton article recently overhauled

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Bevo74, I've recently made some major changes to the Sneinton article, and I was wondering if you had any feedback? Any thoughts at all - good/bad/room for improvement, etc. - that you could give would be very helpful. I'd really like to get Sneinton up to Good Article status at some point in the future. If you could leave any feedback on Talk:Sneinton, that'd be absolutely fantastic. I only ask because, I see you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Nottinghamshire, and you've made the most edits to that article after me. Cheers! Anxietycello (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

HCCC14

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It seems quite ridiculous to revert what appear to have been valid edits, especially as this character HCCC14 seems to have a fetish against a user. You should follow HCCC14's traill as I did. He is hardly a stable editor. Anyway I am not banned and can alter back to informative edits can I not?Maesygwl (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You can change back if you want, but changing back to the edits of a banned user looks suspicious particularly if you've made no previous edits. Bevo74 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also replied on talk Bevo74 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Bevo74, your suspicions were spot on. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft for confirmation. Maesygwl is one of a dozen or so Daft accounts recently found and blocked. Any edits or posts he has made should be removed per WP:BMB. I'll leave it to you to decide what to do with the rubbish on your page including the blatant lie that he is "not banned". He is most definitely in the WP:BAN list. All the best and thanks for your help. HCCC14 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Djebbour

Apparently he is, but hopefully won't be. This is based on a NEP reporter on Twitter, which isn't the best source, but he's quoting from elsewhere. deathgripz 11:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oxford United F.C. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| nickname = The Us, Yellows, The Boys from Up the Hill (as Headington United), Yellow Army [<ref name="Fans Nickname of Yellow Army">{{cite web | url=https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing my edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you undoing my edits without explanation? 80.111.184.146 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of your edits from your IP address are dodgy, and to me a lot of the recent ones looked so. If you don't give an edit summary, I don't give one when I revert. If you are a genuine editor, it's easy to get an account, to avoid being tarred with the vandalism brush. Bevo74 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)