Zuggernaut (talk | contribs) |
Shyamsunder (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:: And before he created those categories he added clearly biased material to articles and engaged in clearly biased canvassing. It is rather troubling. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
:: And before he created those categories he added clearly biased material to articles and engaged in clearly biased canvassing. It is rather troubling. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Not a single purpose account. The nomenclature reflects a harmless recording of historical events. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
:Not a single purpose account. The nomenclature reflects a harmless recording of historical events. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Amused.I think the use names like BritishWatcher reads like a single purpose and agenda driven account. Thanks [[User:Shyamsunder|Shyamsunder]] ([[User talk:Shyamsunder|talk]]) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:02, 22 September 2010
You're right but...
... I do not think I have to put up with uncivil comments against me...
But possibly you're right. Anyway, I guess you've seen my regular comments and editions and they far from other thing than decorum. Anyway, you're right. It's up to them. Thank you for your kind advice... --Ecemaml (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentle suggestion
I know that you know that no map that covers an entity over a long period of time can be perfect because of inherent conflicts due to boundary changes. Nonetheless, looking at your fine map of the Queen's realm, I can't help but think that you should also have included the Oregon Country. I mean, for a map of the Empire in 1900 it obviously wouldn't be appropriate, but given that you're including 18th century holdings that were lost before The Great War as well as holdings from 1914 that were not obtained until after the loss of the 13 Colonies, why not include Oregon as well? Just a thought. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- No reply? 98.82.21.78 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. My response is what I always say to these kinds of questions - the map was produced from reliable sources, which did not include the Oregon Country. If you have a reliable source which either explicitly states that it was part of the British Empire or shows it on a map, then please let me know the details. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
2006 Referendum
Hi Red Hat, I see your point, but there was a rationale for my edition. If you take a look, you'll see that the recent history described the increase in self-government of the territory (with its first "constitution" in 1969). It made no sense that the new consitution were not mentioned in the same section. Of course, with my edition, the information was duplicated. I'm proposing a new redaction. I'm looking forward to your comments. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
File:Spanish Overseas Empire And European Realms Anachronous.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spanish Overseas Empire And European Realms Anachronous.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vadac (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (Please note that this article for deletion request was posted by myself on behalf of Vadac (talk · contribs) who asked for assistance with posting to AfD. Chzz ► 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
And:
File:Spanish Overseas Empire And European Realms Anachronous 2.png
-listed in the same discussion. Chzz ► 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I am convinced that there's a good reason to omit that Minorca was ceded by Spain to the UK in the same year, as a consequence of the same war, and by the means of the same treaty than Gibraltar, but could you elaborate further, please? I included it because the article somehow points out to the historic relationship between both Crown Colonies by citing Minorcans as a separate group within the Spanish in the demographics section (this probably being the one and only reason for this distinction, because it is virtually impossible to discriminate minorcan from other balearic, valencian or catalan surnames, which anyway could be found anywhere in Spain at the time quoted in this book -it uses the 1995 electoral register-).
Probably eliding any mention to the minorcans is a better approach in the "trimming down" direction. Any thoughts? Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi - I replied on the Gib page so others can see the conversation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, thanks. Cremallera (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Redaktor_Wikipedia_600px.png/130px-Redaktor_Wikipedia_600px.png)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
timeline
I resent how you refer to me as a SPA, thats pretty rude and uncalled for. If i was doing something wrong all you had to do was leave a message and i would have reverted it myself.--English Bobby (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, all you do at Wikipedia is change "British" to "English". I've been ignoring it up until now, because in the instances you've changed it it has been technically correct, or at least not incorrect (for individuals whose lives spanned either side of 1707 one could use either). However, when you start modifying referenced quotes from sources to say "English" when the source actually said "British", that is absolutely not acceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was a simple mistake i made that if you'd nicely pointed out i would have immidietly reverted rather than you insulting me and reverting my edits with no reason why. As for me being a SPA perhaps you should check my contribution before making assumtions about me, especially someone who only seems to edit on the British Empire, Portuguese Empire and Gibraltar articles.--English Bobby (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
An enquiry...
Hi Red Hat,
I am an Auckland, New Zealand-based graphic designer working on a new exhibition for our RNZ Navy Museum and have been searching for a map like this for use in a graphic panel illustrating the extent of the british empire around 1901. I was wondering if it would be possible to use your fantastic map? If at all possible, we would ideally like to obtain a psd layered file or vector file (as I would need higher resolution (to scale it up) and to match the typeface to the one used throughout the exhibit for consistency). We would credit you on the panel if you allowed us. Please let me know if this is something you would consider supplying.
Best, Hannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah elise (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Hannah. I have a layered Paint Shop Pro image file - would that work for you? If you would like it, please use the "email this user" feature on this page on the left to drop me a mail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, all I did to "create" this map was colour in, modify a few borders in and label this map [1]. If you're going to redo all the labels anyway, and if you want it to show the BE as of 1901 (the map I drew shows all the British colonies that ever were, 16th-20th C), you might be better off redoing your own version. You can refer to this map showing the BE in 1897 [2]. Plus, if you're a graphic designer, I'm sure you could do a much better version than me! I'm just an idiot with Paint Shop Pro :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help there - I will go ahead using the blank and build my own using content from the map you referenced. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah elise (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Kudos, Red Hat! --Narson ~ Talk • 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Map
Hey, since you're the person who made the map of the British empire, I was wondering if you could explain to me why this map [3] shows part of Greenland highlighted? I noticed its not on your map, so I assume that you know why its on the other map. Thanks for your time! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- British naval expeditions stopped there so perhaps because sovereignty of the Arctic at that time was not yet settled, it was a bit of jingoism on the part of the map-maker? That's a total guess though! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh well, thanks for the information! I really like your map though. The next step would be to make it an svg, though I'm not sure how to do that! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
British Empire
Hi there, about my recent edit. I'm an experienced member of the project 'Power In International Relations'. My change was to differentiate between great power and hyperpower on a project wide scale. Perhaps superpower is more acceptable? (Both have sources) Thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Another map
I'd like your input on File:Superpowers map of 1945.png. As of now it is unexplained and at points wrong. I'm trying to edit it to make some sense. And I think you could help with the British Empire bit. In relation to the British Empire, so far I've:
- Divided Austria
- Changed Newfoundland and India to the current colour of Australia/Canada (Which I have decided will be for dominions)
- Removed Bhutan
Keeping in mind the time of this map is 1945, presumably right after WWII, what state would the rest of the British Empire be in? I think different colours for Dominions, colonies, mandates, and WII territories would be in order. The current map does not show this. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that map is preposterous! Anyone looking at it would think that Lesotho was a superpower. I also think it's utterly wrong to suggest that the Allied military occupation zones after WWII were part of the overseas empires of the nations concerned. Austria and Germany were not part of the British Empire, and I've never read a historian claiming that they were. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know :( I'm trying to change the colours of the occupied areas to something more light, and no doubt different. Once done I'll label them as a military occupation in the file description. That applies to Libya and and Italian Somaliland too right? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I'll be working on it for a few days, need to figure out what on earth all the colours are, and checking all the information. The original creator was blocked, so no point asking them. I'm assuming you mostly know about the British Empire, but if you know extra things about the information presented that'd be good too. Main problem right now is the colours.
- I'm thinking that Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandates should just be combined under one colour, differentiating between those doesn't add much to a map about global colour. Dominions are another matter, I'm thinking that the lighter green in the current map are dominions. As stated before, changed Newfoundland and India to dominion status. Was Iraq a dominion then? And Egypt? I thought they were completely independent.
- Oh yeah, Singapore wasn't coloured in on that map. Honestly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say to avoid confusion, colour the empire all in one lighter shade that the UK has, and leave it at that. There is no reason to distinguish between the types of colonies. Also I would directly attribute the map to the author in question. "Superpowers in 1945, as originally define by....". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Monday
...ok, Red Hat, but please DO remember: from monday onwards, its my time...--85.179.153.11 (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh. How exciting. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw this and thought of you
While browsing, as one does, I saw this: Red Hat Society... and wondered... You don't wear purple dresses do you? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- lmao! BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Only on weekends! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please explain the specific WP:SPA reason for removal of several categories related to the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, your purpose here at Wikipedia is solely to advocate an anti-British Empire POV, and that makes you a "single purpose account". First you create "Famines in the BE" now "Resistance to the BE". These are hardly neutral category names, now are they? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- And before he created those categories he added clearly biased material to articles and engaged in clearly biased canvassing. It is rather troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single purpose account. The nomenclature reflects a harmless recording of historical events. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Amused.I think the use names like BritishWatcher reads like a single purpose and agenda driven account. Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)