Ausseagull

Welcome!

Hello, Ausseagull, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another welcome

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. I noticed from your user page that you're from Cheshire and since you've edited the article on Hale, I'm guessing you're interesting in subjects relating to the area. There are a few wikiprojects (groups of editors with a shared interest) you may be interested in that relate to Cheshire and Greater Manchester; the members are friendly and will help if you leave a note on the talk pages of either project.

It's always good to see someone editing articles in the area, especially since some articles can stagnate when they need to improve (Hale is a good example of that, there's potential but it's still not a great article). I noticed you mentioned a bit about St Peter's Church, it would be great if you could add where you got the information from as it helps make wikipedia more reliable. Essentially, every fact that someone could challenge needs a source (common knowledge/sense doesn't). Anyway, happy editing and I hope you enjoy wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also answered your question about classes on the Hale talk page [1]. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was at St Peter's Hale yesterday and asked the date of the church. They said 1892 and directed me to a 1992 plaque celebrating its centenary. Ausseagull (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as British National Party are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. magnius (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have accused me of using the BNP discussion pages as a chat room. However, I would have thought that their attitude to participation in the European Parliament is most important for the article. Ausseagull (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're here mate

We need more people like you and me around here, fighting against the unenlightened knuckle-draggers who still hate multiculturalism just because they can't stand people with a different colour of skin. By the by, have you ever visited Chester Cathedral? Wonderfully historic place, that. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was in Chester the other day and saw the Cathedral from the outside. It looked impressive and I hope to visit it soon. Ausseagull (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

British 'vs' English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish

IMHO, if one was born in Northern Ireland & if one was born in England, Wales, Scotland 'after' 1707? then one is British. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority side of that topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the problem is one of consistency and of the perception that the Scots and Welsh aren't really British but the English are. Hence you have the situation that Neil Kinnock is referred to as Welsh, Gordon Brown Scottish and William Gague British! It really isn't accurate though to call English politicians British, but not Scots and Welsh. So I suggest we try to avoid British except in a few cases of doubt, eg Tony Blair.

I'm quite stubborn on this topic. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness, nobody self-indentifies as 'martians', eh? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to be careful with some of your recent edits as disrupting the wiki to prove a point is generally frowned upon.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%

Don't worry, as an Aussie I'm used to you guys and your funny little ways. Ausseagull (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3ANeil_Kinnock&action=historysubmit&diff=326361641&oldid=325776371][2][3][4][5]
If you wish to set a policy or change the current WP:UKNATIONALS essay then please start a centralised discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Continuing to change articles without consensus is not particularly helpful. Road Wizard (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss this issue yet? While your latest tack is a novel approach, I don't think removing all reference to nationality can be called an improvement. As before you need to establish a consensus before implementing such broad changes to articles. Road Wizard (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you're the guy who changed English back to British for Messrs Hague, Boswell and Yeo. But why haven't you done so for David Beckham? Why is he allowed to be English but not the other three? Ausseagull (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(indented text as the text below precedes this comment) As I have explained repeatedly after each of those changes (and as other editors have explained) you need to gain a consensus for any change in nationality from the legal nationality (British) to the specific nationality (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc.) or vice-versa. If the editors of the David Beckham article have reached a localised consensus that he should be shown as English rather than British then that is perfectly acceptable. There has been no similar consensus for the other articles.

While I have reverted your changes that are not supported by consensus there is nothing to stop you trying to build a new consensus that your view is the correct one. If you do gain a consensus then I will be happy to support your changes. The one thing I will not support is a blanket change of all articles to either legal nationality or specific nationality without building consensus first. Road Wizard (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the picture's becoming clear. If you're English you're British. If you're Welsh you're Welsh , unless you're a Tory or a "royalist", in which case you're British. That at least is the perception of Daicaregos and Snowded and/or the message they want to put across. Ausseagull (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are serious and complex issues involved here. The problem is that there are essentially two definitions of the word "British", both currently in use by different sets of people. The first view, which as someone who grew up in England with parents and grandparents who were of Welsh and (N) Irish extraction I have always been comfortable with (though less so in some discussions with some editors on this site), was that "British" is a neutral non-political term to describe people who lived in the GB, or the UK, and was a useful shorthand term to describe people of mixed ancestry such as myself - of whom there are many millions, particularly in England because there was so much more migration from Scotland and Wales (and Ireland) into England in recent centuries than went in the opposite direction. The second view, which you've come across here and which I wasn't fully aware of (except in relation to Ireland) before coming to this site, is that the term "British" - as opposed to English, Scottish and Welsh - is seen as a leftover from the time when England (as it unquestionably did and to some extent still does) exerted political hegemony over Scotland and Wales and used the term "British" as a spurious claim to the whole island. That is the view held by many nationalists from Scotland and Wales (and Ireland). It also helps explain why "English nationalism" is such a difficult concept - many people in England don't feel overwhelmingly "English" because they know that their ancestors came from all over the place, but also know that the term "British" is contentious. In relation to politicians, that's essentially why you'll find that the more nationalist ones like Dafydd Wigley (born in England) would describe themselves as (in his case) Welsh, and the more unionist ones like Michael Howard (born in Wales) would describe themselves as British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Snowded for instance is of specifically Anglo-Saxon English extraction and is still a pro-Plaid nationalist, so I don't think its that simple or all one way Ghmyrtle. A lot of People in Liverpool and Manchester are some of the mostly rabidly and unrepentently St George's Cross waving "English" people in the country, even though so many are of very recent (1950s) Irish background. The danger with such "national" topics is making collectivist assertions, especially when something could be percieved as unfavourable.

There are all manner of weird individuals from England or pure English extraction who reinvent themselves as some sort of romanticised victim, quasi-socialist or mythological druidic "nationalist" for other British Isles nations. Examples; Wendy Wood an Englishwoman from Kent and her crankish involvement in Scottish politics, Seán Mac Stíofáin an Englishman from London not of Irish extraction was chief of staff for the Provos and adopted a cringworthy Gaelicisation of his name, Beca Brown a Plaidist TV presenter from England who moved to Wales and now claims to be "racist".[6] Even today the pseudo-"Cornish" movement, is led by Englishmen from Sussex like Philip Payton.

The problem is Wikipedia, due to its open database nature, also attracts unusual activists who want to lobby for this nationalist position or that nationalist position on almost every single article. Its probably the same on the Spanish Wikipedia with various self-appointed victims lobbying there too. In my opinion, a good way to get around it for people like politicians would be to have "British (English)", "British (Welsh)", "British (Scottish)" and it stones two birds with one stone. Regardless of what "identity" nationalists on here want to lobby for, all people born in the UK are verifiably British due to their passport. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that certain "nationalists" want to take a specific line, which is basically British=English=British. The misconception is fairly universal outside the UK and it suits them to reniforce it. I've now been told that Geoffey Howe, born and bred in Wales and the son of the Recorder of Llanelli should be called British not Welsh but Neil Kinnock should be referred to as Welsh not British. (I have incidentally met both Geoffrey Howe and Neil Kinnock). Worse still, when I've changed the references of English-born politicians from British to English, it's changed back: they seem to want to deny "Englishness".

As I've mentioned, there's a parallel with the Irish element, trying to push Peter O'Toole and Shane MacGowan, both British by birth and education, as Irish, but less keen on Chris de Burgh or Francis Bacon. The first two meet the required stereoype: heavy drinkers and anti-British. Ausseagull (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you will receive advice here from different editors with different perspectives pointing you in different directions. The guidance is at WP:UKNATIONALS. The only consistency is to go with how people identify or identified themselves, where that is obvious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ausseagull—haha, yeah they try to steal certain people when its a convinent proposition. Happens with The Beatles, Oasis, Johnny Rotten and a bunch of other people too. They can have Shane MacGowan and whatever is left of his teeth, but nobody is taking Michelle Keegan and Tina O'Brien away, I'm reserving them for obvious but entirely unspeakable reasons. Engerland 2 - 0 Rest of the World. ;) - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - aren't you of Scottish background Ghmyrtle? The Hamiltons are a quite famous Scottish noble house. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends how far back you go - my Hamiltons were settlers in N Ireland. More generally - no, it's not simple at all, I was just trying to give some guidance to our Aussie friend. And unionists can be just as provocative and resistant to compromise as nationalists - I'm sure you'd agree (lol). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people who have converted to Anglicanism

The article List of people who have converted to Anglicanism has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't take offense, though your "Wrong Way Go back" notice might tempt me to. Oddly enough I've now got various new names from the "List of former RCs" which "does not cite any references or sources" but is not proposed for deletion. I can provided sources for most of the people in my article, but you'll have to give me time.

I'll also check that people on the list of converts to Roman Catholicism are properly sourced. Ausseagull (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now done quite a bit of sourcing. but in most cases the main Wkipedia article gives the approriate sources and references. Ausseagull (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Paxman

You just removed Charterhouse but it look as if it was in the citation? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jeremy-paxman-the-outsider-462914.html Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

from the citation...He is pretty much a BBC lifer, having joined the corporation 30 years ago. Though Who Do You Think You Are? had revealed the modest origins of both sides of his family, he had grown up in Yorkshire as the son of a factory manager and enjoyed a privileged education, attending Malvern College and Charterhouse, before reading English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge.

Well, I heard him interviewed by Michael Parkinson and he talked about Malvern and Cambridge, but never once Charterhouse. And his Who's Who entry doesn't mention it either. I suspect that The Independent just made a mistake. Swapping schools like that is very rare.

These things happen. A Wiki entry on Edward Heath mentioned that he had a year at King's Canterbury. He didn't. Ausseagull (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well at least it is cited. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ndsg

Hi - I read your notice about the death of Ndsg and I see also that bots have since placed messages on his page. I wonder if the bots should be stopped somehow. Or maybe people take comfort in knowing that his account is still active here. I guess it's a personal matter and I have no idea what Ndsg himself would have thought about it. I know him only by his favourable comments on the Latin translations of James Michie, whose death he announced at the Horace talk page. What do you think? Reply here if you like. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew Ndsg very well. He introduced me to Wikipedia. I thought I ought to inform posters of his death. I think the bots should be stopped, but I don't know how to do this. Ausseagull (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Try posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - they should be able to do something or else advise you on the process once you explain the situation. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Not a big problem, but I don't know if you've read WP:TALK - particularly the bit that says: "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page" [...or the middle...] "it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)