Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 29 November 2008

Welcome!

Hello, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  The Ogre 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Name in red

How do you sign your name in red? I want to do the same.VK35 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Portuguese Empire

Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! I haven't forgot our conversation. I'm working on it. Thanks. The Ogre 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews

There have been many request for comment on this guy and many disputes, most of them ending when everyone just gives up on gibnews or when he pretends to agree to later change everything back to his liking. He effectively owns the article... Its not worth it getting into a protracted conflict with him. Just make sure that user Fayssal is watching the page and keeps him in line.--Burgas00 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Spanish Empire

Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! I still haven't forgot the whole question regarding the map of the Portuguese Empire, but it will take some time. I'm writing regarding a different issue - the Map of Spanish Empire. There are lots of diverging points of view being discussed in Talk:Spanish Empire#Map. Why don't you came by and tell us what you think? The discussion is about the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the territories of the Spanish Empire during the period of the Iberian Union from 1580 to 1640. Thank you! The Ogre 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Flag

The Ulster banne was the flag of the Northern Ireland government used between 1953-72, the flag ceased to be used in any offical capicity when that government was disbanded by the British government in 1973, the only offical flag is the Union Banner.--padraig3uk 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the flag of Northern Ireland, and I don't need concencus to remove false information and POV from articles.--padraig3uk 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read the rules of WP, concencus is not require to remove false information and POV, the Ulster banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland and is only used today by Unionist/Loyalists, it cannot even be flown for government building in the north, wishful thinking on the part of one part of the population dosent make it a de-facto flag, when it is rejected by a sizeable minority in a divided community.--padraig3uk 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Federal Commonwealth Society

Why did you change the reference in the website section about this organisation on the Commonwealth of Nations article? - (203.211.73.10 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Texas?

Howdy parter! Is you from Texas? I had this sort of itching-twitching bug in my stomach to ask ya. You see, when I get a feeling, that it comes slow, and then fast it just gotta be right, right? Well if you is not from Texas I should stick to something else. Another thing that makes me believe so is that there is a bar here called, Reddy Hot of Pat, it think it might be you. If you are from my zone, and know this bar, I think we might have gone to school together. Remember, I was the one that sitted at the back of the class with Mrs. Bolwer. Those were the days, I mighty miss 'em! I really hope ya is from my zone, perhaps one day we could meet up together again? Another thing, will the workload triumph outside the puzzled mixture? MorningRazor

That's a mighty shame partner. For one moment I though it was really Bill, I haven't seen that guy for 20 years or more. Well it was nice to meet such a nice person, in fact, all folks should be like ya! MorningRazor

Your edit to United Kingdom

Your edit to United Kingdom removed well-sourced and relevant material from the article. Please do not describe my good faith edits as vandalism, and please take more care about what you remove from articles. Thanks, Gwernol 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Gwernol here - you state that the information you removed is in a "picture caption" - it plainly isn't; the information is a useful, and well-sourced paragraph under the Economy heading, and you haven't provided any justification for removing it. You've now reverted this information three times, so please discuss on the article's talk page before reverting it again, as per[REDACTED] policy. Thanks. njan 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Pat Ferrick, but you are wrong, the text you removed was the opening two paragraphs of Economy section, not the caption. Please don't remove it. And please stop accusing me of vandalism. Good faith edits are never vandalism. Please also be aware that if you revert again, you will breach WP:3RR and I will ask another admin to step in. Thanks, Gwernol 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Someone changed the caption and put the closing square brackets in the wrong place. I thought someone had tried to create a mini essay within the photo caption. However, you should have assumed good faith in the first place. You were lightning fast to place a vandalism tag here, when I am not a vandal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but perhaps you could consider taking your own advice on this, since you continued to put test templates on my talk page after I explained what I was doing and why that I was making good faith edits and you were making a mistake... Gwernol 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit mad there. A case of very crossed wires... me thinking I was improving the article but getting called a vandal by someone who I thought was being vandalistic... etc etc There's a good reason for always assuming good faith :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Sorry to bother you but I notice you are edit-warring on the inclusion of a band there. I was particularly concerned you used the edit summary "revert persistent vandalism". This is quite clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. You both need to take it to talk please. --John 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that and warned him too. Where did you get the idea that two wrongs make a right here? They don't. Please don't do this or anything like it again. --John 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit-war; I happen to agree with you on the issue but it really isn't worth getting blocked for. --John 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do assume good faith! However, your many consecutive edits with very little attempt at trying to reach concensus - or just ignoring anything you don't agree with - has not left me with a particularly strong impression of good faith. By doing this, it puts you in the wrong rather than anyone else. At no point have I made 3 reverts on the article - you have. As you are clearly so observant as to have picked out my admittance of having poor english on my user page, and you "do not believe that your english is poor", it might interest you to know that "thank you" is two words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk • contribs)

Amazing that! Maybe I'm slightly forgetful? I notice you've not actually responded to any of the other points I raised. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Remembered that time. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Red, well done for adding references to many articles. However, can you please reference the articles properly using the citation method. regards. --Vintagekits 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gibnews

Please don't make the situation worse. Thanks. --John 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Falklands Article

Since you seem to have strong views on the matter, I was wondering if you would like to consider finding a reference to support the Argentine view on the use of English names. I have found plenty of references to support how the Islanders view the use of Spanish names but not the converse. I really have tried to find them but not succeeded. The best I can come up with only obliquely refers to it and I don't think it satisfies WP:RS. Let me know what you think thanks. Justin A Kuntz 09:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Colonies in North America?

Hi. I've discovered a source of 1570 that says that Portugal had a colony in Cape Breton. Take a look at the new thread I created in the Portuguese Empire discussion page. Yes, it is far from being contemporaneous...:P. Greetings,Câmara 22:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may like to look here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish empire map

You say Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. Well, I think you may find that we can at least verify that Portugal should be in the map, and it seems you have accepted this notion. If you upload a map with Portugal joined to the rest of Iberia in red, and give me your word to uphold it as you did the last, I'll give you my word to drop the discussion in its entirety and not to push for the inclusion of the other territories once the new map is uploaded. Frankly, this is taking up a lot of my valuable time, and I'm sure the same goes for you. 68.179.176.9 10:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

Fine two colors, but you have to remove the border with Portugal in your original. Also, the description of the orange territories needs a slight change. It says they were in union with Spain, when in fact (and I have a quote backing this) Spain was that union of crowns under the Hapsburgs. It would be best to say the crown formed part of Spain. Or you could describe it as you did in the discussion, as European territories gained through inheritance. Then I will agree. There still will be the problem you mention, if Portugal is in why not the colonies? Well, you have a simple argument to make, it is original research to conclude that the colonies should be included if Portugal itself is. Or at least that was what you argued with us since those maps were found. 68.179.176.9 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

I've been thinking about it more and I take back what I said. It should just be in red. There is nothing in the maps we have found that uses those descriptions. Why should it be that way just because you want it so? Labelling them as such would just raise more questions. There is already a map created that has Portugal in red (not the one I made). So if you'll agree I'll put it up. 68.179.176.9 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

If you can find 4 or more maps that have that description we can upload that one instead. For now the simplest version will do, since we have both agreed that just Portugal should be included. 68.179.176.9 13:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

First of all, it shows the Spanish Hapsburgs as a political entity which is synonymous to the Spanish empire. Second, Portugal is half-marked, because it is only after 1580, as it says on the map. And thanks for changing the wording on your map, it makes much more sense now. 68.179.176.9 01:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

Hello, it's been a while but I've made a request for the Spanish empire map on its discussion page (near the bottom). Take a look at it please.

Here is a map of Iberia in 1600 which shows the boundary between Castile and Aragon, and of course Navarre is also there but it is rather small so we might as well leave it out. The distinction between Aragon and Castile is more important.

http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_south_west_1600.html#%20here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ~Ed

British Empire

I dont see why the criticism isnt appropriate in the intro to the British Empire. I cited my facts and you have no right to delete my edits without proper reason. Peace. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, that British people cannot stand an inch of criticism about their Empire. So are you telling me that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (I bet you never heard of that), the Bengal famine, the partition of India never happened ? I dont know about other British colonies but I am sure there are similar incidents. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Noticed your recent edit adding "more advanced". Got to be a POV term, surely!Mariya Oktyabrskaya 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reputable and sourced POV. Fine. Accepted. Thanks for your quick reply. Keep up the good work with your mammoth undertaking !!
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 12:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Busy

You've been busy, haven't you. Keep up the good work !!Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor issue - money raising.

You: "and its mechanisms of raising money for colonial ventures were well ahead of England or any other nation at the time".
You know about the creative ways the Spanish raised money during the mid- to late 16th Century?
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bit more to it than that, according to some. Professor Geoffrey Parker, for example, in "Spain and the Netherlands 1559 - 1659", Fontana Press, revised edition 1991, ISBN 0-00-686201-2, pp122-134 (Lepanto (1571): the Costs of Victory), says that the naval engagement that occurred in the Mediterranean in 1571 had no marginal cost to Spain.
Your mechanism does not seem to explain how that could happen.
Prof. Parker also has an interesting chapter in the same book, pp 178-204, (War and Economic Change: the Economic Costs of the Dutch Revolt).
Prof. Parker puts the decline of the Spanish down to trying to fight three wars (plus interventions in France and Portugal, with the Spanish Armada thrown in for good luck) for a very extended period of time, basically bleeding the coffers dry.
Plus, as an aside, I seem to remember that one of the Italian states is credited with inventing Merchant Banking, double-entry bookkeeping, and bookkepping in multiple currencies. Surely a prequisite for a colonial trade/commercial/capitalist empire?
Of course, as I am sure you know, the corporation (as a separate legal identity) was British - the Russia Company (I think that was it's name, without looking it up - something Russia, anyway).
But this is minor.
But don't let me distract you from your opus.
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Hickson and Turner http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/efirg/Corporation.pdf state that the Dutch East India Company copied the concept of the Russia Company.
Back to Prof Parker. p100 "...the Spanish crown was able to draw on a relatively efficient financial system which enabled it to borrow (or "anticipate") the revenues of up to ten years in advance..."
The critical Dutch innovation was not the Stock Exchange at all, but the policy of the Dutch Government (Parker p102)"...which always paid interest and repaid capital on time." The Spanish crown typically paid 7% for loans, the Dutch government 3%. This was the (Parker, p102) "...'Dutch finance'...adopted in England" soon after the crowning of William of Orange.
Same still holds true today - pay your debts, and you can borrow at a relatively cheap rate next time, but default and ....
Parker (p 96) also says that by 1630's, Spain had an army of 300,000 men, more than the Dutch, French, English, Swedish, and Russians combined. The cost of all that, I am sure you will agree, is a much more realistic reason for the subsequent decrease in Spanish power than the reasons you posited.
(The Lepanto wheeze involved getting special permission from the Pope for a tax on clergy, selling "Indulgences", and a tax on the third-richest (yes, really) man in every parish (those three alone more than covered the marginal cost), getting the Venetians to pay more than their fair share, and sending less ships than promised, whilst getting half of the booty from captured vessels at the end.) Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 00:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The British Overseas Territories Barnstar
		I, Biofoundationsoflanguage, hereby award you the British Overseas Territories Barnstar for your contributions to British Empire, United Kingdom, Falkland Islands and colonialism in general.

It's a bit kitsch, but enjoy regardless. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I've found multiple sources asserting the UK is a major power with global influence. I've added them to the talk page. Wasn't very hard to find. A pointless edit war if ever there was. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of atrocities

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of atrocities and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This problem with crufty lists at the bottom of pages happens all the time. Sometimes there are valid reasons for breaking out the lists. But often there is not. I had similar problems with crime against humanity and just deleted the section after stating that I was going to do so on the talk page. Another was Urban warfare: History (note the use of {{examplefarm}} there are others listed under Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup#Lists). More recently I have just hacked out most of Jolly Roger#Other uses after placing a {{refimprove|section|date=November 2007}} template for about a month on the section. I hope this is some use to you in the future :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Hello, Could you please take a look at the change in the map I suggested? Let me know what you think. It's the last message of the second to last topic. Thank you. ~~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello can you specify which parts are "rather dubious" ? the Spanish Empire technically ended in 1975 after the handover of Spanish Sahara so why do you keep changing it? and it also started with the conquests of the canary islands in 1402 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

I am Irish and I don't feel its appropriate to group Ireland's situation in with the British empire. This was never done at the time and it's not the way things were, the British/Irish relationship is a totally different thing to the empire.

I have read that Ferguson book, IIRC he also discusses quite a few other non-empire issues though.

Ireland could perhaps be mentioned in the origins of the empire but it really shouldn't be bolded out as its own large sections to such an extent.--Him and a dog 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. My mention of being Irish was purely in responce to your implication that mentioning Ireland there was somehow a Irish POV.

Ireland wasn't part of the British empire,this is a fact that most academics agree with. You're entitled to your oppinion but I'm afraid your opinion does not outweigh academic consensus.--Him and a dog 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources of yours that I have seen say nothing of the sort. Often I have seen Ireland referred to as the first colony but this is not a literal term, its just an analogy and a way to prove a point. The only book I've got avaialble here right now is Ferguson's empire and it doesn't call Ireland a part of the empire, it's just briefly discussed in being the prototype for the empire with plantations and part of its downfall with trouble at home.

My main proof isn't secondary sources, its primary ones. Government records of the time quite clearly show Ireland to be held seperate to the empire whether as a full part of the UK or a satelite kingdom.--Him and a dog 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

German Empire

Ok, I see what you mean. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe this will warm it up?

- Milk's Favorite Cookie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 18:28 11 March 2008 (GMT).

Chav

Hi there - I see you removed some text from Chav regarding the vowel variation between 'chav' and 'charv'. I feel that the inversion of the vowels is of importance, as 'chav' has Southern roots and 'charv' is very much a North East term; which goes against the isogloss of the - . It has been noted before in some circles that 'charv' couldn't possibly be a North East term (usually from people outside the area) due to the 'BATH' vowel, which is not present in the North East; this was the reason why I added this text. I'm not one for editing wars or anything like that, just wanted to hear your views! Cheers BNC85 (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. What is your source for this? The source you provided does not make these claims. Besides, the words are spelled differently - the "r" in "charv" changes the pronuciation of the "a". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true in regards to the spelling - hadn't thought of that! The source for the - / North - South isogloss is Wells, JC (1982) Accents of England; but this isogloss is pretty much reproduced in any dialectology / accent phonology textbook. I felt that it was of interest that pointing out that these related terms had reverse vowels; one would expect a 'southern' term to have 'charv' with the BATH vowel and the 'Northern' to have the TRAP vowel of 'chav'. Not the most amazing of observations I admit, but of note since the very slight phonological difference and the same semantic meaning (for example, I wouldn't make a comparision with 'Ned' or 'Scally' to 'chav') BNC85 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I don't dispute the - distinction, what I do dispute is your inference that chav/charv is an "unusual" instance of the reversal of this because you are injecting two of your own views there: (1) that this applies to a/ar and (2) that, if it indeed does (which I don't think is true) it is "unusual". You'd need to provide references that make this observation for it not to be original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One of my assignments due in the next few weeks is in regards to 'chav / charv' and its linguistic use in society etc, so I'll try and find some sources etc. I must have confused myself because I don't understand what you mean by 'unusual' and it's application to 'chav/charv' (basically the bit about my own views) My head's a bit frazzled with dissertation work at the mo, so it's probably me! But like I said, I'll have a root around when I'm doing my research and maybe something will be of use! BNC85 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You (I presume it was you, from what you say above) had written "What is unusual is that the vowel in charver is ɑ (as in 'far') and the mainstream UK equivalent uses the a (as in 'cat') vowel in chav which goes against the usual North-South (a/ɑ) vowel distinction". ie your argument is as follows: (1) in area A they say "chav" and in area "B" they say "charv" (2) in area A they normally pronounce a long "a" whereas in area "B" they pronounce a short "a" (3) observation 1 is the reverse of observation 2 (4) therefore, this is unusal. However, you are synthesizing your own argument here by assuming that chav/charv is the same as the pronunciation of "bath" (barth/bath), and then injecting your own view by saying that it is unusual. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire - several maps and always the same issue...

Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! I just wanted to tell that a similar discussion as the one we are having in Talk:Spanish Empire is occuring in The Commons (don't know if you have an account). It regards the widely used maps of Image:Spanish Empire.png, Image:Imperio español.png and Image:Spanish colonization of the Americas.png. In this discussion I used a lot of your arguments and sources. Some of it is done in Spansih and Portuguese. Your input would be welcome! Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ogre - thanks for your message. When I clicked on "what links here" on each map, nothing of note seems to link to them? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's because nothing links to them in the English Misplaced Pages - you have to go to the Commons. Check Spanish colonization of the Americas.png, Imperio español.png and Spanish Empire.png (Spanish Empire(Total Expansion).jpg is also a problem). The main participants in the discussions are myself, Durero, Patstuart and Trasamundo. Please participate! The Ogre (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe missing the point

Where in the MOS text is the "point already succintly made ("not all readers are familiar with all flags"))" Can you point me to the section with an anchor link?Gnevin (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just following the logic you put down before hand Gnevin (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not making a point , you said "point already succintly made ("not all readers are familiar with all flags") and just I applied that logic to the other flags .The point is already made In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon sizenot for use to say which flags a user may find it hard to distinguish Gnevin (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons blocking

Hi - apologies for the inconvenience. We have had some stalker vandalism on a range of IPs & blocked them (it is probably the same here as it was cross wiki).

Sorting it - I see you don't have an account (at least in this name) on Commons. I could create the account for you & mail you the password - this might be the best option. Otherwise I can try and arrange a time to briefly unblock the IP to allow you to create an account then re-blocked. I'd prefer not to do that as I am fairly sure the stalker will be watching what is going on (equally our timezones may make that hard)!

Get back to me & let me know what you feel is best (other suggestions may be good) & we will get something done - cheers --Herby 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced image

Image Tagging Image:British Empire Anachronous 8.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:British Empire Anachronous 8.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --LaGrandefr (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Empire

Hello. I saw you changed the Dutch Empire around. Please take a look at this site, it lists all the colonies/trading posts the Dutch ever held. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ (Red4tribe (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

I've suggested a compromise solution on the talk page, which would see a different colour used for temporary military possessions, such as Acadia or Puerto Rico, which the Dutch didn't control for long enough to make them genuinely part of the Dutch Empire proper. Please feel free to share input. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference for Suriname and you deleted my reference for Indonesia. I have been to Indonesia a few times and if you go to Java(paticulary)you don't have to look that far to find someone who speaks Dutch. My rough estimate is 20% of people 65 and older there speak Dutch somewhat fluent. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Suriname languages

Yes. There's a categorization mismatch somewhere (because 24 and 58 don't add up to 87), but that would match my understanding of the situation, and the numbers seem in the right ballpark. There are a number of local languages with a small number of speakers in Suriname, and when people need to speak to people that speak a different local language, Dutch is the language of choice. I remember having to help a woman in Houston airport because people kept thinking she was speaking some kind of Spanish, when actually she only spoke a local Surinam dialect and Dutch.Kww (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was rounding up to the next decimal it was something like 57.7% so I just put 58%. See? You don't need to question everything I do. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately your history of contributions, and regular failure to provide sources for your contributions mean that I do. You have led me on more than one wild goose chase, even when you have provided references: they turn out to be nothing to do with the contribution that you claim they support (e.g. Dutch bases in Pakistan and China). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I showed you they had trading posts there. Maybe not 100% correct but it's closer than them not being there at all. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Erm, did you read what I replied to you on Pakistan? The "reference" that you provided discussed a fort in Indonesia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the archive. It was there. Anyways please look at my reference. It is the Dutch Taalunie, which is the official regulator for the Dutch language. If you don't trust me on this either go ask someone else again. Feel free to re-word what I wrote if you think it is poorly written.(Red4tribe (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

There are 238 million people in Indonesia, and 2000 youngsters study it? That hardly constitutes interest by the young people. What was the study done by the writer to determine interest? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2000 study it in 1 city. That seems like quite a bit for a language that is only official in 3 countries. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

That is 0.0008% of the population. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot copy and paste from websites because you are violating copyright by doing so. And language such as "even the younger generation is interested in the language" is not encyclopaedic, or backed up with any sort of objective evidence for such a claim. If the evidence is 2000 students studying it a year, again, that is an insignificant fraction of the youth of Indonesia. There are probably more students of Dutch than that in the UK, but that is not evidence of a Dutch legacy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Language speaking groups in Indonesia - it is a generational thing - older and dying generation of indonesians have dutch still - but I would not under any circumstance believe any printed source even from foreign researchers on this matter - but thats from my personal research work in java in the mid 90's - to get a gross figure of speakers from any source is folly - and really in the end hypothetical - if you want a long and complicated reasoning to this - just ask - cheers SatuSuro 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anomolies - where some might study it is because up until recently all law students wishing to get a degree needed to have dutch to be able to utilise the colonial era materials - that is the likely explanation for learners but if the indication of non native english speaking in java- it would not constitute a group of individuals who could actually speak dutch - it would be more likely law students wh make as much a mess of english when they get their ways around it - non native english in indonesia is an experience to behld and savour - more colourful than singlish (sic) SatuSuro 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would actually be .02% and out of the 20,000 college students that would be 10%. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

You gotta be kidding you actually believe the stats? bah Do you know anything about Indonesia at all? I would say you are playing with misinformation at the best SatuSuro 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are playing with numbers there. Compare Indonesia to the countries colonised by other European powers: Brazil by Portugal, the rest of Latin America by Spain, USA, Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc by England, Morocco, Algeria, Niger, Mali etc by France: compare how many people speak the language of the colonising power today and then look at Indonesia. Can you explain why, even though the Dutch were in Indonesia for as long as the English were in India, and until roughly the same time, there is a such a difference in the number of speakers of the language? Any wording that suggests Dutch is a serious language in Indonesia is misleading in the extreme. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To write in the article you are both looking at to type in that Dutch actually modified the grammar of Indonesian suggest no knowledge of the language at all SatuSuro 01:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my comments at his talk page and arguing from a very dubious source and odd anecdotal information suggest that I will probably take this to the Indonesian project noticeboard in time rather than user talk pages - please excuse my enthusiasm for this but the Indonesian project commonly has to cope with such misinformation. cheers SatuSuro 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No excuse needed! I also recommend you open up the discussion as widely as possible. The empire articles are also the target of a lot of misinformation too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding - its odd the strange agendas we have to cope with at the Indonesian project - this is yet another we have to keep tabs on - cheers SatuSuro 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Acadie

You complain about the name, so I change it, then you change it back to the name you didn't like. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Disputed Tag

I didn't remove it, I really don't understand why you think I removed it (Red4tribe (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

A number of Problems

I added references, but do I really need to prove to you that Dutch is spoken in Suriname, Belgium and the Netherlands? What about South africa? Do I really need to prove to you they speak Afrikaans there? Indonesia? They aren't self published websites.

Dodgy dude reply

Yeah, I see on his talk page that you've got more wrinkled brows from this guy then I have. What pains me is that unreasonable individuals don't listen to reason. All we can do is keep our heads up. Tourskin (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets See

Lets see what others think (Red4tribe (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Did you know my signature is the default signature? (Red4tribe (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Why?

Why? (SaudiArabia44 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Gibraltar part deux

As we have finally found some common ground, can I suggest you take a look at This where someone has renamed that event and all the elections to something I consider horribly wrong. You too know the difference between Gibraltar and Gibraltarian and as another persistent PITA may find it a challenge to get it right - the other guy is not listening and says he is 'an English teacher and knows best'.

Unlike the argument over currency, where notes are copyright the official documents are public domain.

http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref2002g.pdf

--Gibnews (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we finally got there; However one point you say "Gibraltarian" is an adjective not a noun ("1. gibraltarian adjective of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants; "Gibraltarian customs office"), and is therefore grammatically OK

There is NO "Gibraltarian customs office" there never has been. Wherever you got that from (uncited) is talking bullshit. Its referred to as HM customs or The Gibraltar Customs because that is the custom. --Gibnews (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Italy

Every time I attempt to discuss things you become exceptionally rude so I have little interest in starting a disscussion with you anywhere other than the history page. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

AN3

If you're dealing with a difficult editor who's resorting to abusing multiple accounts in the future, please don't edit war with them. Instead, seek outside, uninvolved assistance with communication on the talkpage, if that's ignored, try a neutral post to a relevant noticeboard. I was || this close to blocking you, but the person you've been edit warring with is behaving much worse. east.718 at 03:19, May 14, 2008

If problems like that are long-term, we deal with the problem by removing the guilty party from the encyclopedia. ^_^ Seriously though, most administrators are pretty clueful and can spot behavior like this pretty transparently. Just find one or several for assistance if you're really at the end of your rope. east.718 at 20:40, May 14, 2008

Red4tribe

Hey – I’ve had a few discussions with Red4tribe over at Indonesian National Revolution, and now left a polite note at his talk page. I think we need to back off while he’s blocked. Misplaced Pages needs passionate editors and they are hard to come by, but we need to first try to coax any wayward habits into shape first, before we crack down on them. So, let’s give him a chance. I know you’ve had your frustrations with him regarding sources for example; your concerns seem well-justified and your patience excellence. We all need to be mindful of WP:CIVIL – it’s not there to be all lovey-dovey, but it’s there to protect and foster a collaborative atmosphere, and not let it descend into combat. Thanks for you patience – let’s see how we respond if we can be a bit more gentle. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t – but let’s give him a chance and not try and make him fail.

I’ll leave another note for him, just to provide emphasis. Your work on the Dutch Empire article continues to be excellent. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

20 May

Hello there. There has been some odd activity over at Dutch East Indies. Ie, the addition of the infobox – although I don’t like this addition, that’s another issue. What is puzzling me is the contribs of this anon – he says he is Red4tribe(!?!). Now, that seems a little - um – dumb to admit it openly if one is blocked. I noticed that you reverted this anon on a American Empire map. Should we do a check user? Regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

???

Sorry, but i don't understand why you moved the content of Italian Empire to Italian Colonial Empire. There was no consensus on it and also, that's not the way to move an article. Now all the history to the article is split into two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udonknome (talk • contribs)

Hello. Whilst I may have messed up with the move (but relatively easily fixable, it seems), I don't apologise for my WP:BOLD editing, one does not need consensus to be bold. The article in its prior state was an absolute mess of unsourced and often duplicated material. It is now at least on its way to being a proper, sourced, article on Italian colonialism, to complement that on the British Empire, Portuguese Empire, Dutch Empire and Spanish Empire. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting more than a history merge: you seem to be suggesting that my edits should be reverted. As someone who is primarily concerned in improving the European empire articles series, I'd be interested to know why you feel that would be justified. I recently took an axe to the Dutch Empire article too, and took the article from this abomination to, with the help of some other like minded editors, this respectable state . As for why the move, Mussolini declared the "Italian Empire" in 1936. As Italy had colonies for fifty years prior, the article really needed a name that reflected that. Anyway, please read the new state of the article before jumping to any conclusions! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No no no no...your edits wont be reverted. only that the histories of the two pages will be ultimately merged together, so that the edit listings wont be lost. If I wanted to revert your edits, I could've simply done a mega-rollback, which is of course not of my intention Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. So I rectified my move by doing the following. What existed at Italian Empire was moved, pre-my-edits, to Evolution of the Italian Empire. The Italian Colonial Empire article now contains my edits, which are basically a new article. At least that way the histories are preserved better. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, what have you done???? No offense, but by adding another articles to this mix you managed to make the situation worse. First, do not ever remove a tag like the one I put in the article. That's almost vandalism, and I had to revert it. I'd really suggest you stop editing these articles until I can get a hold of administrators to fix this. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what gives you the right to arbitrate in this way? And how dare you accuse me of "almost vandalism". You know perfectly well my intentions are good. I demand an apology. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that I was the only person to edit the article since the move, and given that I had essentially rewritten most of the article, my solution was a far better one than the one you have now left on the plate. You seem to be a bit trigger happy - this is the second time that you have reverted without thinking - the first being to do with the map which you failed to spot had been changed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that the map incident have to do with this? At first, I never reverted that, I just said I couldn't see the difference and warmly apologized after you corrected me! --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever say it was vandalism? I said it was almost vandalism, meaning that someone might misunderstand them as so. I also reverted your edits as good faith ones so...? The only thing I may be sorry for is if I didn't express myself clearly as i could've had. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If "almost" murdering someone is attempted murder, what is "almost" vandalising a Misplaced Pages article? Please choose your words more carefully in future. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What now?????? I think you are taking this 'almost' thing too far out of contest and losing focus on the real issue --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know. Anyway, I think your proposed history merge will be more trouble than it is worth. I had left things in a state where the histories of the two articles were perfectly preserved, as though I had effectively created a brand new article, Italian Colonial Empire. No edits had been made to what was Italian Empire since I began my work this weekend. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, although I can understand what you mean, Misplaced Pages:MM#How_to_rename_a_page says :Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) See? --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my latest proposal did not involving moving or renaming a page by copying/pasting its content, did it, because I reverted the redirect at Italian Empire, and then moved the page using the standard move approach to Evolution of the Italian Empire, thereby preserving the edit history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, edit history of ex-Italian Empire article fully preserved: Edit history of new Italian Colonial Empire fully preserved: Please explain to me what is wrong with that state of affairs? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, though that pattern of edits was an extremely complex one, I guess it's all savable. Now the only thing that's left is what to do with the two articles, and my suggestion would be to propose the articles for merge, since they are extremely similar. Then we may discuss the title of Italian Colonial Empire (way later though), which I still don't understand. Agree? --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My experience of empire articles is that you need two: one for the chronological overview (British Empire), one as an outlet for editors that like to list every single territory ever held (Evolution of the British Empire). In terms of Italian Empire vs Italian Colonial Empire, as I said before, given that Mussolini officially declared the existence of the "Italian Empire" a full fifty years after Italy started acquiring colonies, it is not an appropriate name for the full history of Italian colonialism. But this is all stuff that we can discuss on the talk page of the article. Again though, I do not apologise for not seeking consensus on that first. Given the very poor quality of the Italian Empire article, it is clear that noone had actually read it top to bottom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I be of any help, perhaps? I haven't read much any of this section, but am interested in helping. Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours} at 04:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the situation has been fixed. Thanks anyways!! :) Do you know me? I can't tell you to shut up...so just SCREEEAAMM!!! _{You can still shut up if you want to, just don't blame me} 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum

I proposed the deletion of Italian Mare Nostrum. --DIREKTOR 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see I’ve been overtaken by events on this; I've posted at the AfD page now. In the meantime, I noticed that your Mare Nostrum page doesn't have anything in the Fascist usage section; is it worth copying some of this pages "MN of Mussolini" section? Say the 2nd and 4th paragraphs? they seem to cover it. What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourced

The map is sourced. from the following pages. pg 36-37. Pg 69. Atlas of WWIII by John Keegan. You can see that if you click on the map. Red4tribe (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Spanish empire map and date

I´m waiting for your reply. If you don´t, I´ll understand that you agree and tomorrow will undo to the previuos version -with the virreinato del peru- and the date aprobed (1976).Emiliojcp (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Eighth Army on the BE page

Might be worth specifying which nationalities? I don't think it was a huge number of multinational forces. ANZAC, Indian and British. Though it might be too much detail, just thought I'd toss the idea out there. Narson (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Eighth was a bit more of a mix than most due to its geographical location. Before the war there was only Middle East Command native to the area. Around the Horn you had the various colonials (mostly local troops, poor quality) so things were shipped from the west and from the east to fom the eigth. It is interesting to see the mix of ethnicities within the divisions themselves. The signals in the Indian divisions were mostly English folk like my grandpa, for example. I'll dig out a source on the make up of the eigth perhaps. Might see if I can find one for the army in general from that period. Narson (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You now have Rollback

Hello,

Just a note that I've granted you rights to the Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. I'm confident you will use this dangerous weapon wisely, but to maintain your standing in the editting community, please take a look at the aforementioned link. My only surprise is that you didn't have this already. Good luck, :D --Jza84 |  Talk  13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

I am for the moment holding back on reversion, but you have to allow other editors to engage on this page. The general point about the Norman model is important and I cut the Welsh point, and added cited material to expand the wider point. The Misplaced Pages works on edits, If I put something in supported by citation it should not be reversed unless it is controversial. In case you missed it I also added something under Asia on the role of technology. --Snowded TALK 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way - are you aware of WP:Empire just spotted it when an invitation went to one of the editors I have on a watch list --Snowded TALK 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

English Empire redirected me to British Empire. I was interested in your discussion on the British Empire talk page concerning the origins of the British Empire. I wondered if you had read 'The Rise and Fall of the English Empire' by Francis Ambrose Ridley, (Medusa Press, London, 1976). It is referred to by Peter Berresford Ellis in the introduction to 'Celt & Saxon' (Constable, London, 1993). He says of Ridley:

"The main thesis of his new work was one that he had argued over many years in several publications. Ridley maintained that there was no such thing as a British Empire but that, in reality, it was an English Empire. Firstly, the Anglo-Saxons had to invade the island of Britain and conquer the indigenous inhabitants - the British Celts - or such a major proportion of them as to render Saxon settlement of the island permanent and dominant. The Anglo-Saxons created 'England' in part of the island but were not able, at that time, to entirely eradiate or control the Celts confined to certain areas of the island. Therefore, independent Celtic kingdoms remained in Britain until modern historical times. But the Anglo-Saxons never lost the imperial dynamic, reinforced by a Norse (both Danish and Norman) intermix, which eventually proceeded to the conquest of the remaining Celtic areas, as well as pushing on to the conquest and annexation of their Celtic neighbours in Ireland. Once a base was finally secured, first by Oliver Cromwell and then by William of Orange, and England attempted to create the concept of a homogeneous 'Britishness' - what Winston S Churchill saw as 'The Island Race' - the English thalassocracy could expand on a more universal scale. The dynamic of the empire was therefore English and England's Celtic neighbous were only incorporated in the empire in the subordinate role of colonial conquests"

Is this the reference you were looking for to begin the article with English expansion? I look forward to hearing your view. Cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Elections in Gibraltar

Hello, I have opened an RM at Talk:Gibraltarian general election, 2007#Requested Move to move the three articles on elections in Gibraltar. I thought you might be interested as you were involved in the previous RM on referendums. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref

I count one time. Please remain WP:CIVIL.Red4tribe (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire - decline principally due to overspending

The headline says it all. I put the suggestion to Prof Parker, and as a one word summary of several hundred years of history, he agreed.
The advantage of the dutch was that their government didn't default on their loans, while spain did. (It has been suggested that certain of the Dutch Protestants took a very strict view on debt default). It is this rather than the sophistication of the dutch markets that explains why the spanish paid so much for their loans.
But the biggie was that for two periods Spain spent, and spent, and spent. Wars on three fronts etc. etc. Spain made peace when it economically had to, but kept kicking off the war again when it could afford to - in short it deliberatley overspent when it didn't need to, rather than it ran out of money due to inflation. As I have mentioned before, if a country has an army the size of many others put together, how long can it afford to do it?
Just a thought to stimulate the grey matter
MariaMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember the details of our discussion and so don't really understand what point you are trying to make. However, I will say this: (i) overspending and inflation are not independent phenomena (ii) attempting to summarise most things, let alone several hundred years of history, in one word is a bit pointless. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you suggested that the inflation, caused by the importation of a large quantity of gold from the New World was the primary cause of the decline. (Apologies if I have misrepresented your views). What I am saying is that it was rather the way that imperial ambition meant that no attempt was made to match revenue and expenditure during two separate periods, therefore overspending due to this ambition was the primary driving force behind the decline, rather than any much lesser effect caused by the devaluation of the currency (which the gold-importation theory would suggest) (I looked it up, it was October 2007)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a long memory. I wrote "My understanding is that the Spanish were essentially filling their coffers (and paying back their loans) via the mining of precious metals, which suffer from the problem that the value of precious metals derives from their scarcity. The result was rampant inflation, defaults and the eventual decline of Spain and its Empire." I stand by this, and it is entirely consistent with your one word summary of "overspending". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvass

Your request has been granted Ctjf83Talk 04:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2 Issues

Olá The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! I see that besides this one, there is also an account with your name at the Commons. I do not know if it is yours or not, but you might be interested in having a unified login. I'm writing not just to give this info, if perchance you already did not know, but also with some sel-interest in mind... Wouldn't you like to give a look and maybe participate in the discutions I'm having about the same old issue, that is, the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the Spanish one during the period of the Iberian Union? They can be found at Commons:Image talk:Imperio español.png, Commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire(Total Expansion).jpg, Commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png, Commons:Image talk:Spanish colonization of the Americas.png, and at es:Discusión:Imperio Español, gl:Conversa:España and ca:Discussió:Imperi Espanyol. Only if you're up for it, of course! The Ogre (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scream

Thanks. SamEV (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot deleting your map

Hi. You should know that OrphanBot has been removing your anachronous map of the British Empire from articles, and that it may be deleted altogether, because it's allegedly "not sourced". The 'no source' tag was slapped by a drive-by unregistered editor. I've restored the map in articles it was removed from, and I've removed the "no source" tag, since you did actually source it as "self-made". But you may want to watch out for it. Aridd (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

You might like to check Gibnews' talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard before removing that link. Regards. Justin talk 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum, again

Hello Red (or Pat; which would it be?)
I'm depressed to be bringing this up again, but...
I followed the link on this page to the Simple English WP and found the article that caused all ther trouble in the first place posted there. At the risk of canvassing, what the hell do I do now? I don't know where to begin! Xyl 54 (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I have never looked at or edited the Simple English one - I have enough troubles on the regular one! Why don't you just change it and see what happens? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the talk page; I'm in contact with a couple of admins there; i don't know whether it can be deleted or if the whole neutrality argument will have to be run again. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:British Empire Anachronous 8.png

Hi, I notice that this image is up for deletion on the Commons. Please follow the links to contribute to the discussion. I think the problem is the apparent lack of source. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

UK/Britain

I see you've been a busy boy. 'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom. i.e. colloquial and hardly the hallmark of a professional encyclopedia. Justin talk 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd better contact Britannica ASAP then. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

British Empire article review

Thanks for your comment. I'm not opposed to referencing per se, but I believe citations should really be reserved for academically contentious assertions; having to "prove" every sentence strikes me as being wrong for a number of reasons (I am aware I have not been able to express these coherently as yet!). As for mundane work, I'd be happy to help with referencing for potentially contentious topics, but I only have two specific and reliable sources on my book shelf (here) and they are both quoted far too much relative to the number of other sources on this topic. However, I will see what I can do. I think we've got the intro expanded and polished now. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some amendments as per your suggestions. If you can think of better ways of linking paragraphs then go for it - I am not saying you should not alter things if they are wrong (although that does not mean you should alter things simply because you don't like the style!). I'll expand the Great Depression bit later - point taken - and I think the section needs a new picture (an Irish war memorial is not really fitting imho). As to the size of a section covering 20 years; it is about 2/3 the length of 1783-1815 section (30 years). I don't see this as a problem. There are some large sections covering growth and there are some large sections covering decolonisation. This is the bit in the middle and it needs to explain why trends changed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it also sets the foundation for the World War 2 section, which was hanging in mid-air. I'll look at this next, starting with material I've integrated. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sterling

I answered your query on the banknotes page. It was a very interesting question. I investigated it many years ago. What is the difference between a currency such as the Falkland pound which is on par with sterling but not sterling, and the Isle of Man pound which is sterling? It's largely semantics. The idea of two different terminologies can begin as soon as a distinct coin issue or paper money issue exists. But it takes more than that to formally make it a separate currency. There was a period in the early 1930's when the foreign exchange markets in London were quoting different values for the New Zealand Pound, the Australian Pound and the Fiji Pound, yet in those areas, UK and Australian coinage circulated as if it were all one currency, and their exchange rates were one to one amongst themselves. By 1935, some of the Pacific Islands had to seek formal advice as to whether their currencies were UK sterling or Australian sterling, because certain elements knew exactly how to take full advantage of the confusion. In the end, all the islands except for Fiji and the New Zealand owned islands were deemed to be Australian pound territories. Western Samoa and the other New Zealand territories used the New Zealand Pound, while Fiji had its own pound. David Tombe (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

spanish empire or holy roman empire?

hi red, why u put a line between aragon and castilla in spain? spain was formed in the 15 century by the union of castilla and aragon LOLOL, you should also include the european possesions in the main page as the european colonies of the spanish netherlands,because alexander farnesio duke of parma reconquered the southern netherlands with SPANIARDS, southern netherlands was under the rule of spain, reconquered by spaniards and protected by spaniards. should count as a european colony. The Spanish Empire was a multi-global enterprise and in EUROPE (European Spanish Empire) was created mostly by DYNASTIC UNIONS and not conquer , the branch of the Austrians and Spanish Hasburgs were separated after the abdication of HRE Charles V or Charles I of Spain , this basically means WHATEVER land was given to Phillip II of Spain ; the italians (not all) , dutch , belgium , luxemburguese , german and french lands (Burgundy) among many others WERE SPANISH , like it or not , that is undoubtable . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosialscastells (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dutch empire

Why did you undid my revision on that articcle? I was not changing anything in the content of the article, or removing anything at all, but merely cleaning up and making things more clear and easyer to understand. You have seen the tag yourself: This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or

I am going to revert it because the article needs those changes. You are welcome to add new changes or refine it further if you so wish, but please do not revert the whole thing again. It is ment to make the article easyer to read and follow.

Warrington (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Many changes I made are needed, If you do not agree whith some of them just correct them, but do not revert everything, pleaseok?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs)

Hi, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. I would like to request that you not undo the work of others in a manner consistent with reverting or undoing vandalism. It's inconsiderate of other's work. In cases such as this, where another editor has obviously spent a good amount of time making good faith edits to clean up an article, rather than undo all of their work without so much as an edit summary explanation, take a moment to go in and correct their errors. This is, after all, a wiki. No one is expected to be perfect in all of their edits, and a mistake in a large edit should not negate its quality entirely. Also, we don't own articles, so everyone is welcome to contribute to them. لennavecia 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Babies and beds

Hello,

I may be being dim, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "let's put this baby to bed" on Talk:Gibraltar. Put it in the article or leave it for now? In any case, I'll let you sort it out if the former. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 13:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)== hello ==

Ok i type too fast thats for sure , then whatever i'll edit with mistakes im sure you can change it right ?:) ferrick DID YOU EVEN READ why i changed that subheading?! use the discussion part next time please and i dont know if you hold a personal grudge agaisnt me but there is a section named "The wealth of Brazil" , how come you attack me but not the editor of that section?please no personal grudge anyways thanks ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok im sure you didn't notice the other ones , anyways please at least even read the discussion ok? thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

hi i changed or "modified" the subheading you wrote "End of Empire" for a little more "romantic" (or within historical terms) piece , i renamed it "The end of an Era" , i hope thats okay with you :).

One more thing , "Wealth of Brazil" doens't really sound good (to me at least) , i suggest we change it for something more historical (in text value) , what do you say?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ok :) remember however that what i write in "romantic" terms are also facts , and why are you stalking me ? hehe (joking)

What do you think we should rename "Wealth of Brazil" , i read the section and it didn't say anything about any wealth coming from Brazil...but rather its independece and its negative consequences on the Portuguese economy --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

hey i was thinking , should we put "Decline of the Empire" thereby replacing "Walth of Brazil"? because thats what basically happened from the mid-17 century to Portugal after the spanish hasburg left the country you know ...

One more thing , can I write "End of the Empire" instead of "End of Empire" , as to make it sound more fluent ?

Thanks about that info page btw cheers--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A'll righty! i did it , i think it looks much better than before .

I think we should focus a little more on the legacy section :)

I also think it would be beneficiary for the reader if we include Infoboxes in these "empire articles" , as it would help a lot in sorting out doubts and questions--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ok then if you resist but at least should we (wikipedia editors) try it? any complains and we take it down --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

hi , i was thinking about it and WE HAVE TO include portguese posessions in the Spanish Empire article , give me a good source why we shoudlnt , and what does you being a "moderator" gives you so much voice over fellow[REDACTED] editors such as myself ? In the Spanish Empire all territories were autonomous , each had itsown laws , parliaments , currency , etc the only thing they shared in common was that they had a common king , so if you are against showing Portuguese colonies as being part of the "Spanish" Empire , then we shouldnt show the low countries , and the aragonese lands ,does this make sense to you? c'mon please be logically and dont be in denial or how can we get somebody else here to help us out because you (i feel) dont want to help us out , greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

yes i understand that Ferrick! portugal was never incoporated into a "spanish" state because one didnt exist! all parts of the empire had AUTONOMY!!! whatever i wont even waste my time with you explaining something which is clearly above your intelectual level (or you nationalist chauvinism ) no offense or attack intended .

Deshima was a spanish port (not a colony) ,just like Macau was to Portugal .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)