This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | → | Archive 145 |
Essam Alshawali sports Tunisian born on September 25, 1970, is one of the most prominent sports commentators in the Arab this time, the comment on football matches sports channels, radio and television network of the Arabs. He has a great deal of sports information. Comment gives the game a sense of excitement and fun. Is characterized by a high tone voice, is always chosen to comment on the match strong.
Essam Ahawali selected the best Arabic commentator for the years 2005 and 2006, according to a poll conducted kooora site sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalunia2005 ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The main page news section says the nuke detonation was just something North Korea "claims", but then the article says everything DID happen, right there in the intro paragraph. Is there some kind of de facto sense of veracity to their claims that's being employed? 70.90.131.254 ( talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May 26, 2009: U2
This article for U2 appeared as a Main Page Feature recently. If Wikipedia has over 2,000 feature articles, why would this one be repeated so soon? Ed8r ( talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the featured image- It claims to have been made around 1930 on the main page, but was actually made around 1830. 81.77.28.178 ( talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Obama just appointed a new Hispanic (fist Hispanic) Supreme Court Justice. I think this should be included in the "In the News" section. World ( talk • contributions) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably should be "in the news."-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The top of this discussion (General discussion) has the hidden message: "Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it."
Is it by coincidence or design that there are two "bacon and alcohol" articles ( Bacon Vodka and Bacon Martini) in the curred "Did You Know" section? Isn't it against the ethos of DYK to have hooks for similar topics on the main page at the same time? -- saberwyn 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, Meta-Wiki changed their image, so you might want to update the image under "Wikipedia's sister projects".-- Cubs197 ( talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
With the "first" page of Wikipedia, why, on some computers do several of the language links get superimposed onto the globe? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did all the text at Wikipedia suddenly got smaller? 83.108.225.137 ( talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the assault on the Indians in Australia not covered in the "in the news" section? I tried adding it to the section but seems someone removed it. The death toll for the same has reached over 6 and certainly compared to Australian population it is a big deal losing over 6 lives. Also it is a concern as I believe its every humans duty to condemn racism. It would be great if someone could add the same. Bmayuresh ( talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We see your point but unfortunately it has to have international significance (suppossedly) for it to be put up. That or it has to be really big. Willski72 ( talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you know...
...that, having never heard of it before, Wikipedian J Milburn now sees references to the Checkers speech all over the main page? J Milburn ( talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the European Parliament election might be important enough to put somewhere on the mainpage. Maybe someone agree's?-- SelfQ ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are we going to put every speech by every world leader on the main page of Wikipedia as news? Thankyoubaby ( talk) 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would normally agree with this thinking. However, this speeech is front page news in my Irish newspaper today - with a shot of armed and masked Hamas fighters watching it on TV. I think it may be seen in future as a moment of change, when the USA started to reopen communications with the Muslim world. George Bush did incredible harm to the image of the USA in all the rest of the world. However, in particular he created a strong perception that it was heavily opposed to Islam, and sought to destroy it. (PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME. I do not say that perception is correct - only that it is the honest perception of huge numbers of Muslims.) You will see that this may be a watershed moment. Leave it in ITN. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, James Purnell resigned yesterday and 'stabbed Gordon Brown in the front' like Hazel Blears has done, but this hasnt been up even though it could lead to the collapse of a government. As interesting as Obama's speech was, unless it leads to Iran stopping uranium production etc it has no significance in itself. We may look back in future and say that that was the turning point, and then again we may not, until we know we can but speculate. Willski72 ( talk) 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No no, i think he does mean to call us all donkey holes. It is still my great ambition to buy a donkey and stand in New York with it telling everyone to kiss my ass! Willski72 ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes... my donkey will be smothered in kisses. Unhygenic perphaps but hey ho! Willski72 ( talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or is it at least the fourth time in one week that the "did you know..." section has an entry about bacon, and at least the second that it is the only illustrated one? Is it International Bacon Week or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh that is giving me some really nasty thoughts!!! Willski72 ( talk) 09:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it me or is West Bengal not move protected? M.H. True Romance iS Dead 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we get more color? More color on the front page. For the aesthetic factor. It may delve into the general discussion of the theme, but I tend to think of it for the front page. e.g. a bit of friendly yellow and happy cyan in the mix to give it a more harmonious touch. -- AaThinker ( talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Who would have guessed it could have more than one meaning! Willski72 ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
These creatures are getting cleverer, they can swim, walk, almost fly AND play hockey!!! The world is at their feet!!! Willski72 ( talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes i agree 62.92.31.1 ( talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Im afraid they can play hockey. Even as we speak they are practicing their evil plans to woo all humans with hockey while secretly attempting to dive-bomb them while they're distracted. But not being able to because they can only almost fly.... Willski72 ( talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Admins why and what has taken you this long to put this in the news box when Federer won the Career Grand Slam and Record Tying Grand Slam. Tennis Authority 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This section does not
cite any
references or sources. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources.
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
I hate to be pedantic but it says the British Parliament, i know that that's what it's normally called by most people but technically it is the UK Parliament as Northern Irish MPs sit there as well. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know im being pedantic but it would give me peace of mind if it was changed and i cant do it myself being no good at these things! Willski72 ( talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou! Willski72 ( talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You can see why they left it at British cant you, "UnitedKingdomish" would take far to long to say! Dont ask me why because i cant tell you but for some reason Northern Ireland is not part of "Britain" (UK instead) but the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!
Willski72 (
talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Correct but Northern Ireland is not on the island of Britain (or Britannia as it was called by the Romans) it is on the island of Ireland. They are both in the British Isles though. Northern Irish people are called British by convention and because it is easier and simpler (and many see themselves as such). Willski72 ( talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I know they arent, in fact its probably (very rough figures) 60% would call themselves British 40% would call themselves Irish. The point of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was to unite all the kingdoms of the British Isles together which was done in the Act of Union at the beginning of the 19th Century. Mainland Britain had been united 100 years before that as Britain. It all got complicated in Ireland with the fight for Independance etc and it was decided that Ulster (Northern Ireland) would stay part of the United Kingdom while the rest of Ireland would form its own Republic. The Republic of Ireland is within the British Isles but is no longer part of the United Kingdom (they would call themselves Irish), by contrast Northern Ireland is still part and its now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Everyone on the British mainland is British, there is no word for "UnitedKingdomish" and yet Northern Ireland is linked with that MORE than with Ireland. So the general consensus (not everyone agrees) is to call them British as well (even if a large minority dont wont to be!) Willski72 ( talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright let me put it slightly differently. The people in Northern Ireland are seen in international circles as British, even if they dont want to be. I later pointed out the very rough and simplified percentages of agree and disagree. I see your point and i apologise for not elaborating more clearly on the point. Willski72 ( talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Youre quite right and the main problem with pretty much anything to do with British constitutional matters is that there are virtually no sources that could not be argued against, especially in obscure matters such as this. Its quite funny really when you look how obscure this argument has become, it was originally only about the name of the parliament at Westminster! It then descended into a conversation that i am struggling to keep up with! I propose, with the agreement of others of course, that this somewhat confusing and in depth argument be stopped before it turns into a full blown article of its own! Considering that the reason for the section in the first place has gone, i think this is probably a good place to stop (in a good, solid, no decision made position); we could continue this argument for many year with no decision actually being reached!. Willski72 ( talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Phew! Hopefully thats the end and we can all go home.... (cue the hand through the ground, twitch of body, eye opening etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
DAMIT! Ruined the effect by forgetting to sign! Looks like im the one opening the eye, sticking my hand through the earth and twitching! Willski72 ( talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea! I was thinking more along the lines of a random user coming along and starting the argument again... but it looks like were OK on that front..... Willski72 ( talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else want to try!!!! Willski72 ( talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they have! Its amazing! I think they got the hint after we got rid of Michael of Lucan.... Willski72 ( talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe.... Look he had it coming i did warn him! Willski72 ( talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh ... hello... why am I lying here surrounded by a crowd of people? Did something fall on me? I just wanted to discuss the [There is a sound of heavy footsteps, and a strange crunching sound. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Someones deleted the fact that Michael of Lucan is actually "{Muffled talking along the lines of 'we warned you' followed by a piercing scream and a heavy thud.}" Willski72 ( talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, walked into the talking doors again. It seems their going to extraodinary lengths to stop even Michael of Lucan from admitting his true identity as {a loud bang rings out and a groan of pain is heard.} Willski72 ( talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That was funny! No hes really Lo{ choking sound followed by a faint hissing noise and the crunch of a plastic bag.} Willski72 ( talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Sorry about that, my hot air ballon had a whole in it and it fell on a plastic bag which made me choke with laughter.... Anyway Michael of Lucan told me that he was actually Lordi from Eurovision song Contest a couple of years back, all of them! Would you believe it! {whispering in the background along the lines of "what the....?} Willski72 ( talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not UKists but only pronounce the U, like Ukists Willski72 ( talk) 10:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
John Bull would of had more honour than to claim expenses in the same way that some of them have! Roast Beef isnt that expensive and he can pay for his own tudor beams, moat and duck house! Willski72 ( talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No the duck house (which is in the mock tudor style) is for his ducks, which are protected from duck thieves by a moat. Willski72 ( talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ducks are a valuable commodity highly prized in certain circles. They can swim AND fly AND walk, why they have not yet taken over the world is beyond me.... Willski72 ( talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes its very clever, the politicians are merely a front for our duck overlords! The politicians are paid £64,000 a year for this smokescreen while the UK Council of ducks is made up of 646 ducks who live off these puppet MPs expenses (on average about £140,000 a year). They can therefore afford to live in their mock tudor duck houses, protected from prying eyes by their moats! Willski72 ( talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried, they wouldnt listen, not even when i offered to swim across the moat to capture one of the ducks mock tudor houses. Willski72 ( talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
But what can you do? You know what ducks are like for fowl play! Willski72 ( talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
.....er yes, thats just what i was going to say! Willski72 ( talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadnt quite finished writing them all down yet! I'll get some of that yoghurt, stand outside Parliament after Prime Ministers Question Time and wait for them all to come pouring out. They'll think its world war 3.... with yoghurt!!! Willski72 ( talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Normal usage is that Britain means UK & is therefore, illogically, bigger than Great Britain. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Or indeed ignormal usage? Willski72 ( talk) 08:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My mistake! Very kind of you! Levitating ducks may be a match for our duck overlords some day! Willski72 ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he's going to swing off the pitch! Willski72 ( talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
But funny to watch! Willski72 ( talk) 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
AH hes had worse.... Willski72 ( talk) 09:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
They say history repeats itself.... but generally not quite this fast! We've done a very good job keeping this on the talk page since the 13th May, using the clever tactic of talking about some very very strange things. Nearly a month! Willski72 ( talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
To think Purnell, Blears, Flint and Hutton (but Hutton doesnt count!) The original argument seems pretty petty now! To think its been less than a month since this whole thing blew up in the politicians faces, doesnt time fly when your having fun! Willski72 ( talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Because............ he declared that he was supporting Brown when he stood down. He was leaving politics altogether, Brown had nothing to do with it (so he says anyway). Willski72 ( talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If I contribute to this conversation, I guess I'll soon have tens of thousands of edits too. How many times will I have to contribute to get administrator rights on Wikipedia? ;-) Michael of Lucan ( talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You've hit the nail on the head there! Lets all start typing random things (no change there then!) so that we can become administrators! Willski72 ( talk) 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it could also be said, what is a hammer? And why is the hammer being so violent to the nail? All these questions need anwering. Willski72 ( talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely hope not!!! But you just never know.... Willski72 ( talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as long as its inaudible to the human ear.... but what if the pets can hear it!? Or indeed if the nails suddenly mutate in order to implement their revenge on the human race!? Willski72 ( talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It depends what type of gun, for example if the gun uses an explosion to fire (like cannons) then you are likely to get a burnt backside, which could hurt more than simply being hit with a giant flyswatter. Willski72 ( talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does the purity talibans of Wikipedia persist calling football or soccer a term nobody else is using? Like the kibibyte silliness, this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Thanks, CapnZapp ( talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
URGENT NOTE I think it is important to point out quickly that there are scores of pages of discussion on the subject of what this game should be called - see discussion at the article Association Football. Angry people should read the previous half million pages there. We all know it's a US/Rest of the world issue, which will never be resolved, unless we get together and nuke the Yanks. Our User team in North Korea is working on this, and hopes to have results shortly. Have patience, comrades. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ashishg55, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia choosing one or the other term ("football" or "soccer"). After all, both terms are widely used. I do have a problem with Wikipedia using the term "association football" - a term nobody is using. Hence my comparison to "kibibyte", another term nobody is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is soccer just a made up word to replace football because Americans couldnt be bothered to think of a name for their own game? Which was there first? Who knows! Willski72 ( talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, one question answered! Willski72 ( talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It would appear so! Willski72 ( talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to know! Willski72 ( talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my Urgent Note at the start of this, this is essentially a conflict between the US and the Rest of the World. The US has an odd local game. It's a bit like Rugby, but it is only played by wimps who wear armour in case they might hurt themselves. Unlike Rugby, it's played almost entirely with the hands, but they do use an egg-shaped ball. Logically, they should call it Handegg but they insist on calling it "Football".
The Rest of the World can see the absurdity of this, but Americans always had difficulties in using English properly. All we can do is keep referring to "Handegg" until they get the point, or start playing a real man's game.
At this point, maybe we should just be practical. Let's nuke 'em and solve the problem. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see from this thread that I'll have to create an article on Stefan Markovits's Offside (excellent book looking into why soccer never caught on in the US (short version: had a chance in the late 1920s but blew it due to infighting between the dominant league of the time and the national federation (which, it may be of interest, insisted on calling itself the U.S. Football Federation until 1947)). Daniel Case ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that ice hockey has rather moderate padding ... certainly the shoulder pads I wore playing football are a lot bulkier than their hockey counterparts (which, in turn, are bulky compared to lacrosse shoulder pads). And you can blame the NHL for mandating that players under contract since after 1979 or so wear helmets ... it's certainly reduced injuries but I do miss watching players like Bob Nystrom skate down the ice with his blonde mane bouncing around. Granted, the elbow and knee padding are kind of thick compared to what football players wear (and elbow pads are optional in football; many players don't wear them, at least when playing on grass), but then again in football you're not putting those elbows and knees down on ice. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You're all forgetting Bowls, now that can get vicious! (Not bowling for anyone getting confused!) Willski72 ( talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Dont forget bowls...... Willski72 ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
how on earth is the fetured content approved please inlighten this subject. i have seen no voting devices or calenders of events to comprehend the featured content at any given time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.4.107 ( talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | → | Archive 145 |
Essam Alshawali sports Tunisian born on September 25, 1970, is one of the most prominent sports commentators in the Arab this time, the comment on football matches sports channels, radio and television network of the Arabs. He has a great deal of sports information. Comment gives the game a sense of excitement and fun. Is characterized by a high tone voice, is always chosen to comment on the match strong.
Essam Ahawali selected the best Arabic commentator for the years 2005 and 2006, according to a poll conducted kooora site sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalunia2005 ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The main page news section says the nuke detonation was just something North Korea "claims", but then the article says everything DID happen, right there in the intro paragraph. Is there some kind of de facto sense of veracity to their claims that's being employed? 70.90.131.254 ( talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May 26, 2009: U2
This article for U2 appeared as a Main Page Feature recently. If Wikipedia has over 2,000 feature articles, why would this one be repeated so soon? Ed8r ( talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the featured image- It claims to have been made around 1930 on the main page, but was actually made around 1830. 81.77.28.178 ( talk) 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Obama just appointed a new Hispanic (fist Hispanic) Supreme Court Justice. I think this should be included in the "In the News" section. World ( talk • contributions) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably should be "in the news."-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The top of this discussion (General discussion) has the hidden message: "Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it."
Is it by coincidence or design that there are two "bacon and alcohol" articles ( Bacon Vodka and Bacon Martini) in the curred "Did You Know" section? Isn't it against the ethos of DYK to have hooks for similar topics on the main page at the same time? -- saberwyn 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, Meta-Wiki changed their image, so you might want to update the image under "Wikipedia's sister projects".-- Cubs197 ( talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
With the "first" page of Wikipedia, why, on some computers do several of the language links get superimposed onto the globe? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did all the text at Wikipedia suddenly got smaller? 83.108.225.137 ( talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the assault on the Indians in Australia not covered in the "in the news" section? I tried adding it to the section but seems someone removed it. The death toll for the same has reached over 6 and certainly compared to Australian population it is a big deal losing over 6 lives. Also it is a concern as I believe its every humans duty to condemn racism. It would be great if someone could add the same. Bmayuresh ( talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We see your point but unfortunately it has to have international significance (suppossedly) for it to be put up. That or it has to be really big. Willski72 ( talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you know...
...that, having never heard of it before, Wikipedian J Milburn now sees references to the Checkers speech all over the main page? J Milburn ( talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the European Parliament election might be important enough to put somewhere on the mainpage. Maybe someone agree's?-- SelfQ ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are we going to put every speech by every world leader on the main page of Wikipedia as news? Thankyoubaby ( talk) 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would normally agree with this thinking. However, this speeech is front page news in my Irish newspaper today - with a shot of armed and masked Hamas fighters watching it on TV. I think it may be seen in future as a moment of change, when the USA started to reopen communications with the Muslim world. George Bush did incredible harm to the image of the USA in all the rest of the world. However, in particular he created a strong perception that it was heavily opposed to Islam, and sought to destroy it. (PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME. I do not say that perception is correct - only that it is the honest perception of huge numbers of Muslims.) You will see that this may be a watershed moment. Leave it in ITN. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 09:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, James Purnell resigned yesterday and 'stabbed Gordon Brown in the front' like Hazel Blears has done, but this hasnt been up even though it could lead to the collapse of a government. As interesting as Obama's speech was, unless it leads to Iran stopping uranium production etc it has no significance in itself. We may look back in future and say that that was the turning point, and then again we may not, until we know we can but speculate. Willski72 ( talk) 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No no, i think he does mean to call us all donkey holes. It is still my great ambition to buy a donkey and stand in New York with it telling everyone to kiss my ass! Willski72 ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes... my donkey will be smothered in kisses. Unhygenic perphaps but hey ho! Willski72 ( talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or is it at least the fourth time in one week that the "did you know..." section has an entry about bacon, and at least the second that it is the only illustrated one? Is it International Bacon Week or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh that is giving me some really nasty thoughts!!! Willski72 ( talk) 09:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it me or is West Bengal not move protected? M.H. True Romance iS Dead 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we get more color? More color on the front page. For the aesthetic factor. It may delve into the general discussion of the theme, but I tend to think of it for the front page. e.g. a bit of friendly yellow and happy cyan in the mix to give it a more harmonious touch. -- AaThinker ( talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Who would have guessed it could have more than one meaning! Willski72 ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
These creatures are getting cleverer, they can swim, walk, almost fly AND play hockey!!! The world is at their feet!!! Willski72 ( talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes i agree 62.92.31.1 ( talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Im afraid they can play hockey. Even as we speak they are practicing their evil plans to woo all humans with hockey while secretly attempting to dive-bomb them while they're distracted. But not being able to because they can only almost fly.... Willski72 ( talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Admins why and what has taken you this long to put this in the news box when Federer won the Career Grand Slam and Record Tying Grand Slam. Tennis Authority 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This section does not
cite any
references or sources. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources.
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
I hate to be pedantic but it says the British Parliament, i know that that's what it's normally called by most people but technically it is the UK Parliament as Northern Irish MPs sit there as well. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know im being pedantic but it would give me peace of mind if it was changed and i cant do it myself being no good at these things! Willski72 ( talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou! Willski72 ( talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You can see why they left it at British cant you, "UnitedKingdomish" would take far to long to say! Dont ask me why because i cant tell you but for some reason Northern Ireland is not part of "Britain" (UK instead) but the people in Northern Ireland are "British", even if they dont want to be!
Willski72 (
talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Correct but Northern Ireland is not on the island of Britain (or Britannia as it was called by the Romans) it is on the island of Ireland. They are both in the British Isles though. Northern Irish people are called British by convention and because it is easier and simpler (and many see themselves as such). Willski72 ( talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I know they arent, in fact its probably (very rough figures) 60% would call themselves British 40% would call themselves Irish. The point of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was to unite all the kingdoms of the British Isles together which was done in the Act of Union at the beginning of the 19th Century. Mainland Britain had been united 100 years before that as Britain. It all got complicated in Ireland with the fight for Independance etc and it was decided that Ulster (Northern Ireland) would stay part of the United Kingdom while the rest of Ireland would form its own Republic. The Republic of Ireland is within the British Isles but is no longer part of the United Kingdom (they would call themselves Irish), by contrast Northern Ireland is still part and its now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Everyone on the British mainland is British, there is no word for "UnitedKingdomish" and yet Northern Ireland is linked with that MORE than with Ireland. So the general consensus (not everyone agrees) is to call them British as well (even if a large minority dont wont to be!) Willski72 ( talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright let me put it slightly differently. The people in Northern Ireland are seen in international circles as British, even if they dont want to be. I later pointed out the very rough and simplified percentages of agree and disagree. I see your point and i apologise for not elaborating more clearly on the point. Willski72 ( talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Youre quite right and the main problem with pretty much anything to do with British constitutional matters is that there are virtually no sources that could not be argued against, especially in obscure matters such as this. Its quite funny really when you look how obscure this argument has become, it was originally only about the name of the parliament at Westminster! It then descended into a conversation that i am struggling to keep up with! I propose, with the agreement of others of course, that this somewhat confusing and in depth argument be stopped before it turns into a full blown article of its own! Considering that the reason for the section in the first place has gone, i think this is probably a good place to stop (in a good, solid, no decision made position); we could continue this argument for many year with no decision actually being reached!. Willski72 ( talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Phew! Hopefully thats the end and we can all go home.... (cue the hand through the ground, twitch of body, eye opening etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
DAMIT! Ruined the effect by forgetting to sign! Looks like im the one opening the eye, sticking my hand through the earth and twitching! Willski72 ( talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea! I was thinking more along the lines of a random user coming along and starting the argument again... but it looks like were OK on that front..... Willski72 ( talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else want to try!!!! Willski72 ( talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they have! Its amazing! I think they got the hint after we got rid of Michael of Lucan.... Willski72 ( talk) 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe.... Look he had it coming i did warn him! Willski72 ( talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh ... hello... why am I lying here surrounded by a crowd of people? Did something fall on me? I just wanted to discuss the [There is a sound of heavy footsteps, and a strange crunching sound. Silence falls.} Michael of Lucan ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Someones deleted the fact that Michael of Lucan is actually "{Muffled talking along the lines of 'we warned you' followed by a piercing scream and a heavy thud.}" Willski72 ( talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, walked into the talking doors again. It seems their going to extraodinary lengths to stop even Michael of Lucan from admitting his true identity as {a loud bang rings out and a groan of pain is heard.} Willski72 ( talk) 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That was funny! No hes really Lo{ choking sound followed by a faint hissing noise and the crunch of a plastic bag.} Willski72 ( talk) 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Sorry about that, my hot air ballon had a whole in it and it fell on a plastic bag which made me choke with laughter.... Anyway Michael of Lucan told me that he was actually Lordi from Eurovision song Contest a couple of years back, all of them! Would you believe it! {whispering in the background along the lines of "what the....?} Willski72 ( talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not UKists but only pronounce the U, like Ukists Willski72 ( talk) 10:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
John Bull would of had more honour than to claim expenses in the same way that some of them have! Roast Beef isnt that expensive and he can pay for his own tudor beams, moat and duck house! Willski72 ( talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No the duck house (which is in the mock tudor style) is for his ducks, which are protected from duck thieves by a moat. Willski72 ( talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ducks are a valuable commodity highly prized in certain circles. They can swim AND fly AND walk, why they have not yet taken over the world is beyond me.... Willski72 ( talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes its very clever, the politicians are merely a front for our duck overlords! The politicians are paid £64,000 a year for this smokescreen while the UK Council of ducks is made up of 646 ducks who live off these puppet MPs expenses (on average about £140,000 a year). They can therefore afford to live in their mock tudor duck houses, protected from prying eyes by their moats! Willski72 ( talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried, they wouldnt listen, not even when i offered to swim across the moat to capture one of the ducks mock tudor houses. Willski72 ( talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
But what can you do? You know what ducks are like for fowl play! Willski72 ( talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
.....er yes, thats just what i was going to say! Willski72 ( talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadnt quite finished writing them all down yet! I'll get some of that yoghurt, stand outside Parliament after Prime Ministers Question Time and wait for them all to come pouring out. They'll think its world war 3.... with yoghurt!!! Willski72 ( talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Normal usage is that Britain means UK & is therefore, illogically, bigger than Great Britain. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Or indeed ignormal usage? Willski72 ( talk) 08:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My mistake! Very kind of you! Levitating ducks may be a match for our duck overlords some day! Willski72 ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like he's going to swing off the pitch! Willski72 ( talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
But funny to watch! Willski72 ( talk) 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
AH hes had worse.... Willski72 ( talk) 09:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
They say history repeats itself.... but generally not quite this fast! We've done a very good job keeping this on the talk page since the 13th May, using the clever tactic of talking about some very very strange things. Nearly a month! Willski72 ( talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
To think Purnell, Blears, Flint and Hutton (but Hutton doesnt count!) The original argument seems pretty petty now! To think its been less than a month since this whole thing blew up in the politicians faces, doesnt time fly when your having fun! Willski72 ( talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Because............ he declared that he was supporting Brown when he stood down. He was leaving politics altogether, Brown had nothing to do with it (so he says anyway). Willski72 ( talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If I contribute to this conversation, I guess I'll soon have tens of thousands of edits too. How many times will I have to contribute to get administrator rights on Wikipedia? ;-) Michael of Lucan ( talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You've hit the nail on the head there! Lets all start typing random things (no change there then!) so that we can become administrators! Willski72 ( talk) 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it could also be said, what is a hammer? And why is the hammer being so violent to the nail? All these questions need anwering. Willski72 ( talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely hope not!!! But you just never know.... Willski72 ( talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as long as its inaudible to the human ear.... but what if the pets can hear it!? Or indeed if the nails suddenly mutate in order to implement their revenge on the human race!? Willski72 ( talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It depends what type of gun, for example if the gun uses an explosion to fire (like cannons) then you are likely to get a burnt backside, which could hurt more than simply being hit with a giant flyswatter. Willski72 ( talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does the purity talibans of Wikipedia persist calling football or soccer a term nobody else is using? Like the kibibyte silliness, this is a disgrace for Wikipedia. Thanks, CapnZapp ( talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
URGENT NOTE I think it is important to point out quickly that there are scores of pages of discussion on the subject of what this game should be called - see discussion at the article Association Football. Angry people should read the previous half million pages there. We all know it's a US/Rest of the world issue, which will never be resolved, unless we get together and nuke the Yanks. Our User team in North Korea is working on this, and hopes to have results shortly. Have patience, comrades. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ashishg55, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia choosing one or the other term ("football" or "soccer"). After all, both terms are widely used. I do have a problem with Wikipedia using the term "association football" - a term nobody is using. Hence my comparison to "kibibyte", another term nobody is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is soccer just a made up word to replace football because Americans couldnt be bothered to think of a name for their own game? Which was there first? Who knows! Willski72 ( talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, one question answered! Willski72 ( talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It would appear so! Willski72 ( talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to know! Willski72 ( talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my Urgent Note at the start of this, this is essentially a conflict between the US and the Rest of the World. The US has an odd local game. It's a bit like Rugby, but it is only played by wimps who wear armour in case they might hurt themselves. Unlike Rugby, it's played almost entirely with the hands, but they do use an egg-shaped ball. Logically, they should call it Handegg but they insist on calling it "Football".
The Rest of the World can see the absurdity of this, but Americans always had difficulties in using English properly. All we can do is keep referring to "Handegg" until they get the point, or start playing a real man's game.
At this point, maybe we should just be practical. Let's nuke 'em and solve the problem. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see from this thread that I'll have to create an article on Stefan Markovits's Offside (excellent book looking into why soccer never caught on in the US (short version: had a chance in the late 1920s but blew it due to infighting between the dominant league of the time and the national federation (which, it may be of interest, insisted on calling itself the U.S. Football Federation until 1947)). Daniel Case ( talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that ice hockey has rather moderate padding ... certainly the shoulder pads I wore playing football are a lot bulkier than their hockey counterparts (which, in turn, are bulky compared to lacrosse shoulder pads). And you can blame the NHL for mandating that players under contract since after 1979 or so wear helmets ... it's certainly reduced injuries but I do miss watching players like Bob Nystrom skate down the ice with his blonde mane bouncing around. Granted, the elbow and knee padding are kind of thick compared to what football players wear (and elbow pads are optional in football; many players don't wear them, at least when playing on grass), but then again in football you're not putting those elbows and knees down on ice. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You're all forgetting Bowls, now that can get vicious! (Not bowling for anyone getting confused!) Willski72 ( talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Dont forget bowls...... Willski72 ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
how on earth is the fetured content approved please inlighten this subject. i have seen no voting devices or calenders of events to comprehend the featured content at any given time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.4.107 ( talk) 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)