User talk:Enzedbrit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Word up

I'm not a homophobe, but I know a number of gays who've felt conflicted by their sexuality, particularly before they've come out or if they're religious. I'd suggest that internal conflict and your identity crisis (English birth, Kiwi upbringing - and accent presumably) are responsible for your borderline psychotic behaviour online. Oh and by the way, I don't particularly dislike New Zealanders either. What I do dislike however, is people with a god complex, and little understanding of a certain political situation pontificating on the matter. --MacRusgail 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. "Why bother?" - to use your words.

Word up? Sorry, I don't speak ghetto.
Anyone who brings up the sexuality of another as a form of detriment to shoot down an argument in the thin hope that others too will think them witty and clever is indeed a homophobe. You couldn't have said to a black person that they 'obviously have an issue' with their race because they were debating you on icecream or Ladybugs. Accusations of sexual mis-identity, religious conflict or the most poignant question facing mankind: with which accent should one speak, are meaningless and designed to provoke retaliation.
I think that you have completely misread the situation with my passion on these topics. It is precisely that I don't have an internal identify conflict and am very aware of my roots and heritage that I am so willing to defend it, even against nasty Scottish nationalists, who are rendered somewhat incapable to approach a situation that doesn't demonise English identity or history, with a level-headed view. Enzedbrit 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

If you are in Auckland or nearby, you are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - Linnah 08:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FLAGS edit warring

Stop edit warring; take to Talk. --Mais oui! 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photie

Leaving aside hostilities for the time being... great photo!!! Congrats. Now, are you the lucky man who married a Scot? Or am I obliged to ask if you are a true Scotsman? ;) --Mais oui! 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wed the Highlander, he wed the Geordie.Enzedbrit 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume that you are both familiar with that classic Dandy comic strip: The Jocks and the Geordies? --Mais oui! 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'd never heard of it. I thought it would've been something to do with Berwick, the inhabitants of whom are rendered Jocks in Newcastle and Geordies in Edinburgh. I'll have to obtain a copy of The Dandy, thank you.Enzedbrit 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking similar thoughts. Of course the stereotypical Scot is a Highlander (far away from The Border), and nobody in north Northumberland would self-identify as a Geordie! But it is only a comic after all! Their lifeblood is outdated stereotypes. --Mais oui! 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that people in North Northumberland would admit to speaking Geordie. It would've been better had the creators used actual Geordie/Northumbrian stereotypes for the English boys though. For example, dressing them in Northumbrian tartan and puttin leeks in their caps! I notice that in the article of Aschaffenburg where I added the flag of the UK and tidied up the sister-city section, you 'reverted' the flag to the Scottish flag. Previously, there was no flag and a jumbled sentence. I'm sorry but this really does show your agenda of changing the union flag to the Scottish flag for all Scottish sister-cities, not simply reverting flags to prevent a flag war. That's disappointing. Enzedbrit 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GayNZ.com

An article that you created, GayNZ.com, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GayNZ.com Thank you. SkierRMH 08:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Good to see you've decided to come back. I had a bit of a wobble (pun inteded, by the way it's from the Wobble Hypothesis if you've ever wondered, which I've always thought is a great name for a scientific theory) myself recently. I stopped editing a lot of articles that were causing me a lot of stress. I somehow got into editing articles about the concept of "race", and being a biologist and geneticist was incensed at how my discipline was being abused by racists and fascists to further their repugnant agenda. I was shocked and saddened that so many people devote so much time and effort to undermine science to promote hatred. Sad little gits really. But ultimatelly I found it very emotionally draining to be constantly battling, especially with certain people intent on wikilawyering, interpreting every little remark as a "personal attack" and every removal of their lies from an article as "vandalism". I was reported to WP:PAIN several times, then to WP:ANI twice, when nothing came of this the guy kept leaving messages on admins talk pages complaining about me. I got very pissed off and was going to jack it all in, I felt persecuted. But then that's what these people want isn't it? I was advised that I could have reported this guy for harrasement, but I'm not so small minded as the fascists are, it's always about bullying with them, never about truth. There's a nice quote that I like from the Marquis de Sade Never are Tyrants born of Anarchy. You see them flourish only behind the screen of Law. I think it sums it up really, tyrants are only interested in using any means possible to silence their critics. So I thought why should I give in? Anyway I'm glad to see you're back (that doesn't sound quite right). I had a look at the AfD above and voted for a keep, can't see why it would have been AfD'd in the first place really, there's a lot less notable articles than that on Wikipedia. Anyway, keep the faith and all that. Cheers. Alun 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you're back! I couldn't stay away either. When one has a vested interest in something, one finds it hard simply to turn one's head and ignore what's going on. For example, the English People and Modern Celts artile, particularly the latter, has welcomed in quite a few anglophobic viewpoints. I see your frustration with racists and fascists. It's the same passion I have for things British an Queer, although I'm surpried that the task falls to you to combat the prejudice that you've been attacking. Where are the moderators? As you can probably guess, my current task at hand is defending the dignity of LGBT people through disassociation with NAMBLA, a paedophilic organisation, which some are trying to lend credibility through association with our community. As you can also see (and a message to several others who will be reading this), I'm trying to be provoked into retaliation to serve the self-interest of people half a world away who'd like to see me banned. Fat chance :) I'm honoured though to see that I've earned a few cyber bullies. EPF was just an anti-English pain in the behind. Anyway, I hope that things are going well in Finland. After a miserable start to summer (thank you climate change) we're finally experiencing GORGEOUS weather and I'm able to get a good 5km jog in plus half our swim at Oriental Bay each lunchtime. The water's been so warm. The advantage of NZ - it's possible to swim in water ways and be warm, knowing you won't be attacked by large reptiles or sharks. Astonishingly for Wellington, we haven't had rain in about a week either. Brilliant! Only mid-20's but what more could one expect :) I'm making the most of summer before autumn and the southerlies arrive.
By the way, if you want an awesome pastime (besides work, uni, weekend work, gardening, jogging, clubbing and fraternising with the German internationals, or is that just me?), you should try baking really nice chocolate cakes with proper thick sugary almond icing. You know your frustration and disappointment at weddings and such like when you cut into one of these amazing cakes only to find that it's a fruitcake? Well, bake your own! Make it into shapes, like discus, maps of New Ze... Finland or Britain, use food colouring, etc. It's life's little pleasures! Enzedbrit 09:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

I'm a little concerned by these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on canvassing editors in a dispute at WP:CANVASS. I have no idea on what basis you selected these editors but your message was clearly partisan. An edit summary of "HELP!" accompanying a message inviting people to "voice your disgust at NAMBLA being included as an LGBT organisation" is not salvaged by adding "if you believe that this is indeed an LGBT organisation, then you're welcome to voice that opinion". The indication of which option you prefer in those terms makes it clearly partisan. In addition, any editor's "disgust" is completely irrelevant. The question (expressed neutrally) was whether a group disowned by a majority of LGBT organization should nonetheless be categorized as a LGBT organization by Wikipedia. That question can be considered in the abstract without becoming emotive about NAMBLA's controversial agenda. In future I would suggest a more neutral forum for soliciting other opinions such as a request for comment or a request for a third opinion.WjBscribe 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm only happy to canvas as I have been canvassed in the past. Perhaps you should've been there to point previous canvassers to their wrong-doings, and us innocents would learn from their mistakes! However, I appreciate the more useful way of solicting support, and I shall indeed be using it. Enzedbrit 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Heavens to Mergatroid, as my good friend Snagglepuss would say! Enzedbrit, try as I might, it is difficult to assume good faith when confronted with such damning evidence of attempted vote stacking! You didn't just alert users of a controversy (a violatrion in and of itself), you actually told them to "voice your disgust". Not very Wiki of you. Consider a Wiki holiday, and use the time to refresh yourself on the policies here. I am concerned about your well being. Jeffpw 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My well-being is fine thanks - I'm not the one sleeping with children. As for NAMBLA, I think that you've escaped quite well from what I really wanted to say. But, in all fairness to me, I did state that, were a user to support NAMBLA's inclusion as an LGBT organisation, then they should voice that support. As detestable as NAMBLA is, people are still welcome to support it. That's democracy. Enzedbrit 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "I'm not the one sleeping with children" [8]. As far as I'm concerned that was a particularly nasty personal attack. I ask that you withdraw it immediately and apologise. WjBscribe 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Have I accused the user of sleeping with children? My well-being has been put to task because I have canvassed. I think that, given the nature of my canvassing, it is entirely apt. Were I accusing the user of sleeping with children, I w... well, I wouldn't do that.
    • I also find it strange that, were the user a supporter of, or member of, NAMBLA, that you find it nasty that I should have accused them of sleeping with children. NAMBLA is an organisation that advocates, plain and simply, sleeping with children. Would you have me apologise to a man for accusing him of doing something that he would so readily admit to doing and something he would so readily defend? I wouldn't expect to apologise to a man for saying that he is fat were he supporting an organisation that exists to further growing waste-lines. Really, if I had have accused the user of sleeping with children and they were of NAMBLA, then an apology would be preposterous. Enzedbrit 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad no such accusation was being made. As to your second point, I am unaware of there being any supporters of NAMBLA who edit Wikipedia. If you think everyone who argued for categorising NAMBLA as an LGBT organisation were supporters of it, you are mistaken.WjBscribe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I do not believe that all supporters of NAMBLA being classified as LGBT are themselves NAMBLA, although I do not see the reasoning for this support, and I am happy with my valued assumption that there will be NAMBLA members or supporters who would make this association, and it is logical that I am not alone in this assumption. In the meantime, I suggest that those who regard this as an LGBT organisation, rather than suggest to me time to refresh and 'read up on policy' actually take the time themselves to study the history of LGBT people and what it means to be part of this community and an organisation that stands for this community, and justify how NAMBLA could possibly be associated with it. Perhaps then, the insult to our people - having to be associated with committed paedophiles - would be one less worry to our gaining of credibility from heterosexual society. Enzedbrit 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I still think you completely misunderstand what the category is for. It is not for "Organisations that form part of the LGBT community". It is for organisations whose agendas or membership are relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people. As an organisation interested in promoting man/boy love only, its agenda and membership and clearly related to homosexual men. Therefore it is an LGBT organisation in the broad sense. WjBscribe 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think that I do, and here's my reasoning. As a community, we are subjectified LGBT people. If one doesn't subjectify, or label if you will, oneself as being queer (that's acceptable in NZ as a term) then they're not part of the community. One must see oneself as part of it to be part of it. Men who are members of NAMBLA are such because they advocate sex with boys. Generally speaking, children are non-sexual beings. A man doesn't have to be gay to sleep with (if it can be called such) or molest boys, anymore than a man who molests girls is automatically doing something heterosexual. If a man is only interested in relationships with boys, then I doubt very much he could refer to himself as a homosexual. If anything, I'd say that he was asexual, or at best, a committed paedosexual - I'm creating a term there and I don't know enough about asexuality to my detriment - but certainly not a homosexual. It is a fair assumption that a homosexual is such because he or she is attracted to people of the same gender, not explicitly towards children. Your assumption that man/boy love is 'homosexual', I'm afraid, is damaging to LGBT people (indeed it's a homophobic assumption) and that's nothing to do with NAMBLA. It is the same as saying most paedophiles are gay because they are men and they molest boys, when in reality it's been proven to be about power and most of these men are 'heterosexual'. The simple assertion that man-boy molestion is gay is something that anti-gay groups have been using for decades to incite public hostility. If all members of NAMBLA have to be gay or idenfity as LGBT, then indeed NAMBLA is an organisation composed entirely of LGBT people, but it is not working towards the advancement, empowerment, advocacy or community-awareness of LGBT people. I could call my civil union an LGBT organisation - that would have more legitimacy than NAMBLA would. Enzedbrit 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think paedophilia is recognised as being completely divorced from adult categories of sexual attraction. You get gay paedophiles, bisexual paedophiles, straight paedophiles. Abviously not all paedophiles are homosexuals. But those who are male and solely interested in sleeping with boys are both paedophiles and homosexuals. That does not to me seem like a controversial statement. If NAMBLA (under a different acronym obviously) advocated legalising relationships between adults and children of all gender combinations, they would not be an LGBT organisation. But their focus on only man/boy sexual relations makes them a gay organisation. WjBscribe 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Per WJB's words about civility, I would also like to remind you to remain civil in your edit summaries. I have been looking through your contributions and see several that border, if not actually cross the line into personal attacks. Continued editing in this vein (canvassing, breaching civility policies, personal attacks) will earn you a block. Consider this an unofficial warning. If I see any continued violations, particularly if directed at me, I will be taking further action. Jeffpw 08:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just who do you think you are? Get off your high horse, don't proclaim to threaten me whilst analysing my 'mental state' and watch YOUR contributions or I shall seek a block against you. I am a stakeholder of the LGBT communty, activity involved in it, living my life openly in it and have put myself out in public in numerous occasions in defence of it. I am in no mind to tolerate the belittlement of my people in any way, shape or form, and you're mistaken if you think I'll be cyber-bullied by you. Remember that next time you drag a community's reputation, and in my case, my personal state, throug the muck. Enzedbrit 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Enzedbrit, I am not the one who is violating wiki policies right and left. Canvassing edits like the ones WJB has pointed out above; implying that I am a child molester for disagreeing with you, and edit summaries such as this, this, and this imply a lack of familiarity with WP:CANVAS, WP:NPA and WP:CIV (and that is just a perusal of the first page of your contributions. No telling what further exploration will uncover). As to your remarks about my contributions, if you feel they have been uncivil you are welcome to seek comment or administrative action. Alternatively, you may also point out examples of policy breach to me; if I feel I was in error I will promptly apologize. Lastly, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you are "a stakeholder of the LGBT communty, activity involved in it, living my life openly in it and have put myself out in public in numerous occasions in defence of it." As somebody who has been actively involved in the LGBT movement since before you were born, it gratifies me to see young people participate, no matter how naive I may see their contributions. Jeffpw 09:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeffpw, for a start, I am not 'violating' anything left and right. I have accepted the advice regarding 'canvassing' and I have accused you of nothing. So here, it is you that is accusing me of something that I have not done. Disagreeing with me or not, I have not accused you of molesting children. I made a comment that wasn't directed at you about sleeping with children, not molesting them, a reference to the people that I hold in abhorrence who DO sleep with children, are proud of that fact, have organised NAMBLA to proclaim that, and that is why we are having this nasty debate. So, I now expect you to withdraw your false accusation against me and apologise, thank you. I do not doubt my passion in the past has been out of hand, but I shall not apologise for this. Please, cite me if you shall, because I am happy to build a similar case against you, and believe me I shall. As I say, I don't like bullies and I'm afraid that this is what you are. Now, I'm grateful to the older generation for what they endured 'before my birth' with regards to the rights that I have now as a queer man, but any support to paedophilia and the attempt to legitimise this by embracing it as part of the LGBT movement is not something that I will condone, and you can rest assured that you've not seen the end of this debate, trying as you are to shut me up. As for debates on Modern Celts, etc., my passion extends to racists and Anglophobes. Enzedbrit 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also just looked at those links. What's wrong with my edit summaries? 1 - I reverted not only something that is historically INCORRECT but also anti-English. What's your gripe? 2 - do you object to 'bloody'? Welcome to NZ English 3 - and as applied to most of what I change, I actually (unlike most) go to the effort to justify my changes in the talk pages and welcome debate on them. Others will simply add without explanation and revert what I do likewise without explanation. The case of "Scottish are closely related to Scots-Irish" was one such case that had no justification, made no sense, and nobody had bothered to cite or explain how it was relevant, which it isn't. If you want rid of me because I detest NAMBLA, you'll have to do better than cite my changes on a completely unrelated topic. I'm off to bed. Ka kite ano. Enzedbrit 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We've thoroughly discussed your violation of WP:CANVAS. Far from accepting the advice, you said you plan to continue that behaviour. Regarding the first edit summary I provided above, calling another editor racist is not assuming good faith. Please read that guideline. In edit #2, you push your POV about NAMBLA. Your summary of the organization is completely contrary to their stated mission, and potentially libelous. In example #3, I find calling another editor's contributions "rubbish" to be more than a bit uncivil. Finally, for the sake of clarity, nobody is trying to "shut you up". I and others are merely trying to point out that while perhaps your heart is in the right place, your actions are contrary to how Wikipedia functions. Jeffpw 10:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Again it's about what I have said and haven't said, and I haven't called the user racist. I haven't said that I would continue to canvas, I stated that I am happy to do it but will follow the advice given in the future. There is nothing libellous about what I've said - come on! You're really clutching at straws at this in an effort not to back down. As for another editor's contribution as rubbish, the statement as given WAS rubbish because it was false, not based on fact, incoherent, made no sense. That is what rubbish is and your sensitivities are extreme to find offence at the use of rubbish as a description. You and ANOTHER - not 'others' - are indeed being deliberately provocative and, in your case, are doing so in a way that reveals your own hypocrisy. Shall we continue? Enzedbrit 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at all the edits in question here, but you definitely accused someone of racism. You need to keep your edits limited to discussion of contributions, not contributors. I'd like to help you argue that NAMBLA doesn't belong in the LGBT category, but you need to get your behavior in check, immediately, or you will very likely find yourself blocked. Don't take this as a threat. Take it as an opportunity to have a nice cup of tea and a sitdown, please. — coelacan talk — 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between calling somoene a racist and citing them for racism. I have reverted an anglophobic statement and have said that racism isn't tolerated on wikipedia. I really fail to see how this is in any way a violation of anything. My edits are indeed to contributions, and these paternalistic comments are both extremely patronising and vexatious, and comments such as you'll find yourself blocked are actually threatening, jumping on a bandwagon that has no basis. My posts aren't attacking individuals but they are in opposition to the majority position so it is easy for those of that opinion to state that I am indeed attacking them and then come out with we'll have you blocked if you don't play nice - right... Unless you think 'get over yourself' is a tremendous insult, but if that's going to get one barred from wikipedia, I'll be well rid of it. Thankfully, it is not. I'm glad that someone is happy to debate that NAMBLA isn't LGBT, but keep it to the debate at hand and leave off the debators. Remember, it is you and others who are pursuing me into my talk space to comment on my 'behaviour'. Shall we continue? Enzedbrit 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I will add that I find it frustrating that you should make a comment to have a cup of tea and watch my behaviour, because what you are suggesting essentially is that my contributions to the discussion aren't welcome at all, even though they have not been out of line. I have combatted each differing opinion with my own logic, and it's that logic that's not welcome. I shan't back down in my resolve, and that's unwelcome in a forum with a majority opinion contrary to my own. Which position is this realistically to put me in? I don't see your logic.Enzedbrit 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you're frustrated here, but there are appropriate (within accepted Wikipedia discussion norms) and inappropriate ways to express that and try to make the case.

I personally agree with you on point, and all the LGBT people I know find the categorization grossly offensive, and I find its use by anti-gays to be grossly offensive. But you need to calm down some. Georgewilliamherbert 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've made it to ANI

Just to give you a heads up, your edits have been listed at the administrative notice board. Oh, and while I was here I reverted some vandalism to your userpage. No charge. Jeffpw 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the revert of vandalism. It is always insulting to be told things such as my wedding photograph are offensive. I'm also going to list you on the ANI, all by myself. No charge. Enzedbrit 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So now I have to learn the Wikipedia system so that I can search through DFFS or whatever they're called. Mate, you must have a lot of spare time on your hands. But, as you've gone to the trouble to cite me, I'm happy to repay the favour. Enzedbrit 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem confused on a few points, Enzedbrit, so I shall clarify for you:
  • 1) I didn't list you at ANI. Dev did, after seeing your comments on another user's page. I had no interaction with Dev about your behaviour prior to your being listed there.
2)*Going through a user's contributions solely to cause trouble for them, when you have no reason to believe they are anything but a user in good standing, violates WP:STALK. Posting me at ANI is also a violation of that guideline.
3)You probably haven't read WP:DR, so I shall paraphrase step 2 for you: "If discussing the conflict doesn't help, disengage with that editor". That is what I shall now be doing. I advise you to do the same. Wikipedia is a very large place, and we don't need to interact. That said, if you continue in your campaign to improperly remove LGBT articles from appropriate categories, we will continue to butt heads. I think WJB said something about a Rfc on this issue, so perhaps it's better if we all let the community as a whole decide this issue. Jeffpw 09:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool head mate

Hi mate, just a note to say I think you are quite right, there's a lot of POV pushers here on Wikipedia and sometimes it's difficult to deal with them. I think there may be two reasons for the problem you are having with this child-rapist group. While it is true that many authoritarian-fundamentalist religious organisations might want to imply that the homosexual community is associated with child rapists, I think there is also another reason for the association. The child rapist organisation may see it as in their interests to try and associate themselves with a respected civil rights movement, this makes them appear less extreme, an implies that their agenda is no different to any other civil rights agenda. Ultimately they are trying ot portray themselves as a persecuted minority rather than a group of deeply emotionally disturbed individuals. Just a thought. By the way, I read your discussion and though I thought that the comment "I'm not the one sleeping with children" was probably ill-advised, I don't really see how it constitutes a personal attack. I suggest you appologise for any offense and say that you didn't intend to insult anyone. Try to keep a cool head, I know it's difficult sometimes when sensitive issues are being discussed. I have found that people with a POV to push often provoke good faith editors so they cant hen accuse them of being uncivil when they respond to the provocation. Anyway, all the best, and keep up the good work, I think you are 100% correct. Alun 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of your page

Hello, I don't know why a picture of two people in love with each other would be inappropriate. I undid a blanking of your user page and asked the IP who did it not to do so again per WP:NOT#CENSOR. Now I see you blanked the page yourself after another attack, it's your choice and I respect it. Just to let you know, if you decide to put it back, let me know, I'll put you on my watchlist and I shall do my best to revert any vandalism I see. Cheers - Myanw 08:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In spite of our differences of opinion, Enzedbrit, I think the pic on your userpage was lovely. I have reverted vandalism once, and if you decide to put it back on I will revert whenever I see it happen again. That's one of the purposes of watchlists. By the way, do also consider joining the LGBT Project. You obviously have an interest in the issues. Cheers, Jeffpw 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Briton

Just to tell you I have reverted your edits to Briton, the article is about citizens of the United Kingdom that includes people who where not born there. --Barry entretien 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken. The article is about the modern identity. British citizens are covered by another article. Even then, one should be weary about reducing the number to 60 million as there are millions more British citizens in the world than the 60 million people who reside in the United Kingdom. As an ethnic identity, more than 100 million people are of British heritage, and not all British citizens are indigenous Britons, with about 10% having no native/first nation connection to the land at all. Enzedbrit 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see some of the issue. Yes, indeed, the article is about the modern identity (slash ethnicity), but there are overlaps between the modern identity and British citizenship. As a modern term it is, almost intrinsically, tied with identity towards the British state - hence the ethnicity-or-not debate, about which I stand on "hell, ya, why not?" side. However, please stop confusing Briton with Brython, a people, for the sake of clarity don't you know, also called Briton. Brythons can for sure be called indigenous people. The modern identity, Briton, began as an effort to claim an affinity with those people for political gain - and hence, its linking with the modern British state from the very start - however, it ties with the ancient people are stretched at best, and out-right false if one was to be cynical.
  • There is a modern identity of a Briton but there is also an ethnic classification. It doesn't matter when one started to view the term politically and every identity is viewed anachronistically because of how meanings change. I am not confusing Brython with Briton either. Languages and cultures always change but that doesn't mean that ethnicity has to be redefined. For example, if Americans all start speaking Spanish, do they have to re-examine their American ethnicity (those that regard themselves as such). I don't believe that they do. Because we speak a Germanic language and live in a multi-cultural Britain, why do we cease being ethnic Britons? Why do we cease being indigenous because several thousand Angles and Saxons invaded and set up shop? Why should only Cornish and Welsh be allowed to be indigenous because they speak the modern version of a language that was introduced by invaders from Europe 500 years before Christ, displacing the original language of the ancient Britons? Enzedbrit 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See the Oxford definition of Briton for more clarity. Either "a British person" or "a native of southern Britain before and during Roman times." These are two very distinct meanings. --sony-youthtalk 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, a British person is what? Simply a citizen? I'm a British person not just because it's one of my citizenships, but also because I identify as the term in an ethnic sense. I haven't ceased to be British because I live in New Zealand, and I see no need to further identify as English or Welsh, yet even if I did, it wouldn't make me any less of a Briton as, like the majority of British people, my ancestors were the first to dwell in Britain. Some might say 'how do you know this?', well, that argument can be applied equally to any human being, any ethnic group, so I won't need to answer that Enzedbrit 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it is an identity/ethnicity/civic identity. There is a separate article about British citizenship. The Briton article does not discuss citizenship.
I have not doubt that you are a blood relation of one Brython or another, but you are not a Brython, those are an ancient people, you are a Briton, a modern person, and a direct ethno-cultural link does not exist between the two. (Don't let the name confuse you.) --sony-youthtalk 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never claimed to be a Brython and I'm sorry if you've read me saying that I am as I could have sworn that I made it quite clear that I wasn't saying that. I'm also scratching my head at how you can imply that I'm not descended from my own ancestors. The Brythons didn't go anywhere you realise, they just kept having children, and those children had children, and so on, and so on, and then I was born. Along the way, some Angles, some Saxons, some Scots, some Vikings, some Normans all came along in small numbers and had children with the Brythons, then the Romano-British, then the Britons, and as a result we have about 130 million people today whose ancestory is primarily descended from the indigenous people of Britain, who are indeed ethnic Britons. The article on Britons started off that way and has recently gone off tangent. When I have time, I'll start a new one. Enzedbrit 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact I said that I had no doubt that you were "descended from [your] own ancestors." Please see the article on ethnicity, I think you are confusing it with genealogy and ancestry. --sony-youthtalk 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Although there is scope for your definition in this article, there is for mine too. It's probably best that neither of us presume to know what the other is thinking Enzedbrit 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, sounds fair. I think we are talking at cross purposed anyway - but with an identity/ethnicity as unusual and complicated as British this is quiet easy.
With a mind to a fresh start, I've moved the talk page to an archive. I've also added a todo list. I propose that this is a good way that we can both see what each other have in mind before going any further. I've added a few items to it.
You should also know about dave souza. He is an excellent editor I met on British Isles. Scottish, I think, but I could be wrong. UK anyway for sure. You should look him up too. I asked for his help in taking the Briton article up to a "good article" status and form there to "featured article". He said he's drop by and help where he could. I think getting a GA rating for the article and A rating for importance on the WikiProject Ethnic groups scale is an immediate task.
What say you? --sony-youthtalk 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, that should be good. Enzedbrit 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
On your user page, for your "I'm not British" box, why not add the modern flag of Northumberland, used by many as a symbol of the modern Northumbrian people too Enzedbrit 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of a strong Northumberland identity akin to the traditional nations. The flags there now are of the main political entities/identities today, with the exception of Cornwall which I included since it is considered by many as part of the "celtic nations" and have a long standing independent identity movement. --sony-youthtalk 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right in that there's probably not much of a Northumberland identity akin to the home nations but there is a very strong Northumbrian/North East identity. Many people there refuse even to identify as English, and the Geordie dialect as a common name for the dialect spoken throughout the north east is regarded by many as its own language! Cornwall is a Celtic nation indeed. Maybe too, with future developments, Northumbria might be regarded as a Scandinavian nation with its own tartan and bagpipes - who can say. Enzedbrit 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I have to say that the North-East identity is unique to England and whereas there is a fair amount of segregation between two certain major groups, we can certainly unite in agreement that we are communally as well as ethnically different to the rest of Northern England. Apologies for the late reply. gazh 23:22, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Union vs. Gay Marriage

I'm sorry, but I disagree. If a same-sex civil union was a wedding, then legally they would be called weddings and thus form a marriage. Legal battles remain to be fought over the legality of creating an institution called gay marriage in most countries and states around the world. However, at this time, most countries and states still don’t recognize something called a gay marriage. Specifically in New Zealand, there is no institution called gay marriage. Thus the image shows the legally binding definition of a “civil union” as it is defined in that country. Even the definition for “Same-sex marriage” on the Wiki site delineates the two different designations. I merely corrected a miss-definition within the caption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactographer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

That's the problem. Wedding is not a legal term. Marriage is. Wedding is an event, etymologically attached to the term in old English which meant 'pledge'. People can enter into a marriage or a civil union by a wedding, by signing at a registrar's office, by a small gathering that has a celebration but isn't self-classified as a wedding, etc. Gay marriage is not legal in New Zealand but civil unions are open to same-sex couples. If a gay couple wishes to have a wedding for their civil union, then so be it. Wedding does not equal marriage, and vice versa. Therefore the caption as I had it is correct: it is a same-sex wedding. The wedding is the ceremony and civil union entered into through a wedding Enzedbrit 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not signing my last message. FYI, someone using an IP address removed the photo in question. It wasn't me. Someone else has returned it. I won't change it further. Appreciate your modification tho. --Mactographer 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag-Warring

(Posted to user Mais Oui!) By your own admission, to flag war is to change flags consistently. Well, I have created 'twin town' categories now on several articles and when doing so, have used the nation state of the United Kingdom. You, a true flag-warrior, have averted them to Scotland. No doubt, you would avert others to England too. What is more, to several of these changes you have justified yourself by 'reverting' and advised not to flag-war. Now I see that you are reverting changes without any justification in the talk page or reasoning behind them, such as Scottish-Americans and Kilt. This is trolling. So, in offence at being called a troll, you now revert changes under justification that you've been called a bad name. A complaint shall be forthcoming.Enzedbrit 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mais ouis!

I had some problems with Mais ouis! when I wanted to change the name of the article "Population genetics of the British Isles",(here) I originally changed it to "Settlement of the British Isles (before 1066)", but somehow this offended his nationalistic sensibilities. Somehow some people get awfully offended by use of the term British. Like there aren't more important things in the world to get upset about!!! I take the attitude that petty nationalism is more to be pittied than despised. What annoyed me was the lack of any attempt to find a consensus, this is typical of the Wikipedian POV-pusher. I suggested two alternatives, "Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland" or "Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles". Mais ouis! accepted Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland, which was fine by me. The problem as I see it is that we need to look for a compromise. I notice that both you and Mais ouis! have accused each other of edit waring, but any edit war requires two edit warriors. I suggest that you try to find a compromise you can both live with. I suggest that, in the case of the flags for twinnig, you include both the Scottish and the Union flags. I can't help much. You could open an RfC on his behaviour, but I think you need to show that you have tried to solve the problem in a constructive way first, and I think that at the moment you are just contradicting each other. I suggest trying to find common ground, how much are you prepared to compromise? Try to find out how far he is prepared to compromise. It really is better to try to work it out rather than anything else. Try to assume good faith, here's some amusing reading relevant to assuming good faith that might help Don't be a dick, Don't be dense and Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Basically we are all trying to work towards the same goal, but we all see the world slightly differently, in order to reflect that we need to try to incorporate all significant points of view here, this basically means that you need to try to come to a consensus with Mais ouis! I have had problems with him as I say, but we managed to come to a solution, this can only be acheived by compromise and discussin. I suggest that you try not ot comunicate in threats, and also that you try not to communicate via edit summaries. One other thing you could try is mediation, try the more informal Mediation Cabal first. Good luck. Alun 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/z/User_talk%7EEnzedbrit_8c12.html"