Boothman

... yourself being an advanced user of American English and not a native like me.

I infer that you have misunderstood my user page. I claim to be merely an advanced user of American English precisely because, like yourself, I am a native speaker of British English.

Of course, this leaves the interesting question of why native speakers would disagree with one another. I did some Google searches for 'site:uk "in X street"' for various popular/well-known street names X (e.g. Oxford Street). To my edification, they come out almost exactly equally popular on average. So I'd be quite prepared to believe that you personally always use one expression rather than the other, but there's no way I can agree to your assertion that in X street is "not used in Britain". —Blotwell 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Boothman, sorry about the removal of that sentence. If it is something you feel strong about you can revert straight away. It just doesn't make sense to me why the man of the match award is more important in rugby just because everybody can receive it, not necessarily the player with the most tries or points. Gizza^{Chat ©} 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just checkins... -- Boothman _Talk 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I LOVE YOU MAN (note: i may die from alcohol poisoning tonight) WOOO. THERE's ACID IN THE RED CUPS. Radix 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hot coffee? Radix 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's an Americanism in the sense that it originated in the U.S.---that's what I usually mean by "Americanism," as opposed to what it _commonly_ means ("a word or phrase peculiar to American English"). But yes, it's definitely "global." JackLumber. 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've always believed it was coined by New England sailors. Maybe because I'm inherently biased toward New England. (Beware, New England is not just the Massholes who paak the caah in Haavid Yaad.) I just found this reference, anyway. JackLumber. 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "more wikified"?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Current Squad" doesn't link to the current Serie A season. Besides, the current Serie A season is not the same as a current squad.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why have you removed Paolo Maldini from the AC Milan squad template ? Niall123 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Darwinek is not removing "warnings for vandalism", and thus that does not apply. Wikipedia:Removing warnings is also only a proposal and thus not enforcable. Sorry, but you should not continue the revert war. Your comments should also be removed under the WP:NPA policy. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that you can be blocked under WP:3RR if you revert that talk page once more. violet/riga (t) 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that you reverted again. It has been reported. I understand your motivation, but you shouldn't be revert warring especially on another users talk page. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The WP:3RR only applies when someone has reverted more than three times, not just three times. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS, if the page is needed as RfC evidence then the history and a diff can be presented. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support, Booth. Take a gander at my interpretation of the "policy" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek. JackLumber. 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay then - you won't find me deleting this warning, either! -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC).Reply

A 24-hour block for 3RR violation on a TALK PAGE?!? Definitely gratuitous. Sorry for not being logged in while you were being railroaded. After all, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." And a talk page is not even an article... JackLumber. 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Talk pages count, and in a way a violation on another person's talk page could be seen as worse. violet/riga (t) 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You were right... I accidentally hit indef. I've unblocked you... be good. And leave that page alone for the expiry of 24h or risk reblocking William M. Connolley 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to let the "ohhh, nasty" comment go. But I do consider that unnecessary sarcasm a violation of WP:Civil. Another one will get you blocked. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Scots cannot be regarded as a "dialect" seeing asd there are a number of dialects which are referred to as Scots. It was recognised as the state language of Scotland for three hundred years and is as different from English as Danish is from Swedish, or Afrikaans from Dutch (or Gaelic from Gaelic...I mean Irish from Gaelic:}} Check out the LUATH Scots Language Learner (the first course for learning Scots in print despite its having been banned in schools since the Act of Union) by L Colin Wilson (Luath Press Ltd, 543/2 Castlehill, the Royal Mile, Edinburgh EH1 2ND (Scotland) ISBN 0-946487-01-x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character (price £9.99)) It brief but explanatory introduction to enlighten you to the linguistic situation you seem to display such ignorance of in your xenophobic comments on the Scots language talk page:}82.41.4.66 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that the LUATH Scots Language Learner (the first course for learning Scots in print) had been banned in schools since the Act of Union.

Thanks for that gem;-)

84.135.247.24 10:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well child abuse was implemented in the form of assaulting with weapons up until the 1970s (the last time a boy in Dundee was "strapped" for speaking Scots in class was in 1977 ) and the association of Scots with slang and uncouth speech has been a desperate goal of the British State since the Act of Union. You dont need to ban a book to ensure it isnt published, just convince a population that they speak "slang" at home, and turn their language into a sociolect (In fact, the social class that make up Edinburgh publishers would have been indoctrinated at schools such as Fettes, attended by a certain Anthony Blair, to view Scots speech as slang and not worthy of a grammar!):}82.41.4.66 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you bothered doing some comparative research on language variants, and how political bias is ALWAYS at play on the "creation" of language, you would begin to realise that in fact the line between "dialect" and language is never as air-tight as you insist on suggesting. The point with regards to Scots is that it had its own seperate orthography and standard variety in the period when Scotland was a seperate entity from England, and to suggest that this is of no consequence, would have to rendetr Scottish Gaelic, even in the present day, merely a dialect (or dialects) of Irish, as the standard written form is the major reason for defining it as a seperate language from the Irish. Your attitudes are like Viz, trapped in the 20th century (not a great period for linguistics or culture in Scotland or the UK I would suggest, a post imperial recession dark age}. If Im "rehashing" linguistic arguments, jeez you must be that original theorist that came up with the proof that Scots is a "dialect"! Well done. cos people have been rehashing your research on that one for two hundred years:}82.41.4.66 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my moving around of players in the blackburn rovers article. wasnt sure if his last name was pederson or gamst pederson. though i think he may of changed his name to just gamst now, though Ill have to look that one up. :) Fethroesforia 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those templates are meant to be subst:, and not left as templates in the article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates#Timesavers for more info. All my edits do is replace {{fc|Arsenal}} with {{subst:fc|Arsenal}} for example. The net result is the same, except the server does not have to load the same template over and over whenever the page is accessed for viewing later on. Regards. Neier 12:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, you think that I was ranting, when during the entire article I explicitly noted that I am not, and that this is a serious issue that need not be "stricken down" as hate speech or ranting. Let me rebut all the things you posted on my talk page:

- Ok, ".com" stands for commerce, but if you read my post without any bias in mind, that wasn't even my argument. I was just basically pointing out the fact that ".co.uk" is explicitly UK, and that ".com" can be anything, though it is necessarily NOT explicitely UK, as many of Wiki's articles seem to be.

- Yes, I said I didn't know where to start, meaning I didn't know where to begin addressing the issue, not that I don't know where to start addressing this issue.

- "Secondly, there is Wiki policy that articles dealing with American topics have American English spellings, and articles about British stuff have British English spellings. If White House has British spellings in it, by all means change them to the US ones."

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to tell me here, but my guess is that you assume that I don't know about the current Wikipolicy, and that you obviously don't understand what I clearly stated. I am arguing that Wikipedia should either have ALL British spelling, or ALL standard English spelling (a.k.a - "American english), but preferabally standard English because this isn't a British website, and because as an encyclopedia, all the information should be unified under one context and/or dialect.

- My point wasn't "British are the only people that use British spelling." (although in a literal sense, this is a strong point outside of context), it was that "The majority of the English speaking population use Standard English.". If I seemed to use the former point, then either the way you interpreted my words was wrong, or I misworded my intentional argument. If I did, then my apologies.

- "But every other English-speaking country used the standard spelling, which is generally based on how the word actually sounds" Again, you missed a subtle point that changed the entire meaning of my words. See the word generally? What I mean by this, if you can't already comprehend, is that many words in the British spelling include silent letters. Here's an example of one: pAEdophile. If one trys to pronounce this word by the letters, it would sound something like "PAH-EHD-OH-FILE", adding an extra syllable, when it's really pronounced "PE-DOH-FILE", which pretty much follows how the Standard English form is spelled.

- I'm not very new to Wiki, and if that's a subtle way for you to try to undermind my intelligence, then I resent that statement. And again, do not take my words as rants. Anybody who understands the inherent nature of an encyclopedia understands that this is an important issue. Anyways, the way I worded my post was nowhere near the definition of a rant, please use a dictionary and find out what a rant is for yourself.

Please, if you can't understand the importance of this issue solely based on personal agenda (I understand you are British), then stay out of this. You have no credibility if this is the case since you cannot make a rational decision. If you haven't noticed, everything I posted had rationale behind it.

No thank you, ---PoidLover 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Laughable, eh? What's so funny about it? You make a claim, yet have no logical basis to base it on. Look into this more closely, there IS a Standard English, what standard do you think the UN uses for all English-speaking countries. "Yeah, there are many English speaking countries, but let's just use Britains dialect, for no reason whatsoever!", is this what you think goes on in New York? Lol, anyways, did I say that leaving Wikipedia just the way it is results in a less informative encyclopedia? I said no such thing! My argument is that the inherent nature of an encyclopedia is that ALL of the information is based on one standard, so the reader doesn't get confused, and that this inherent nature must be present in Wikipedia as well! It's like trying to subtract X from Z, and expecting a numerical answer, it just doesn't mutually comply, and doesn't work well with an organized, compiled database of informative facts. I agree with you 100% that enhancing your knowledge of dialects is important, but it's just as important as learning how gum is made, learning more about George Washington, and learning what blood is made of, in a relative sense. And this is EXACTLY why there was an article on American/British spelling differences, just as there are articles for chewing gum, George Washington, and blood, and EXACTLY why I chose to raise this issue on that certain articles Talk Page. That's what encyclopedias are for, LEARNING, but learning at your OWN careful and deliberate discretion, not someone elses.

Ok, sir, my mistake for not checking my facts, but I just assumed, obviously wrongly, that words like "pedophile" are pronounced the same in both British and American dialects, but only because I've heard British people pronounce pedophile as "PED-OH-PHILE". So, like a normal intelligent person would do, they would make a claim with a reasonable logic base, and not just personal agenda. And you seem to think that I've never heard of that "ae" being merged as one letter, do you seriously take me as a fool? Hope not, beause only a fool and an intellect would raise this issue in the first place, and I am by NO means a fool. Well, I've made mistakes in my past, but so has everybody, right? But in the scholastic sense, I am no fool, at all. Anyways, just incase you AGAIN misread what I wrote, I didn't claim to believe they pronounce it "PAH-EHD-OH-PHILE", I was just giving an example for my statement "there are words common in both the British and English dialect that in the British dialect aren't spelled as pronounced". I assumed, based on my reasonings in the first sentence of this paragraph, that both the British and Americans pronounce this word, and similar words, identically. According to you, I am false on this, but I do not have much faith in your credibility, so I will have to look deeper into this one. ANYWAYS, the reason I even made this argument is that you rebutted my original statement that read somewhere along the lines of "generally speaking, English words are pronounced as spelled, letter-by-letter" with the fact that the word "color" is spelled "colour" in Britain, yet it is pronounced "CUH-LIHR".

O.K., we're kind of going in circles here, so lets just concentrate on the main issue(s) here. There are many words that have greek or latin prefixes, yet the word itself isn't related to the meaning of given prefix(es). This is, as far as I know, just coincidence, and unfortunately, partially due to the fact that it's late and I'm tired, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but you should know some yourself. Actually, I CAN think of them, but I'm too lazy, and it would be quite redundant, for lack of a better term. So therefore, strictly speaking, "pedophilia" is by NO accounts a word for "foot fetish".

You seem to think that this is some sort of "battle of the dialects" (lol), and seem to think that this is what I seem to think (now, that's redundant!) as well, but as I've CLEARLY stated, this is not so. I agree with you 110% that no one is "better" than the other, but "better" is very subjective and I'm strictly speaking from an objective point of view. O.K., just so we're on the same page, I'll reword my argument as best I can, for I am pretty tired, so we can stop going in circles:

"Wikipedia is a database of information, and as a database (and also an encyclopedia), there must be a standard setting, language, consolidation, unification, etc., so that the information is clear, proper, and concise. In order to acheive this unity, there must be a standard for which all other articles are based. It makes no sense not use the dialect that the majority of the English-speaking world uses, and to use one that a minority, regardless of quantitative value, uses. Therefore, since the majority of the English-speaking world uses the so-called "American-English" as the standard, this is the one that Wikipedia should use."

O.K. now, I haven't really reviewed this statement, just kind of cooked it up right now, but all other arguments and evidence supporting them falls under this main argument above. If you read it carefully, it says NOTHING about whether one dialect or the other is "better", it's just about unity. You obviously have a personal agenda to fulfill, so I don't think you should be a part of this "movement". YOU, my friend, are not very encyclopedic.--PoidLover 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, you disgusting cretin, you accuse my statements of being laughable, yet have no logical basis to believe so. You think I believe my arguments are gospel, eh? So you're the kind of person who believes that if everybody believes something, then you should go along with them? So you're the kind of sick bastard that would've condoned slavery just because everybody you knew did? I do not at all think my arguments are gospel, I just proudly stand by my word until a logical argument will present a sensical contradiction. You're the bastard who has some sort of personal agenda attatched to this and for some reason or another, you refuse to have it changed, like a no-good dirty hippocrite.

Dude, sorry for the rough language, but you are one fucking dumbass idiot. Everything I type is extremely intelligible and free-flowing, if you will, yet you seem to interpret it WAY differently than it is obviously stated. My sentence, "You seem to think that this is some sort of "battle of the dialects" (lol), and seem to think that this is what I seem to think (now, that's redundant!) as well, but as I've CLEARLY stated, this is not so", makes perfect sense and only an idiot would not understand it. I wrote it redundantly to prove a point, not because I lack verbal skills. The point being, that you are an idiot and you can't understand the symbolic (or even literal) nature of my posts, and you interpret it into something that somehow benefits you and your cozy little world view. Ok, this will be the 100TH time I've had to clear something up for you, but let me tell you what this sentence means:

You seem to think this is a "battle of the dialects". At the same time, you assume I am thinking the same thing. However, I DO NOT think of this as a "battle of the dialects" at all, I think of it as a LOGICAL consensus that needs to replace the current one.

If you discerned something other than this, than you are retarded, hands down. I can't understand why you make all these radical interpretations, especially when most of my words are plainly visible. I am in NO WAY contradicting myself here, and if you can't understand this, then I am in NO WAY going to argue with the mentally retarded, for the guilt would prevent me from having peace of mind for quite some time.

About the Standard English, obviously, this article was written by a British person, and is extremely POV, thus is not a valid argument against this issue. That's like basing all your knowledge about drugs on government and anti-drug propaganda.

Please man, let's put some sense into this argument, and remove all the non-sensical bullcrap you've included into. And don't ever, EVEr fucking tell me to go away, got it? People who back out of arguments are always wrong. They do that because they have no more to say on their behalf, and are afraid to "join" the opposing persuasion. --PoidLover 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

PoidLover and Boothman, I'd like to ask you both to remain WP:CIVIL and to refrain from making personal attacks. Language like "your rebuttal is laughable", "(...) or you are an absolute idiot", "you disgusting cretin" and "you are one fucking dumbass idiot" is clearly out of bounds. Stuff like this could get you blocked from editing.

Please stay WP:COOL when the editing gets hot.

Regards, Phaunt 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to follow up --- of course, PoidLover was being the more vicious, I know. It can be a pain to remain civil in cases like that. Phaunt 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That being said, however, this is not appropriate. WP:NPA doesn't just apply to one side. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other English towns, with the possible exception of Notlob, do not have open street prostitution on anything like the scale of Rochdale. Rochdale is notable for its prostitution.

I don't mean this as rude, but next time to travel to a football ground, try avoiding the other supporters, and looking around the towns you visit. King's Cross is famous for it: north side of the road between King's Cross station and King's Cross Thameslink (small railway station).

Soho? I'm winning here.

Nottingham, long way from either football ground, but go north from the city centre, continued up the hill, and about half way down begins Hyson Green (also famous for it), but not on the open day time scale of Rochdale.

You know Notts County's ground is not in the county, but the city; Notts Forest's is in county?

You've never been to Carrow Road? Haven't missed anything, except last I went the programme boasted of Norwich doing better than United. United won, went above Norwich as a result, and hasn't fallen below Norwich since.

Prostitution in Norwich. Yes I think I know where the girls are, but nothing like the scale of Rochdale.

Your remarks give away your age: take that more as help than being patronising - I didn't say I wish was your age again. -- User:Deathwatch2006.

I noticed that you've removed "gip" and said that you've written a long post about it somewhere. Where this post? I couldn't find it anywhere.

Judging by your category, I presume that you have heard the word in Lancashire. However, it could have originated in Yorkshire and then spread. It's in the old Yorkshire Dictionary, which was written quite a while ago. Also, if it's in a bordering area of Lancashire, then it's expected that they'll occasionally reach for a Yorkshireism.

The page currently has "gradely" listed, which I thought was about as Lancashire as you can possibly get.

Regards Epa101 13:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

-- Jza84 · (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think anal sex would be more appropriate than bumming. --81.152.114.46 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I heard boothman took his face to bed and ended up slapping his arse which went red but his face was pissed WORK THAT OUT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.37 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have noticed that you are from Lancashire and I was wondering if you have heard of the new WikiProject group of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. If you are interested in joining please feel free to become a paricipant and help us achive our goals. If you do join I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Kit body blackstripesshoulders.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Kit body whiteshoulders3.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply