Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Had anyone noticed we have a professional write-up on Wikipedia? | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 10:42:38 11/11/04 Thu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Commonwealth_Society We also come up at the TOP OF THE LIST on Google if you put in the keywords Federal Commonwealth. I'm impressed! And even the BBC took us seriously on one of their websites. Maybe we could be on the edge of breakout? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Which BBC Site? | |
|
Author: Matt [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:27:17 11/11/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Which BBC Site took us seriously? | |
|
Author: Matt [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:14:21 11/14/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: This One... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:35:28 11/14/04 Sun I set up a campaign for the FCS on the BBC iCAN website. For two days, the BBC carried a link to my article on their iCAN homepage as shown below:  [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Quite possibly... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:30:34 11/11/04 Thu Also "crown commonwealth" gives at top of the list : "'Federal Crown Commonwealth Union supporter' - Dream MP" with a reference to the main site. However just looking up "commonwealth" gives the wikipedia commonwealth article (with a link to fcs homepage right at the bottom) on the 14th google page! I gave up looking for direct references to the fcs under "commonwealth" on page 27 of google once I read the link-title: "CUNT has helped me to achieve mental stimulation and personal ..." :0) "British commonwealth" gives the wikipedia "commonwealth" article second (with the direct link to the FCS at the bottom), after the official Commonwealth site. As Jim's history website is not very old it will not have been scanned by google yet. In future, though, it may well yield good results, especially if "Image" searches are done. All of this is very exciting and I would say well done to all of those who have shown initiative in attempting to boost awareness of the F.C. idea and the closeness between our nations. If we are maybe on the edge of a breakout, perhaps this might be the time to really iron out the small issues with the website (please review the reports!) and set up "not-for-profit" status for the organisation. If an FC bank account could be set up with a (discrete) online donation system, I think that that would help matters, if you really think that we are at that stage. We currently do attract attention on the internet. That is a good and cost-effective thing. If, though, promoting this group away from the internet it will need funds beyond the means of a few individuals. For example it might be a good idea to send, to every parliamentarian that the F.C. would effect, a written letter exhorting them to ponder upon the merits of our proposal. Most small societies hold an annual meeting at which progress, funding etc... is discussed. I know that it is not worth flying to Australia to hear four people say that they raised £50 that year and had 1000 hits on the website. However, I think that accounts would not take long to publish and all of this could be done online at this stage. I must emphasise that if people look at the current website for the first time, they will think "wow - very nice idea!" but have no real way of interacting with it. For example, a simple link with a microsoft word template of a "letter to your M.P./councillor/favourite peer/Royal of your choice" explaining the benefits of an F.C. to the recipient is one way of offering people the chance to interact with the website. I know that there is a request to spread the word in any way you can. The difference is in the approach. When an answering machine says, "Please leave a message." alone then people are put on the other foot somewhat and more often that not they hang up and think about what they might say to the answering machine before perhaps calling back. If the answering machine says, "Hello, please leave your name and number and a brief summary of what you want to discuss.", slowly and clearly, people are guided in the direction they want to follow anyway. I have suggested numerous improvements to the website and would still be interested to hear the opinions of the international & national presidents. Jim has told me what he thinks of my proposals, what do the rest of you think? What do all non-presidents think? I feel that if we may experience an increace in visitors these changes should be implimented NOW if we really have reached the breakout stage. P.S. the BBC took Andrew Gilligan seriously! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Good Ideas... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:30:56 11/11/04 Thu Paddy, I like the letter template idea for the website. This would allow potential supporters to make a contribution very easily, spreading our views amongst a larger audience. With the small numbers we have at present, we will have to rely on these methods of spreading the word, for the time being. An online petition could also be set up, allowing any visitors to the website to lend their support. These names could be appended to any documents that we send to public bodies or politicians perhaps? As far as donations as concerned, I think we will be waiting for a while before we can take out a centre-page spread in The Times. PS Andrew Gilligan was most likely correct... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: The Times | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:03:43 11/11/04 Thu You get less centre-page spread for your money nowadays anyway. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:05:25 11/11/04 Thu I understand that a single column in the Spectator costs £1600 and a half column £960. On the other hand, a small column in the Telegraph costs less than £150, whereas a full page is at £45,000! Frankly, I think that we needn't bother with the Guardian. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Wikipedia | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:35:13 11/11/04 Thu That's fantastic. I have one question, though. It says that HM the Queen is "a unifying figure, the last remains of a once dissoluble union"... shouldn't that be "a once indissoluble union", or am I missing the point? If I am, I am reassured by the fact that it wouldn't be the first time and certainly sha'n't be the last! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Hmmm | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:00:00 11/11/04 Thu I think you're right, Ed. But I don't actually recognise that wording - it must be from Wikipedia itself, as they seem to have taken our ideas and written them up in (sort of) their own words. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I added the Wikipage... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:22 11/11/04 Thu Yes, I wrote the bulk of that article, although numerous comments have been added since my rather sort start. Hey, if you think it was written unclearly, then change it - that is the point of Wikipedia. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Official Recognition | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:32:56 11/11/04 Thu I count this very positively as a good step towards official recognition. Nick, what BBC site are you referring to? Were we mentioned in a news report, or was it a link based on a related subject? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: if we are "breaking out" it is happening very quickly | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:40 11/11/04 Thu I would have expected it to take a little longer, given how much the central idea of FC is at odds with prevailing nationalist and/or euro-federalist trends. "Breaking out" will be a difficult moment for the group. So far, we have been able to determine what the FC idea means, because it has been centred on these websites. Once it gets out into the public, all sorts of people may claim to share our vision when we would prefer to say that they have nothing at all to do with us. We will have to be very careful to distinguish between people who really share our core ideas but may have major differences - people we can work with - and people who have fundamentally different ideas, and from whom we must distinguish ourselves. The main point where this will be necessary is likely to be the nonsense of "race". We must be absolutely firm on this: people who wish to argue on racist terms cannot be allowed to speak in the name of FCS. If we do not make this completely clear, if we do not have the patience to stand up every time the issue is raised and calmly explain that our proposal has NOTHING to do with race, then we will be lost, and deservedly so. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: the page | |
|
Author: Joel (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:04 11/11/04 Thu I think someone from this forum made the wiki page not long ago. Anyone can create a wiki page once they are registered. A few more of us should sign up and link anything else relevant to the wikiFCS page and try to increase the volume of information there. ---- The idea of a letter to send is good. I tried to do a similar thing but for businessmen and media etc. with emails but apart from a few contributions there was no large influx of contact details. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: someone was mucking around editing the wiki page, adding all sorts of nonsense | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:29 11/11/04 Thu Someone will have to keep an eye on the page to make sure that it isn't turned against us. Anyone can edit it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I know someone respelt "republicanism" as "republicism" nt | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:28 11/12/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Actually... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:19:40 11/11/04 Thu Actually, anyone can create or edit a non-protected Wiki page, irrevelevant of if they are registered or not. Vandalism is quite rare though, sicne reversing changes can be done with a click or two and all IP addresses of non-signed-in users are logged and on display to the general public. (As I said previously in the dicussion tree, I created the article though am not responsible for the recent edits.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Right... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:30:58 11/11/04 Thu I've added the page to my watch list and will monitor it. To the person responsible: This is a serious project, as is Wikipedia; you are not anonymous (here are some other recent edits from our unnamed assailant, who is using the IP address 146.176.49.119 - notice the edits of Cornwall). Wikipedia has a neutrality policy which you will respect; you are more than welcome to add helpful comments to the article, otherwise, please do not continue editing it. Thank you. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: guilty party | |
|
Author: Joel (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:23:06 11/11/04 Thu i think it could be that young irelander guy. There was a comment about the FCS not accepting that Ulster was part of the country of Ireland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Wikipedia | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:27:56 11/12/04 Fri Sorry, I didn't realise how Wikipedia worked. Good work Roberdin. And thanks to everyone who's getting us noticed on the web. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No problem | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:54:55 11/12/04 Fri Understandably, it is, after all, an unusual concept. Please add more information as you like. :) If we can get the article to a sufficiently high standard, then I will submit it as consideration for their Article of the Day. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: republicans | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:29:29 11/12/04 Fri The page quite correctly states we are neutral on the subject of monarchy, but it also says we have a few republican members. I didnt relaise. Who here is an actual republican and a memebr of the society? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Republicanism | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:45:44 11/12/04 Fri I would join if republicans were allowed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Who said republicans weren't allowed? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:21:41 11/13/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I inserted that minutes ago... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:04:09 11/12/04 Fri I was under the impression that we had one or two. Certainly, Andrew, we embrace all who share our core ideals. Many of us would like to keep the monarchy and tradition, but as it was aforesaid, for some of us, that isn't so important, or is important that we do not keep them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I am a Rpublicna | |
|
Author: Benjamin Simpson (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:06:37 11/15/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |