The reason I added the countries of the UK to the Former Countries category is because they were once sovereign states (independent countries), but no longer are. Doesn't mean they're not countries in the cultural scene of the term, or can't be in the Countries category. My impression is that the Countries category includes both sovereign states and "cultural countries" (not sure what the proper term for that is).
On a related note, is there a reason England isn't in the Countries category, yet the other UK Countries are?
A referendum will soon be held about Scottish independence, after that getting Scotland out of the former countries category will be difficult the way Wikia does things. Wales may decide on independence too. Also should all the countries of the European Union be called former countries because the EU is becoming a sovereign state?
Why would it be difficult, wouldn't it be just a matter of removing the [[Catagory:Former Countries]] from the page code? As for the European Union, that's something of a special case. It's member states are generally considered to be sovereign states, and the overwhelming majority of world maps show them as sovereign states and not as mere sub-national entities of the EU. Basically, most sources treat it as an international organization (like the UN) rather then as a state. For the sake of the argument tough, let's say the EU is a sovereign state like any other and it's member-states (politically speaking, not culturally) aren't countries anymore then the provinces of Canada are. I'd say the Former Countries category would be appropriate, along with the Countries category for those that would still be Nations in the cultural sense of the term (e.g. France).
The edit button, but it might be different for you then for me. I seem to recall that wikia had some fancy page editor instead of the regular media-wiki editor, or something like that, which I disabled on my account.
One of the creepiest moments I have ever seen is on some of these animated biblical films by this person named TalithaKaomi3. Seriously; the comments are so creepy; It creeps me out that a certain portion of society is so demonic-like and sadistic. Somebody even told me to burn in hell because i said adam and eve would not have been white.
Someone thinks you should burn in Hell because you believe Adam and Eve would not have been white. That person is judgmental and Unchristian but probably doesn't realize it. Please give me a link, I can comment further when I've seen it all.
it is way down on the adam and eve video by the same user as the sodom and gomorrah video. on the a&e animated video; around 3 months ago; between Rachel I and Disney Freak; there are two "author withheld" posts by the same user. The second one said something like '@some other user and me burn in hell, GOD plainly states that they were WHITE" and that same user said something really bad to ANOTHER user. It did'nt even appear in my youtube inbox since he just replied using the @ symbol. I have been on there four times; and I just happened to notice it the third time. It was the fourth time (just a few days ago) that I notice that the user got withheld (he or she - can't tell)
I will write it as soon as I get the chance. I don't think it is my place to write anything opinionated about them, as I do not speak for this wiki. I agree it is not fair to bully them, they've just been indoctrinated.
Here is what I do not understand - Why do some of the ridiculous bullies on the web target the kids who say funimentalist things. Why don't they do the bullying comments on Pat Robertson; David Barton; Jack Chick; and all these other fundimentalists?. Why are they targeting the kids?
We've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage." –Rush Limbaugh, on President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage. Limbaugh's first, second, third, and fourth wives could not be reached for comment