Jump to content

User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mais oui!/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 04:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unionists (Scotland)

If you look at the talk page, you will see that this article was redirected after discussion. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree with redirection. But please do not call such an act 'vandalism' - that is a personal attack. And please do not revert without giving reasons (or better still joining the disccussion) on the talk page. I am replacing the redirect - please don't unilaterally revert without establishing a consensus. Edit wars are born of such actions. --Doc (?) 18:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... you and one other person decide to delete an entire article. I don't think so. Since when were "Unionists (Scotland)" and "Scottish independence" the same topic? You did not create a consensus at all. For a start you must put up the "Merge" box so that people at least know that a consultation is in progress. I am restoring the vandalised article, WITH the appropriate merge suggestion, and adding the merge box to Scottish independence too. Then, and only then will we see if consensus can be reached.--Mais oui! 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1) No-one 'deleted' the article, it was redirected. Redirection is not deletion as it can be undone.
2)Your undoing of it was not my main problem, but rather that you (unlike the person who redirected it) made no attempt to explain your actions on the talk page, or to see if anyone agreed with you. Further you called them a vandal - hardly assume good faith.
3)There was no 'merge notice' as no merger was being proposed - a redirect had been proposed and no-one had objected. Now that someone has (and, objecting is a resonable thing) there should now be a discussion and not an edit war or a slagging match.
The content of the article can be discussed on the talk page not here. --Doc (?) 20:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop being pedantic. You know fine well that redirecting has precisely the same effect as deleting - it removes the existing writing from the encyclopedia. Just because you do not like what others have written gives you no right to eliminate an entire (huge) topic. If what you say is correct, and there are indeed more unionists in Scotland than supporters of Scottish independence, then surely those millions of people deserve their own wee Wikipedia entry?
Stop playing "holier than thou". It is a profoundly unattractive trait in a correspondent. Your motivation was far from the pure white of the driven snow - in fact it was a typically human (ie. sinful) reaction: hearing a home truth that sits ill with your own vision of the world and attempting to censor the speakers. Indeed, it is the reaction of all establishmentarians. Wikipedia was not created to further the aims of The Establishment.
Since you appear fond of quoting Chapter and Verse, here is some of your own medicine:
"... Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion... " Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
If you really do want to avoid edit wars or slagging matches, and I suppose I must take that in good faith despite strong evidence to the contrary, then I advise you to get off your pedestal and start respecting the views of other users, like the people that took the time to set up the Unionists (Scotland) article in the first place - they are after all trying to present a history of an important social movement which seems to be singlehandedly keeping the United Kingdom on the map.--Mais oui! 04:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, we've not going to agree here I suggest any further discussion should be on the talk page, where some folk are trying to reach a true consensus. --Doc (?) 07:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Union

Thanks for your recent edits to Union (especially fixing my obvious typo, which I should have caught myself), I don't quite understand the distinction between Union (political) and Personal union. Do we need both entries on the dab page (especially since Union (political) doesn't even exist as an article. RoySmith 13:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. A political union, eg UK, UAE, is a union of smaller states to form a larger one. A personal union is simply sharing the head of state, eg as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK etc. do today - purely (well, almost purely) symbolic - they remain independent states. An historic example would be the Swedish-Norwegian personal union, 1800's, or the Scottish-English one during the 1600's. Other editions of Wikipedia, eg sv:, make this a lot clearer. It is a bit bizarre how the difference between the two is not made explicit in en:. I would write the article myself, but... too much wikiing already this week. But an article re Union (political) must be written, especially by people interested in the UK's (rather odd) constitution.--Mais oui! 18:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense (well, about as much sense as anything about UK politics does to me). Would it make sense for the article to be called Union (political), or Political union, in parallel with Personal union. The later seems to make more sense to me, but it sounds like you're more familiar with the topic --RoySmith 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Political union fine by me. Good luck!--Mais oui! 20:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Scots

Thanks for updating the disambiguation article Scots, you obviously have much needed expertise in the area. Just thought I'd mention that piping and having too many wikilinks is genrally not done in a dab page. More info on this can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation). --Commander Keane 09:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I put Scottish Gaelic language back in to the dab Scots becasue the Scottish Gaelic language lists "Scots" as something it is referred to. Maybe the article is wrong, what do you think? Should it go back onto the dab page?--Commander Keane 02:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Union Jack

Hi, I have never heard of any controversy on the original version of the Union Jack. Do you have any supporting evidence that the original version was something other than the superposition of the English and Scottish flags? Please provide sources for this claim. Wikipedia should only include generally established facts, not speculations. Also, the Edit summery is not the place to engage in debate or to address other users. Please use the talk page to discuss major changes and controversies, and address comments to specific users to that user's talk page. Also, please take note of other Wikipedia policies, such as No personal attacks, and the Three revert rule. --JW1805 22:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wales

Please stop this nonsense. Wales is part of the United Kingdom, which is a country. How can Wales be its own country when it is part of the United Kingdom? It can’t. French Polynesia is called a country, but that’s right — its part of France. The article, list of official languages by country, only includes countries that have international recognition and claim to be independent. Please do not put Wales on this page again. – Zntrip 23:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Scottish-Australians

Colonial governors and governors-general cannot be described as Australians. Adam 13:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But you can include Andrew Fisher, William Spence and John Garden

Swedish Wikipedia

Hello, are you sv:Användare:Ja till euron? In that case you may be interested in the discussion at the Village pump on svwiki. I posted a message on the talk page for Användare:Ja till euron. I beg your pardon if you are not Användare:Ja till euron! /Nicke L 10:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Mais oui!. If you did't like Template: United Kingdom regions, you could have VfD'd it; or you could have removed it from each page it appeared on (with suitable replacements). But by cutting it down to just England regions, and moving it to Template:England regions, you've created housekeeping problems. Template: England regions is a totally different template from the old one; and there's really no reason their edit histories or talk pages should be tied together. And until you (or somebody) goes through and updates all the links, there's a truth-in-advertising problem. I'm not one of those sticklers who minds redirects when there's just a small spelling change involved; but this is a lot more than that. To sum up: moving an template AND radically altering the content shouldn't be done in conjunction. Why not just create a brand new template from scratch? Thanks. Doops | talk 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is a debate to be had then communicate with the rest of us. But note that Template:United Kingdom regions is already a compromise from Template talk:United Kingdom. So please talk before you change things. --Henrygb 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Scotland

Edit summaries

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Moderation

Thank you for attempting to moderate your tone in your latest post to talk:Scotland. Politeness is very important to the wikipedia; and can be justified on both selfish and altruistic grounds. Selfish: you'll have much better success in disputes if you can adopt a bland tone, since passion tends to be mistrusted as going hand-in-hand with POV. If you can write in a reasonable way, people tend to trust that you can think reasonably too. Altruistic: you're bound to be wrong sooner or later (just as Astrotrain is in this instance). How would you like to be treated when that happens? Whenever possible, assume the problem is with the article, not with the editor who wrote it. It will really make life more pleasant for us all. OK, this is starting to sound preachy, so I'll stop. (I know that that's one of my bad habits.) Anyway, thanks and good luck. Doops | talk 19:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... point taken. Although the scenario you supply of me ever being wrong just seems a tad too far-fetched for me to grasp. But I will attempt to make that mental leap. I have weak powers of imagination... --Mais oui! 19:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mais oui!. Firstly, I'm neutral on the question of images on the Scotland page - (but can I plead with you to discuss it and not engage in a revert war). However, I'm bemused by your last edit summary The lion rampant represents Scotland, it was "granted" to Scottish kings, and is nowadays granted to UK kings/queens. Technically it was/is not "their" arms they were/are given permission to use them.. My heraldry isn't great - but I understood that arms are granted by and not to monarchs. The 'lion rampant' or the 'lyon wi' the lillies' is the lion of 'William the Lion' set against the lillies of the House of Stewart. No? So they are the arms of the monarch - in what sense are they granted to her - by whom? (Please understand, I'm not disagreeing with you over the arms on the page (I'm staying neutral), I'm just curious as to whether your edit summary is correct.) --Doc (?) 12:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I was repeating the use of the word "granted" that Doops had corrected us all on a couple of days ago. The point is that the lion rampant is not some vague, historical, "unofficial" (sic) symbol of Scotland: it is still, very much, the symbol of Scotland within heraldry. That is why it is the perfect symbol for the Coat of Arms bit of the Scotland infobox. It was not "the arms of scotland pre-1603", it is still very much the arms of Scotland, and is used to this day by the UK monarch to represent their dominion over Scotland.
By the way, I have to say that I was taken aback by that edit summary too. It's not standard heraldic language & I'm sorry if some use I made of the word "granted" confused you. Perhaps here's what you meant to say: the lion rampant represents Scotland; it was not a mere personal coat of arms of Scottish kings but their arms of dominion and sovereignty and today it belongs by right to UK kings/queens. Oh well, an old edit summary doesn't really matter; the paragraph you wrote above makes sense. Doops | talk 20:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding revert wars, I would like to point out that it is not me that keeps trying to change the Coat of Arms, it is Astrotrain. Everybody else has been forced to reverse his insertions and deletions, because he point blank refuses to respect your initial plea for a stop, while things were discussed. He has also been very deceitful in his use of false terminology when he does deign to write on the Talk pages.
I am perfectly happy with Grcampbell's compromise, which is the current situation as I write: Royal Standard of Scotland (ie. the lion rampant flag) in the infobox, plus the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland (which is the coat Astrotrain keeps trying to apply to the infobox) under the "Head of State" section. Thus the Scotland article now contains both symbols, and each in their proper place. Astrotrain usually comes on about 17:00 hours UK-time, so let us see if he (for about the twentieth time) deletes the Scottish arms and replaces them with the UK arms; or whether (pray to the lord) he actually respects the latest plea at the Talk page, by User:GraemeL, to "Stop the Revert War". If he yet again deletes the Arms of Scotland, then they must be immediately re-applied, otherwise the biggest bully wins.
In summary: he is the one who started the revert war, and he has been re-starting it every evening for the past week. He clearly has not the slightest intention of listening to what we are all saying.--Mais oui! 12:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on my recent RfA. Your concerns are appreciated and I'll bear your comments in mind.....dave souza 12:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

De rien!--Mais oui! 12:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school

I have had to protect this article against moves until the issue has been discussed. Your behaviour in insisting on the move despite objections fropm at least two other editors is not acceptable. In both case, your redirects were also poorly chosen (and you didn't properly deal with double redirects), and your most recent new title was badly formed (see MoS).

Please discuss this properly on the Talk page. I'll place the suggestion at Requested page moves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi, Mais oui! For your two most recent edits to Scotland you've used unfair and misleading edit summaries.

  • 00:28, 21 September 2005: (Compromise wording. It seems very harsh to deny that Alexander Graham Bell was both American AND Scottish (the categories are not mutually exclusive))

(Nobody was denying it.)

  • 14:28, 21 September 2005 m (Revert anonymous test.)

(Although the editor was anonymous, his/her edit was clearly not a test, as was patent both from the edit summary and from the editor's comments to the talk page.)

One reason why intemperate edit summaries are so frustrating is that they give no forum to respond to those who feel wronged by them. In future, please think before you hit "save page." Thanks. Doops | talk 18:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I like your edit summaries. --Commander Keane 11:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I aim to please.--Mais oui! 12:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Mais Oui!, it is not necessary for me to discuss on the talk page, any minor edit that I make to articles. Indeed it is something that you yourself do not do. If you bother to read the edit summary, you and any other editor can see the reason why I removed the NI PM pictures. As someone who uses accurate edit edit summaries, this is especially true (see above).

In any case, do you have a problem with the removal of the images? Or are you simply continuing with your apparent policy of reverting everything I edit? Astrotrain 22:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mais_oui!/Archive_01&oldid=1139546605"