User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 13

Mop?

Hi there! I've noticed your extensive and competent contributions to diverse areas of Wikipedia. As such I was wondering if you were interested in a nomination for adminship. Yours, >Radiant< 12:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland

Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really would appreciate you taking part in this discussion Mais oui!, epsecially as you are the main proponent of the 'Unionist' tag. Thanks Galloglass 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish counties

It looks like an attempt to apply current data to historic units and pass it all off as current. The census may well use historic units for comparison purposes, which is what one would expect it to do as it is used for longitudinal study. To assert anything about the status of the units based on that data is original research/synthesis and outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Mrsteviec 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it is worse than I at first thought. Definitely original research and also citing a primary source that doesn't give the figures you are using it for. Very poor show. Mrsteviec 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament constituency maps

I sent you an email but with regards to the maps I am creating them using information from the boundary commission for Scotland the only reason I am doing it is because it was annoying me as the UK parliament consistencies all have maps and the election is next year, if you would like to try and create a map for you I would be more than willing to help and as for the constituency template I have created one but I am not sure how to work out the council area as most of the consistencies are within more than one councils boundary here is what I have so far User:Br2387/Sandbox.--Barry^talk 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotland Edit

All right, what was the incorrect wiki info which you mentioned on your edit? Celtmist 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I so beg your pardon! We weren't to know. The purpose of my edit was simply to change the opening sentence stating that the land (hence the article itself) is a nation (a term referring to a people). But of course the Scots are indeed a nation in every sense which is why I mentioned it two lines down. If you are all right with it, we'll keep it, if not, perhaps we could look at the first line being that Scotland is a home nation within the UK or something similar. Let me know what you think. Celtmist 17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marischal

Ta for help on my over enthusiastic grammatics/bad typing! Mansion house/ Estate house? I dunno, they all tend to be pretty big non defensive buildings. ...splitting heirs slightly, I used to live in this one, and it was pretty run down, but Maxwell's gazetteer of Scotland 1902 does describe it as a Mansion house, and it did have bells on the lower corridor ;-).Brendandh 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland/Estates

Could you please see my edit at Talk:French States-General#Scotland, since it refers to your edit? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clubs and societies in Scotland

No problem, it's a bit empty atm, but I'm sure you'll help fill it up ;) Tim! 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Travers Harris

If you are going to change section headings then please make sure that any internal references link to the new section headings, (it is even harder to check external links to section headings). Most of the footnotes link to the Bibliography section which thanks to your edit is now not correct. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shetland

Hi. That was your fourth revert, you know. Would you mind self-reverting? --Guinnog 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was.

--Guinnog 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. My apologies. Edit-warring is still frowned upon and 3 reverts in 24 hours are not an entitlement. --Guinnog 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the user for 3RR violation. I am concerned that you are not necessarily dealing with your conflict with the user in the most productive way. I know your history and it might be better not to have anything to do with this user, though I recognise that may be difficult. Best wishes --Guinnog 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have blocked the other user you were edit-warring with. Beyond that I don't know what you would expect me to do. You are actually wrong on the matter you were warring over and I will edit the article to reflect that. See [1] for example. I won't revert though, I'll formulate a neutral compromise and I recommend this course of action to you in future disagreements. --Guinnog 23:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Scotland

With response to;

Well, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that the list article cannot include meetings of Lords of the Articles, the General Council, the Convention of Estates, and any other committees or related meetings. In fact, the more comprehensive and descriptive the better: better than a bare list of dates.

I agree, nothing wrong with it being concise, just a lot of research involved. I've made a start with creating new article Scottish Reformation Parliament. Seems as good a place as any to start. Benson85 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" – not as English as you'd think...

Hi Mais oui! I noticed the change of title you recently gave to "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" to reflect the fact that it's specifically in England, and that there's a Scottish National Portrait Gallery as well. There's a slight problem with that, because the Gallery's perspective is pan-British (and beyond that, extends to people like Wallis Simpson who have strong ties with British history in some way). One of its founders was the very Scottish Thomas Carlyle. So I think the "England" in parentheses is misleading, although I can see why you might think that "United Kingdom" is contentious. May I suggest either National Portrait Gallery (London) or National Portrait Gallery, London as an alternative?

The option with a comma follows the example of National Gallery, London, but that's because it's the way the National Gallery styles itself on its website to distinguish it from all the other National Galleries. I'm not clear on whether it's correct to use a comma when disambiguating an article title, as with e.g. Strand, London, or the more usual parentheses. Any thoughts? [talk to the] HAM 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A third option would be to revert to National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) to reflect its scope, while making clear in a disambig notice that it's not the only NPG in Britain. Something like:

This article is about the National Portrait Gallery based in London. Also in the United Kingdom, but unconnected to this institution, is the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh

After looking at the disambig page for National Portrait Gallery, I think that it makes more sense to have the name of the country in the article – in which case it would have to be United Kingdom, not England. Regards, [talk to the] HAM 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: User:Badgerpatrol has joined in the discussion on Talk:National Portrait Gallery (England), so could you please leave your response there rather than here? Many thanks, [talk to the] HAM 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

You are picking fights with this [2] kind of edit. Please stop. This is your only remaining warning, or I'm going to have stop you the hard way. Know when to put things down. -Splash - tk 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it seems obvious enough that the IP is Mallimak; he can dispute that if he like but it won't wash. I still don't see the value in reverting someone else's userpage when you can be reasonably sure that it'll inflame. -Splash - tk 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't like you. That's ok, though. I'm tired to death of seeing the two of you go at it, and it takes two to tango. I'll not stand for it from Mallimak, nor from you. Protestations of "yebbut, he's really bad too" won't wash. I'll blank his user page. Then neither of you have anything. What you will have, however, is to stop. -Splash - tk 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament

Just to let you know, I've submitted the Scottish Parliament article for a Peer Review to see what areas can be improved on. Thanks Globaltraveller 13:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish people by council area

Hello. As someone who appears to have set-up most of the categorisation of Scottish people by council area, I wondered if you might have an opinion on this? Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:People_from_Motherwell As you can see from the arguement, I personally thought the system as it was previously worked well. The new pages (People from Arbroath and People from Motherwell) were created by a new user for their recently produced articles - I doubt they intend to populate them with other people from Motherwell (eg Colin Fox, Gary McAllister etc). Sorry to trouble you if this is of no interest.Caledonian Place 12:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British MPs/UK MPs

Hi Mais oui, I'd value your thoughts on Category_talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bit of a rush this morning, so please accept my apologies for not writing sooner to thank you for the headsup at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Jumping the gun (with my schedule this week, I would probably have missed it otherwise). As you'll see at the CFD, the nominator has kindly agreed to withdraw the proposal so that a new CFD can be started, and I'm in the process of doing that. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPG

See my thoughts on your latest move on the appropriate talk page. Why you choose to ignore Wiki etiquette (not to mention basic politness) and carry out actions of this kind without any consultation really escapes me. If there is consensus for this move, please show me when and where it was arrived at. Badgerpatrol 08:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wha daur meddle wi' me

This is not the motto of Scotland. It is the motto of the Black Watch Regiment. I cite your own source.

'It is perhaps inevitable that during the last three centuries of bludgeoning Britain's foes the Black Watch has... ...Their motto is Nemo me impune lacessit - which translates as, "touch me not with impunity," or more commonly, "wha daur meddle wi' me".', [The Daily Telegraph, 25 October 2004]

More research needs to be done.

Besides, the Scots translation should be on the [Scots Language version of Wikipedia], not the English language version. We don't have the Gaelic translation of the Latin either. The Scots language version gives a slightly different translation too: "Naebodie chaws me wi impunity" which would be closer to the Latin. Though not referenced. Rincewind42 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scotland-related topics

I've done a re-write of List of Scotland-related topics, heavily based on the topics template. I'd welcome your comments via my talk or the discussion page at the article. Cheers! Berek 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RBS

You should see Talk:Royal Bank of Scotland, where Astrolain is pushing his Scottophobic POV. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wodehouse quote

Hullo ! I'm partial to Wodehouse on sunbeams and Scotchmen, but I'm pretty sure your user page misquotes him. I don't have the book to hand, but the askoxford.com site gives it as:

| It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.

Here's one by a Mr Christopher North, for other occasions:

| It gives me true pleasure to declare, that, as a people, the English are very little indeed inferior to the Scotch.

Last, but not least, some medieval French guy said:

| Que d’Escossois, de rats, de poux,
Ceux qui voyagent jus qu’au bout
Du monde, en rencontrent partout.

I don't know if being compared to a rat or a flea is flattery or not. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of political parties in the United Kingdom

Hi, Mais oui! It may interest you to know if you did not already that these categories have unfortunately just been nominated for deletion. I note you have contributed to them and thank you for it. Your comments would be welcome. Thanks Dovea 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute templates

Please don't remove dispute templates while the dispute still exists. And the article is about the Group- not just the retail bank arm. Astrotrain 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish trade unions

Just a heads up that I nominated this category, which you created, to be renamed to Category:Trade unions of Scotland to match other entries in Category:Trade unions by country. Tim! 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Politics of Scotland" edit

Hi, I added the line into the section on the Scottish Parliament referendum just as an additional bit of useful background info. You say "this was after a lot of things" - obviously, but Blair's statement in June 1996 (p.95, Pilkington, Devolution Today - reference) did "set in stone" how the referendum would be conducted. TG312274 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry the URL you need is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Scotland&diff=87853004&oldid=87830570 TG312274 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underconsturction template

I think you have confused the { { underconstruction } } template with the { { inuse } } template. The former is is a invitation to other people to expand, add more material and edit existing article. Rincewind42 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Scotland Template

I don't know why your so obssessed with putting this template on every single page you can think of. I am prepared to allow it on Scotland Act 1998- but it needs to go from the other acts- they are not related to politics or govt. Astrotrain 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogging

Cher Mais oui!, I have had a look at the Geography section on the Sotland page. Its inadequacies include: a) A largely irrelevant historical section. b) A confused set of subdivisions which place far too much emphasis on the islands. c) Trivia. d) Most puzzlingly, no geology at all! When I get some time I would like to attempt a serious clean up, and whilst I am not requesting your permission I’d value your advice. There may be ‘history’ or protocol here I am unaware of. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a final draft revision here which I will put up public notices about tomorrow Insha'Allah. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPG Talk

I appear to be the inadvertent mangler! Thanks for catching this and restoring the talk page. Badgerpatrol 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clement of Dunblane

Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. He just seems to be one of those users with an axe to grind. He just needs watching. I just wish he would be more open to use of talk pages. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's constrained for time atm; if that's the case, he may well become more reasonable later on. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Curling Championship(s)

Hi, may I ask you why you changed European Curling Championships into European Curling Championship? It's not just one championship that is held, but there are two. OK, there's only one Championship per gender, without any other disciplines, but in my opinion there are still more than one Championships to be held. Also on the official website of the 2006 edition they use Championships. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definately agree about the redirect, which is now solved. However, I don't think it's "the standard" on Wikipedia to use the singular instead of the plural. I've seen both versions in many sports articles all over Wikipedia and just like you said I'm pretty sure that lot's of them actually need renaming according to the official name which is given at the official website or any other reliable source. When I create an article like that I try to do it like that as much as possible. If no information on that is available then I would say check out the number of Championships to be held. Is it just one, then use the singular, are there more, then use the plural. SportsAddicted | discuss 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish flag

Just shows you! I should have read the intro :-) Bill Reid | Talk 10:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Mais oui! good luck with your new WikiProject. Is the assessment department active yet? I listed an article there and wonder when the papers will be graded. -Susanlesch. (Time stamp maybe about 28 December? I don't recall.)

FWIW, I graded this one myself, although I don't have any credentials, B seems about right considering the prose is out of balance with the lists, and doesn't say a word about many things. Best wishes for the New Year. -Susanlesch 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) minor edits at :09.[reply]

Key Extracts

I have created a draft of ‘Key Extracts from the Talk: Scotland Archives’ here. My intention is to create something that could be used as a handy guide for new contributors to the Scotland article, which after appropriate discussion would be moved to a new page and referenced on the Talk:Scotland page in due course. I’d value your comments. Please feel free to direct other Scottish Wikipedians to it. Cc Users Mais Oui!, Calgacus, Globaltraveller, Angus Maclennan, Billreid, Canæn. A Merry Xmas to all. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings and all that

Hope you're well. Today I visited the National Museums of Scotland. I don't know if you've been, but it's worth the trip. First time I've been to a museum or the like in Scotland since I was but a little chap, and that wasn't last week. All the best for 2007! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'd just like to repeat my apology again here. Thanks for removing the warning message - the whole thing seems to be a simple misunderstanding about naming. I'm sorry, again, for making the wrong assumption. Tevildo 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cycle bio stub

Merci pour la correction. I will correct my AWB replace expressions. STTW (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going wild

I wonder if you could give me a little advice. I'm drafting an article on the Fauna of Scotland and I have come across Wildlife of Scotland. I think its fair to say it's a start class article and does not even mention flora. (Fauna = animals only of course, 'wildlife' = flora and fauna). Would you advise ignoring it (easy to do, but a bit supine), creating the Fauna article and suggesting a merge, or a deletion, requesting a move for Wildlife to Fauna and then replacing its content (all of which might be time-consuming or complex), or... ? I note the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland. Any advice or pointers gratefully received. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to the latest Scotland rv! The new page is now live. If not you, who do I ask, or where do I look for input/advice? WP:SCOWNB? Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland articles lacking citation

Replied on my talk page, since you kindly reverted my addition to the Scotland Project page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country conventions

Hi Mais oui!, hope all is well.

If ever there is a user who will know, I'm sure it'll be yourself (!) - is there (or rather where can I find) a convention/consenus/guideline page regarding the use of the constituent countries vs United Kingdom as the primary geography frame of reference when discussing locations?

I know there are some loose guidelines on the WikiProject UK geo (which state we use the C.C.), but any others? Hope you can help. Kindest regards, Jhamez84 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For moving Glasgow Emancipation Society. If you know anyone who could help with research, that would be lovely. I haven't been able to find good sources other than primary ones. Thanks again, NinaOdell | Talk 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Natives of"

Hi. I liked your answer on the CfD page for Oslo natives, and have expressed a similar view on the discussion for Category:Natives of Transylvania. I just wish that people had thought about the reasonable point you make before they started merging so many objective categoruies into subjective ones (which has ruined a lot of work). Dahn 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

Your changes to the article Vancouver were changed. The subject of keeping the Union Jack Flag or having duel flags was an on-going conversation that was being resolved. Please check the Talk:Vancouver before you make any changes further changes. Vancouver is a featured article and seems to get a lot of attention, especially in the controversal areas. Thanks =) Mkdw ^talk 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left my comments on Talk:Vancouver#Request_for_Comment:Which_flag.28s.29_should_accompany_Edinburgh.3F Mkdw ^talk 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith per WP:CIVIL. It was an honest mistake, and you're being unreasonably rude about it. I changed it back WITH the edit summary and you will see my edit summary does support what I was trying to do in my blank one. Don't WP:BITE new comers to Wikipedia. I'm sure you've made mistakes when you first came to Wikipedia. I'll let my contributions to Wikipedia determine what type of person I am, not by the threatening messages I leave on other people's pages. You should know that reverting should be labelled as a minor edit anyway, as was advised to me by an admin -- it wasnt some ploy. Mkdw ^talk 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Please take note of my comments at Talk:Vancouver#No need for any flag. Thanks/wangi 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Couple of maps

No problem, I will do them at the weekend. I had originally intended to get through all of the Scottish settlements and get maps done + get infoboxes in place where they aren't used (there are still a few places that don't use them), but time seems to keep washing away. SFC9394 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: 3rr

Regarding reversions[3] made on January 23 2007 to Vancouver

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You are a sensible person. Please self-revert before you ge blocked

William M. Connolley 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Labour

I think one reference is probably fine, and out of the three this one is focused purely on the fact we are wanting to cite. The others might well be of use on the John McTernan article (probably already there). On my watchlist now. Ta/wangi 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former? royal burghs or not?

Have a look at my reply at [4]. I haven't removed them, but changed them to "former royal burghs", which is what they are called by (for example):

Highland Council [5]
Fife Council [6]
North Ayrshire council [7], *Renfrewshire Council [8] (page 17),
Dumfries and Galloway Council[9] (page 117)

I don't have the full text of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 which might contain some saving as to the "royal burgh" status after the abolition of the local government burghs and town councils? The burgh Common Good funds are now administered by the area councils, but perhaps the inhabitants of (former?) burghs enjoy some privileges under their charters? As I noted on the above mentioned user talk page, all the burgh arms reverted to the crown as the entities that owned them were explicitly abolished. Many of these have since been regranted, either to district councils, area councils or community councils, which could hardly happen if the burghs still existed.

However, I am open to persuasion. I do hope this doesn't turn into a traditional counties type argument :-(....

We should probably continue this conversation over at Talk:Royal burgh

Lozleader 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall post at Talk:Royal burgh. David Lauder 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]