Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 16 February 2006

Welcome!

Hi Mais oui!! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! , SqueakBox 04:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• User talk:Mais oui!/Archive
• User talk:Mais oui!/Archive2

Subcats Etc

OK. Thanks for the feedback.

"If we put all articles in supercats too then the parent cat just gets totally clogged up. That is why we have subcategories: to make cats easier to navigate, and to cross reference.

cat English breweries is a subcategory of cat British breweries. The articles are already in there. Youi do not need to go round duplicating the cat.--Mais oui! 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)"

I think I followed that and your explanation using the United States. That was helpful.

I have looked closely at the Category Brewers and Breweries. It has the subcats British breweries and English breweries. No articles. Going into British breweries that has the subcats English breweries and Closed British Breweries. No articles. Going into English breweries that has a list of articles on active English breweries. No other articles. Going into Closed British Breweries that has a list of articles on closed British breweries. No other articles.

So I'm not exactly sure where the problem is. Could you point it out? It all looks clean and tidy to me.

I have to say that I fully expected to make mistakes in doing this. But I didn't expect to have to spend so much time looking carefully for mistakes I can't see! This Misplaced Pages is turning out to be harder than I thought. And if people get hostile when a newbie is still learning it makes matters even more awkward. Even more awkward when the hostility is not understood.

I have been looking at User-conduct RfC due to the amount of heated conversation I have been getting from you. And I also found this statement to be quite friendly and encouraging in my endeavour to organise the British Breweries and get out an excedllent set of articles:

"Misplaced Pages doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so (putting aside a few specialized uses of sysop privileges) there is no way that you can accidentally damage Misplaced Pages or irretrievably destroy content. But remember—whatever you write here may be preserved for posterity."

SilkTork 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for latest message. I hope things will now proceed more smoothly. If I continue to make mistakes, please ask me what my intention is. You may be able to make useful suggestions.

SilkTork 23:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

John Hans Makeléer

Wow! how lucky to meet up with you. The article I had posted was deleted, luckily it was posted long enough that the other sites that use Misplaced Pages content had already copied it. Now it sits protected in my userspace along with other family members. I am supposed to be descended from him through my family in Sweden. I hope you might have some more information to add. I have been having trouble finding information on clan MacLean since so many of the family names were recycled, its difficult to find birth and death dates. As you can see at least three others mentioned in the biography were deleted and are dead links now.

Oops Maclean

Sorry, I just realized now, I was on your User page not your Discussion page. I thought User pages were supposed to be locked to others. Sure, you can restart it, or if your an editor you can undelete it, or you can vote for undeletion, that way the discussion pages will be restored. Im an inclusionist, so I think that "somewhat" notable people should be included. Paper encyclopedias have their limits because of costs of how many people they include. I would like to see more biographies of fringe notable people. I just had a another one deleted that I spent hours of research on. It was the president of Ballantine beer. Some guy never heard of the brand so he initiated a vote on it, and deleted it. If I had access I would have just pasted it into the company entry.

A user is trying to have the Template:Irish Republic infobox deleted. Your comments would be welcome.User:Jtdirl 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I would appreciate your vote or comment on these two cfms:

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries
• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors

Thanks, Arniep 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Hawaii

Maybe it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, but the Hawaii case is quite different to all the others. Whether or not a protectorate counts as a colony, the flag was not a normal British colonial ensign, but was recognised by the British and others as the flag of a kingdom. Yes, it resembles a British ensign (I didn't say it wasn't the Union Flag in the canton), but it wasn't one. JPD (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish British

Hi. I realise the category Irish British is inaccurate in that it may suggest a closer connection than I intended so I am going to rename the category as agreed in the cfd discussion. Arniep 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW the new name will be purely factual and not labelling, People of Irish descent in Great Britain. I intend to remove certain people from the xxx American cats and move them into similar xxx descent categories, for example Robert De Niro is in the German American category but this is inaccurate as he does not identify as a "German American" so should be moved to a German descent category. Regards Arniep 17:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

piping on {{Scotland-bio-stub}}

Hi... I've just noticed that about three weeks ago you added piping to {{Scotland-bio-stub}} in the form ]. NEVER add piping to a template in this way! If you want to know why, have a look in the category, and you will see a couple of humdred articles, all filed alphabetically under " Template". I've fixed the template, and I'm going to ask mairi to run Mairibot over all the articles, since it'll need null-edits to get them all back in alphabetical order... Grutness...wha? 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you've done the same to {{Wales-bio-stub}}... are there any others you've done this to, because they'll all need to be fixed... Grutness...wha? 07:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... whoopsadaisy. No I don't think so, although I did change the photo on {{Wales-bio-stub}} from the utterly appalling Anthony Hopkins (at 30px it just looks like ANY silver-haired elderly man) to the, and-I-quote, "sex-symbol" Charlotte Church. I had been wondering why the heck the Category:Scottish people stubs was completely un-navigable, and would have asked our new Admin User:Alai if I had not got totally distracted creating Category:Andrew Carnegie. By the way, why is there no {{Wales-stub}}? Put the piping down to relative newbieness: I have only been here a few weeks, and there must be tons and tons and tone I still have to learn. Sorry.--Mais oui! 09:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

s'alright - easy mistake to make - sorry I was grumpy! As for Wales-stub (and NI-stub for that matter), the categories probably wouldn't be that big, but then again they might be worth proposing... BTW, some good news for you - {{Scotland-struct-stub}} is now up and running. Grutness...wha? 09:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wales-bio-stub picture

I've removed the picture you put on the stub. It's a nice picture, but Misplaced Pages only has it as having a fair use license and fair use is not considered acceptible for templates (not just stub templates, all templates). It needs to be either a public domain or a freely usable picture. Caerwine 20:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of a stub

You insist on labelling First ScotRail and the Skye Bridge as stubs. Neither fit any definition of a stub. Both are much longer than 3-10 sentences. I find it hard to believe that you think "that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library". Of course, neither are featured article quality yet, but hardly a stub. Look at this revision, when the article was first created, for what a stub would be like. Maccoinnich 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Union Bridge (Tweed)

What is the harm in mentioning Berwickshire providing the present day region is also given?

Perhaps you would like to a) give me a link to the definition of a stub, b) tell me what is missing from the article that makes you think it is a stub. -- RHaworth 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Here is the definition of a stub: Misplaced Pages:Perfect_stub_article#Essential_information. I thought that a quick Google could have added some useful info to both articles, but if you disagree, fair enough.--Mais oui! 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to keep on but what essential information is missing from the Union Bridge article?

The fact that a Google search throws useful extra info. does not make an article a stub - every article is capable of expansion or improvement. -- RHaworth 04:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Scots

Hi, I have proposed a new rename of this category to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent instead of Category:People of Irish descent in Scotland as the latter may indicate that people born in Ireland can be included. Re: Jack McConnell I did find him on a list of Irish descended people, presumably the descent is through his grandmother or mother. Arniep 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Shucks... --Mais oui! 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Port Ellen Whisky

Hi there! From my point of view the Port Ellen article describes the town itself. Since there is an article on Port Ellen Single Malt (a very fine malt, by the way), I still think that the categorization of the main article into Category:Whiskies is not necessary. Please reconsider your recent edit on that article. --Pmkpmk 08:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okey-dokey.--Mais oui! 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and wikipedia guidelines

What is the justification for this edit ? I am particulalry curious as to your justification under copyright law and the Misplaced Pages fair use guidleines both of which were mentioned in my edit summary that you reverted.--A Y Arktos 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Great minds think alike

Cheers. Well, as I said, I noticed and shamelessly stole it from Portal:NYC. They're decent statistics. They need to go somewhere... Maccoinnich 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Shipbuilding

Hi, I do like the Scottish portal which I discovered through you. One question though, or possibly more of a comment. The Scottish Shipbuilding Companies Category contains three companies and two burghs, i.e. Govan and Greenock. It suggests to me, that a rename of the category is needed, or possibly the creation of a subcat: Scottish shipbuilding areas and a link added between the two. Pyrotec 09:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look a little odd, but it is (hopefully) only temporary. Both the Govan and Greenock articles contain a section on the local shipyards. As the shipyards themselves have no individual article each (yet) then as a temporary measure it is very helpful to signpost readers and editors to ALL relevant articles.--Mais oui! 10:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I was in a hurry there. I forgot to say thanks for your appreciation of the portal signposting. And no, I do not think that a subcat of the Scottish Shipbuilding Companies Category is necessary.--Mais oui! 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Scots vote

Thanks for your vote to keep "Irish-Scots"!

Camillus 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

National Anthems list

Just a minor nit - at List of national anthems you point a person who added GSTQ as the official English, Scottish and Welsh anthems to the note at the United Kingdom box (note 4) that says it's not official. That actually is referring to the fact that it's not the official anthem of the UK (as stated in the God Save the Queen article itself), believe it or not, it actually hasn't been declared as official by British Parliament for the whole of the UK, it's just been used as a matter of tradition. --Canuckguy 03:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Borough

Why have you removed my additions on -burgh from the 'borough' page? It is referenced as -burgh (pronounced -burg) in the American south-west, and as the Scots word (not name-element) 'burgh'. I added the Scots (and extreme northern English) name-element -burgh, with its (unobvious) pronunciation. ColinFine 10:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Because that article is about Borough, not Burgh. Both articles link to each other, and if you feel that the Burgh article lacks some information, please add it to that article; you had added the info to the wrong article.--Mais oui! 13:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

But (a) by that argument it should not list '-brough' or '-bury'. (b) Only (as far as I can tell) in the Burgh:disambiguation page is there mention of '-burgh' as a name-element. (c) American '-burgh' is mentioned but not Scottish/Northumbrian '-burgh'. (d) Burgh is linked from said American '-burgh', whose connection I think is tenuous.

The info is in the other article, but I don't understand why you think it inappropriate to add it to the 'borough' article where it is precisely parallel with some of the information in the article.

What I do not understand is why you want to add information about the word Burgh to a different article. Surely information about burgh should be added to the Burgh article.--Mais oui! 22:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged. wangi 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tis done.--Mais oui! 07:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't! I took 'tis done' to mean you had done it, or were just about to, but they seem to be as before. ColinFine 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't follow you.--Mais oui! 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wangi said "The two articles should be merged", and you said "Tis done". What did you mean, if not 'I have merged/will merge them'? ColinFine 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Brython-Briton

Hi, can you please have a look at the Brython talk page and give a reference for your change to southern three-quarters of the island of Great Britain. Alun 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Do you have a source for this change to Briton Celtic inhabitant of most of Great Britain (excluding the Picts of central and northern Scotland). Not only should you provide a verifiable source, but this seems to be only one POV, in order to maintain neutrality it should also be stated that there is some thought that Pictish was a Brythonic language. This would make Picts brythons. The Picts article strongly implies that most linguists think that Pictish was a Brythonic language. Please try to maintain neutrality, if you give one POV you should also always give the converse, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. Alun 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: http://en.wiktionary.org/Briton --Mais oui! 13:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition also says ethnological classification of indigenous person of Great Britain or person of British ancestory elsewhere in the world. I'm not sure what the policy on using Wiktionary: for verifiability is, but you can't use Misplaced Pages pages for verifiability, or Misplaced Pages would simply be self-verifying and anything would go. It's always best to put all POVs in to maintain neutrality. I've put links to several definitions in the references section of the article. Alun 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh... Alun, I hate to point this out, but why is it OK for you to cite a Misplaced Pages article (Picts) to support your argument, but it is not OK for me to cite a Wiktionary article to support mine? Come on now.

Even if the Picts were Brythonic speakers, and I have yet to see any evidence (Misplaced Pages's Picts article is not exactly first-rate), the word "Brythons" has not been applied to them before. Why is Misplaced Pages trying to apply the term Brython to the Picts? This is not the correct forum for original research.--Mais oui! 07:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The books I have to hand do not support the claim (though I haven't got Ball & Fife referenced in the Picts article). Andrew Dalby, Dictionary of Languages (Bloomsbury 1998) says (s.v. Celtic Languages) "Pictish, the language of the Scottish highlands in ancient times, may have been a fourth subdivision of Celtic, but this is uncertain". ColinFine 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some clarifications and citations added to the article. ...dave souza 12:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Moray

Please refrain from simply reverting changes without explanation or discussion. PatGallacher 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

British ethnic group

Hi, I think linking to a British ethnic group article that doesn't exist might cause some duplication in the future. What is really needed is a proper British people article similar to the English people or Welsh people articles. This would constitue an ethnic group article. I think there is a need for such an article. Alun 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it was hardly very useful having a British people blue link on the Briton article that simply led you straight back to the Briton article. By making it a red link it advertised the fact that the article is requested (not by me may I say). But I totally agree that the correct, Misplaced Pages-standard naming-convention for these articles is "foo people" (although British ethnic group should probably be one of the Redirects).

After having said all that, I personally have big doubts as to whether there is such a thing as a "British ethnicity" (it is a bit like trying to claim that there is an "Australian ethnicity", in a political entity composed of many ethnic strands), but clearly some other Wikipedians think that such a thing does exists, so it will be fascinating for the sceptics among us to see what kind of article the proponents come up with. It may well result in an Afd discussion, but we'll see.--Mais oui! 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish Catholic Rebels

I invite you to have a look at this article and then vote for a Speedy Delete on the article's section of the "Articles for Deletion". Camillus 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

County disambiguation

Do you think it would make sense to make a Renfrewshire (traditional) as well? Morwen - Talk 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. The "problem" areas are:

• Aberdeenshire (modern area bigger)
• Renfrewshire (modern area much smaller)

The modern council areas should definitely be the default, obviously with a standard dab notice at the top.

and to a lesser extent:

• West Lothian
• Midlothian
• East Lothian
• Stirling (council area) as opposed to Stirling (excarebated by the need for a new Category for the City of Stirling)
• Falkirk (council area) as opposed to Falkirk
• City of Edinburgh as opposed to Edinburgh
• City of Glasgow as opposed to Glasgow
• City of Aberdeen as opposed to Aberdeen
• City of Dundee as opposed to Dundee

Actually, the more I look at this topic, the more I realise what disarray there is in the Misplaced Pages pages on the many and varied historic and modern subdivisions of Scotland.

While we are on this topic, I have only just noticed that the maps on the articles on the 30 mainland councils exclude Orkney and Shetland, but the maps at Orkney and Shetland show the whole country. I find this somewhat dis-satisfactory. Do you know how I go about putting in 30 maps showing the whole of Scotland at those articles?--Mais oui! 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. It's really quite messy. We also have odd things like the map of the Inveress lieutenancy area at Inverness. I've suggested elswhere a rule of thumb for deciding whether to split articles about modern counties and old counties - which is that if there is discontinuity of institutions, and substantially different borders, then split.

Another problem is that there is no article that covers the topic of the statutory Aberdeenshire county. Aberdeenshire (council area) is clearly about the 1996 beast, whereas Aberdeenshire (traditional) by its name can't cover the boundary changes.

One point of research that I intend to make at some point, is that I believe that the term administrative counties of Scotland is actually Misplaced Pages's neologism and should probably be eliminated. From what I can make out from visionofbritain.org.uk, and from reading sources that allude to it, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 didn't distinguish between the 'counties' and 'administrative counties' as was done for England and Wales and Ireland. Morwen - Talk 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you come to mention it I had never encountered the term "Administrative county" before I started reading Misplaced Pages, and I am a bit of a Scottish local government geek. Not that that necessarily means much, for I am sure that my ignorance is boundless. Good luck with researches.

If it is a Misplaced Pages neologism it ought to go. Probably best to Merge the two articles (if you exclude the big maps, they actually have almost no content: simply a list) just put down the 1889 re-drwaing (Administrative counties of Scotland) as a subsidiary section of the Traditional counties of Scotland article.--Mais oui! 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I wanted to Check My Facts on this before I do anything, and do a bit more research about how the borders were redrawn and when. It appears there was a boundary commission from 1889 to mid 1890s that did most of the exclave tidying-up. I discovered also that Nairn and Moray shared a county council! I do know for certain that the LGA (Scotland) 1975 does abolish 'counties', unqualified, so the "they didn't formally abolish the real counties, only administrative counties" that is used for England doesn't apply to Scotland. However, if you want to merge, be my guest. I'd put merged article at just Counties of Scotland. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding maps - this is (partly) my fault. The locator maps at the moment aren't antialised at all, this means anyone can just download the Orkney one, and floodfill the appropriate areas the right council. However, the addition of Orkney & Shetland to the maps makes them much bigger - which was why I omitted them in the first place. Probably a better solution would have been putting them in a box. Morwen - Talk 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta.--Mais oui! 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how does this look? (you may need to refresh) Image:ScotlandAberdeenshire.png Morwen - Talk 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Administrative counties of Scotland... Morwen - Talk 10:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sample merger

I've had a go at doing at merger at User:Morwen/counties of Scotland. Does that look good to you? Morwen - Talk 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I get back to you tomorrow about that Morwen? I'm away to my bed shortly. Looked good from the micro-glance I gave it.--Mais oui! 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, no rush. Have a good nights sleep! Morwen - Talk 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta. Need it. I'm yawning my head off.--Mais oui! 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned categories

Hi there. I've been going through uncategorized categories, and I notice that you've sometimes removed unwanted, empty subcategories by simply blanking them, for example here. Can I ask you to instead to mark such categories for deletion? You can put them on Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion, or if they're empty and unused you can just mark them for speedy deletion using {{db}}. Thanks! -- SCZenz 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that: pure laziness on my part. Slap on wrist duly accepted.--Mais oui! 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish footballers of the year

Hi there - just a note pointing out that Category:Scottish Footballers of the Year should not be a subcategory of Category:Scottish footballers - since one does not have to be Scottish to win the award (e.g. Laudrup, Larsson, Hartson). Similarly, replacing the Scottish footballers category with the Footballer of the Year category in individual articles is a bad idea - Scottish players who have won the award should be put in both categories, not just one. Qwghlm 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's it sorted, I hope: removed from cat:Scottish footballers, then restored cat:Scottish footballers to the ones that you hadn't already caught. I see that User:Camillus McElhinney has been busy filling up the rest of the new cat, so I'm glad I can move on to other things (football ain't really my thing).--Mais oui! 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Islands of Scotland

Why you think that it's necessary to have islands in this catagory which are already in the subcatgories, e.g. Outer Hebrides?--JBellis 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cinema of Scotland/England

As per your request I read the categories in question and voted. Nach0king 01:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:British politician stubs

Looks like Morwen has created the templates and categories - now it's simply a case of sorting the stubs. Several of the templates need different icons though (they all show Westminster at the moment, which isn't really appropriate). Grutness...wha? 10:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I see them: Category:British politician stubs. Sterling work.--Mais oui! 10:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned categories continued...

Same for "Category:Civil parishes" . Speedy or whatever, just not empty... -- Fplay 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You are a bit late. If you look about 4 items up, you will see that another user has already alerted me to that issue... about that category!--Mais oui! 07:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Owner...

What I mean is "creator". When I want to speedy a blanked-out category, the speedy tends to happen more speedily if the creator of the category also did the blanking. -- Fplay 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now my speedies are a little too speedy! I am blowing through all of Special:Uncategorizedcategories so it is a bit of a blur. I think it was "Category:Music schools in Europe", but it has already been deleted, so the history is not visible. I think the record of my {{db}} also disappears from Special:Contributions/Fplay . Oh well. -- Fplay 08:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Wikipedians by politics

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merci

Thanks for your comments to keep the Category:Catalonian Mexicans. Would you mind taking a look at this? 2005 December 18#Category:Andalusian Mexicans and Category:Aragonese Mexicans. It's basically the same nomination, same roundup ( and ) but with nastier remarks, now that the original CfD failed. --Vizcarra 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish people for peer review?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick Baker (disputed conviction)

Just wondering...is it Misplaced Pages policy to convert a person's nationality from British to a more specific country? In Baker's case you changed his nationality to the more specific "English". It's a small point, but Baker is usually described as a "British citizen" who can therefroe take advantage of the support of the British government. I wonder if there isn't some underlying Scotish nationalism in your post :) Sorry forgot sig last time. Sparkzilla 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I was re-assigning several people abandonned in the supercat Category:British people to appropriate subcats. All supercats are (or should be) periodically researched, and articles assigned to all relevant subcats. I suppose that this article should really also have been assigned to Category:British criminals too, but as there is enough contention in the editing of the article already, I decided not to grasp that particular hot coal.

As regards your question: "... is it Misplaced Pages policy to convert a person's nationality from British to a more specific country" I am not aware of any "policy" as such, certainly no "official" one (Misplaced Pages actually has very few official policies). But it is certainly standard practice in biographical articles to state nationality in the opening sentence, or at least in the first paragraph. And as far as categorisation goes, it is always highly advisable to allocate all articles to all appropriate subcats: they should not be left in supercats if suitable subcats exist.

Please note that all English people cats are very clearly subcats of all the corresponding British people subcats: they are still categorised as British (even, somewhat illogically, the ones born pre-1707).--Mais oui! 12:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As I said I was just wondering. Your edit made me think of the times when the BBC says an English sports winner is "English", and when a Scot wins, they call the person "British" ;)Sparkzilla 15:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

De rien.--Mais oui! 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

keep me posted with the Scotland portal

Caption text in Scotland

I think you have misunderstood firstly the reason for the amended content to this text and secondly the linguistic history of Lowland Scots. I've opened a discussion . Thanks. - Calgacus 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Thank you for your vote in the election for the Arbitration Committee. If I give the impression of being partisan in my user page, then it is something I fear I will have to live with, and I just want quickly to explain why. I decided early on to put my party membership on my user page not to campaign (which even if it was permitted, I thought would be a wasted effort) but because my main interest is British politics and it's only fair to let other users know where I'm coming from. There is no requirement to do so and I know other users who are members of parties and don't declare it on their user pages (no names, no packdrill, it is their decision).

What I hope I don't show is partisanship in editing articles. I don't write articles only about my own party, and I've written long articles about Liberal and Conservative politicians which I hope treat them fairly. There's a quote from Jimbo on my user page which refers to U.S. politics but which is equally applicable anywhere else and which I endorse.

Incidentally in my experience it's a non sequitur that those who are members of political parties are the most partisan. I find it's the committed supporters who have never been members who claim this honour in general. Those involved in active politics who often meet members of other parties tend to build up friendships with them and are able respectfully to disagree about issues, while often finding common ground. Anyhow, you are of course entitled to your vote. David | Talk 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. But I still oppose your nomination. What particularly concerns me is your refusal to accept consensus decisions, for example in the use of Swing statistics in UK by-election articles (as outlined in the Misplaced Pages article about you: David Boothroyd). There is a very clear consensus, for example at the Talk:Livingston by-election, 2005, that the swing shown should be between the first two parties, not always Lab-Con (which becomes absolutely silly when the Labs or Cons are in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th place, or lower, or even totally absent, as is often the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland). I note with dismay that you deleted all mentions of swing in a wee, surepticious edit around Christmas, without even the courtesy of an Edit summary. You have also been very unreasonable and disruptive at the Bermondsey article, and others. I do admire people who dig in and refuse to budge (I am that way inclined myself), but it makes for absolutely useless arbitrators.--Mais oui! 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

G'day Mais oui!, I just wanted to commend you on your great work on Scotland at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and especially Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland. There is certainly a lack of information on the Commonwealth Games compared to the Olympics and any information added, especially information on sporting organisations and associations, is welcomed with open arms. Well done and keep up the fantansic work!! Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me of the conflict regard the category "Historically Inaccurate Films." I wasn't quite comfortable casting a vote, but I did want to throw my two cents into the discussion. Nice photo of you on your user page, by the way ;) -- Runnerupnj 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories for singers

Right, that's what I was just in the middle of discussing with someone else; I was planning to refine once I had them in one place; but that was before. If it changes any opinions, I did read the terminology article before I started, and I stopped after a few waiting for feedback which I apparently received. (A couple of days prior I had posted in the Talk page, but nobody responded.)

Currently it was put in a subcategory system, and I'm awaiting further comment. Crystallina 17:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

mass changes

I don't consider making changes vandalism. I don't see the point in keeping useless inaccurate facts when I have ensured that my facts are backed up with sources of some substance such as census reports. I love how you don't attack other users for contributions with no sources and basing them solely on silly estimates. Let us keep some sort of professionlism here and states facts from verified sources i.e. Census reports. They are deemed the most accurate as they were filled out by citizens of each respective country i.e. United States70.30.71.252 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse"

I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote: Camillus (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh... thanks (I think) for that Camillus. I duly voted Delete, as it complies with the "offensive" criterion,... unless, of course, there is some mention in the young lady's article regarding a notable penchant for that particular variant of sexual fulfillment (I didn't bother checking: maybe I should have before voting!) :) --Mais oui! 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Scottish people reverts

I've blocked User:70.30.71.252 for violating the three-revert rule. From the talk page he seems to be open to discussion. Now might be a good time to vist his talk page and see if he has a reasoned position. Maybe there's some possibility for a meeting of the minds. Best, Tom Harrison 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru

No problem. Interesting example of how POV pushing and careless breaking of formatting go together. Morwen - Talk 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian Telescope

Thanks for updating the Scottish inventions page, must engage brain next time. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. That is a damn fine example of a good stub article.--Mais oui! 17:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, your maintenance of the NoticeBoard is very useful, and also much appreciated. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, incorrect nickname

In fact, in French, there are spaces before :;!?

Pabix 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of monarchs of England

Can I urge you to interact on the talk page here? Morwen - Talk 10:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have, but the User just seems to think that if he/she repeats themselves often enough then we will suddenly agree with them. Perhaps I should re-intervene on the Talk page, but sometimes life is just too short. To make the topic of the article crystal clear, I have clarified the article title.--Mais oui! 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that requesting the other user participate in talk discussion (which he is), and then standing aloof from it yourself isn't going to win the argument either. Much as I agree about repetition. Morwen - Talk 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, I predict that all that move will do is cause the move to be reverted. Morwen - Talk 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. Sorry: I am a baad Wikipedian. But I haven't had my second coffee yet, and peace and goodwill to all men usually doesn't kick in till at least no 3, or, more usually, aperitif time.--Mais oui! 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - I've restored the original page - List of monarchs of England - please feel free to delete or blank all the other duplicates with slightly different titles that you created. I've also expanded it greatly. As I said somewhere else, listing the historical rulers of a country has got little or nothing to do with "states". If it had, the Scandinavian entries, for example, would have to be split up into loads of different pages, which they aren't, because that would be stupid. England is a geogrphical entity, and that's how I've listed its various rulers. TharkunColl 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit here? Morwen - Talk 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding {{GBR}}

Please use {{GBR2}} for olympic team usage (cf. {{GBR}}'s talk page for the compromise). Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand

It's not the first time that we've disagreed on the matter of nationality designation, but, when a four-member band has three 'English' members and one 'Scottish', it does somewhat make a mockery of any description as a 'Scottish band'. As I wrote in the talk page, it's either 'British' or 'Anglo-Scottish/Bavarian-Greek'. Should I be kind and let you choose which one is used? Bastin8 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru 2

Do not apply any more vandalism warnings to my edits of the Plaid Cymru page, which as any user will be able to see from the edit history are nothing of the sort. You clearly have a track record of refusing edits to your work and abusing the system by identifying other editors with whom you disagree as vandals. I strongly urge you not to continue this practice in my case. I have attempted to work with your edits, but you are insisting on reverting them. This is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.201.122 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 22:15:18 (UTC)

Mais oui, anonymous users are entitled to edit articles, and they don't need to explain those edits first either. Please play nice and encourange the editor. I cannot see anything wrong with those recent edits you reverted - yes commit messages would be nice, but... Thanks/wangi 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whay you trying to say bunging {{sockpuppet|Normalmouth}} on my talk page? Most confused... And it's not constructive either. Try and work with the "misguided" editors rather WP:BITEing them. Thanks/wangi 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no grudge... All I saw was new editors being jumped on and told they cannot make edits because they are anonymous and the edits were not discussed first... That shouldn't be the way things are done. Nobody had even bothered to add a welcome note to their talk pages in an effort to teach them the wikiway. Likewise there are no warnings on their pages etc? Thanks/wangi 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "... there are no warnings on their pages..."? Administrator User:Morwen has given the User several warnings. Stop encouraging what is clearly a malicious account by a Labour Party activist, out purely to denigrate Plaid Cymru. I initially did assume good faith: but they have long since proven that they do not deserve any.--Mais oui! 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, two warnings... But if things are so bad just pile on the additional warnings up to {{test4}} on each NPOV edit and then list on vandalism in progress and get the guy banned for a few hours... Still stand by what I said - nobody's tried welcoming the person. And hang off the "Administrator Xxx" bit - it's not that big a deal. Thanks/wangi 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I only just found out today that she was one, so it is obviously at the back of my mind.--Mais oui! 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, remember to sign when you add the warnings... and best to subst them too. wangi 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the back-up. I will humbly withdraw my hissy-fit from your Talk page.--Mais oui! 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem... If they're still at it after test4 then list on WP:AIV. Thanks/wangi 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Welsh nationalism

Please have a look at Talk:Welsh nationalism and respond to my comments. Thanks. Gareth 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

re:edit conflict

That was my last edit before lunch anyway ^_^ Kurando 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Eat heartily.--Mais oui! 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lasham Airfield

By what criterion does Lasham Airfield merit inclusion in the Transport in England category? It is not used for transport. People come and go but you could say the same about any other sports venue. The category seems to be aimed at transport infrastructure eg Heathrow, the M1 and Tilbury Docks, so including Lasham is stretching things a bit. If you still decide to include it, you should also add Wembley Stadium and Aintree Racecourse to your category. JMcC 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Lasham Airfield is in :Category:Gliding in the United Kingdom, which is a subcat of :Category:Transport in the United Kingdom. In the absence of :Category:Gliding in England, I was in the process of putting articles directly into :Category:Transport in England. But is you think that direct entry is inappropriate, I will go ahead and create the necessary subcat.--Mais oui! 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem arises from putting Aviation under Transport. Civil aviation in the United Kingdom is not soley a means of transport. There are the aerial sports: paragliding, hang-gliding, gliding, ballooning, parachuting, microlights and conventional powered private aviation. There is also the Army, Royal Navy, RAF and the US Air Force in our airspace. Some of them are engaged in transport, or even rendition, but the combat aircraft could not be described as means of transport. I think Aviation exists separately under Technology. JMcC 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Ale

Hi

I noticed some reverts on Scottish beer and ale. It seems that sources for my informaation is the main reason for deleting the text.

My two main sources are Michael Jackson's The World Guide To Beer and Martyn Cornell's Beer:The Story of The Pint. Though I have used various other sources, such as various histories of Scottish breweries, and of John Martin.

Is it possible for you to approach me first before deleting my work?

SilkTork 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Scotland/Did you know

Just spotted your update to the DYK section, it made me chuckle and left my gob smacked - Guinness Book of Records no less. God bless Arthur, "up go the heads", Montford :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It beggars belief, but if Misplaced Pages says it, it must be true! I've come across tons and tons of things while working on the Scottish articles that ought to get put up on the portal, but I keep getting distracted and forgetting. All sections of the portal need periodic refreshing (except perhaps the intro, although a new photo/image now and again wouldn't hurt), and new sections created. If you see anything particularly noteworthy or topical, bung it on the portal (eg if you see a cracking image, put it up on Featured picture). If a suitable section doesn't exist, create one. We'll also have to start archiving some stuff to stop it getting clogged up. Eg. I have been meaning to create a new section for Wiki articles regarding Scotland-related current and future events.--Mais oui! 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also true if the Sunday Post says so!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not some sort of policy / guideline that indicates Featured Article / Featured Picture / DYK entries on Portals should all be actual Misplaced Pages equivalents - i.e. actually have been Featured or DYK on the main pages? I seem to recall some sort of discussion somewhere or other but am not sure. I personally have no problem with a regular refreshing of this content and would be glad to help out. Like you, I regularly find brilliant stuff that could be placed here. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Establish/Reestablish

Maybe I'm being ignorant here - in which case I apologise - but I edited the Mebyon Kernow page to read 'The main objective of MK is to establish self-governance in Cornwall', instead of 'reestablish'. You reverted it with the explanation as 'POV'. Could you explain to me how this is pov? I wasn't aware that Cornwall ever had self-governance (except as an independent knigdom way over 1000 years ago - but this does not count, it would be like saying the North East referendum for an NE parliament would have been re-establishing a form of self governance); therefore 'establish' is more accurate and NPOV than 'reestablish'? Robdurbar 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would its period as an independent state "not count"? There is no "statute of limitation" on these things you know. If Cornwall has once been self-governing, and we both acknowledge that it has, then the correct word is re-establish. --Mais oui! 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it was never an independent state. This was the Kingdom of Cornwall, which existed over 500 years before the creation 'states'; the concept simply didn't exist then. As stated before, it would be like a Northumbrian movement wanting to 're-establish' self governance. Indeed, why could I not trace the roots of my region back 2000 years, note that there was an independent tribe, and re-establish governance? To me 're-establish' suggests something within the last millenium at least! Robdurbar 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image on userpage

Just to let you know that fair use images are not allowed on your user page, and it should be removed. Astrotrain 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Burns Night

Having a Harviestoun Haggis Hunter's Ale and thinking of you! Best wishes, and let's get back at that damned Scottish Ale article tomorrow! You certainly keep me on my toes, and I like that. SilkTork 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shires/Stewartries

Yeah, it did look that way. The term used for the early 'shires', before they ossified was, sheriffdom. There seems to have been an actual significant difference between a sherrifdom and a stewartry originally, in that a sherrifdom had a sherrif and a stewatry had a steward, although Kincardine seems to have acquired a sherrif instead of a steward quite early, and Kirkcudbright eventually did too - leaving it a difference in name rather than fact. In c. 13th sheriffdoms were being created and merged and suchforth quite freely.

Later on sherrifdoms merged though, leaving the other areas looking for another name - shires (which is etymologically connected with sheriffdoms), so it would have been counties. You will note from that Cromartyshire took its final boundaries in 1698 - less than a decade before the Union!

In England 'county' originated as being equivilant to 'earldom' (same rank) as a territorial designation pretty early on. Note that the whole business of adding unnecessary "shires" to the end of county names doesn't just afflict Scotland - ask the Duke of Devonshire. Modern usage in England is to only use the 'shire' where it would otherwise be the name of a town, or the name would otherwise be too silly (Berk, Hamp, Wilt) - these aren't Anglicisms but just regular Victorian over-wordiness.

Some other open questions:

• Peeblesshire / Tweeddale. Our article says the local people resent the name 'Tweeddale'. True or false?
• Kirkcudbrightshire. Our article says this was invented by the Post Office. True or false?
• Was Galloway ever considered a county or shire in itself? Because if you google 'site:history.ac.uk "County of Galloway"' you get a couple of hits.

Morwen - Talk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I got much of that from here, which you should give a good read as I read it a few weeks ago and I may be misremembering things. The end of page 2 and page 3 are of particular interest. Morwen - Talk 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Food for thought. I will respond to some of your poiints tomorrow. Crikey, you keep youself busy don't you!--Mais oui! 23:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, scary. isn't it? And to think that at the start of 2003 I never even thought about counties! Morwen - Talk 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your latest attack on me

So you are trawling for free votes from friends who do not understand the structure of the United Kingdom. As for "Thought and due consideration seem to be singularly lacking from the dabate thus far" is clearly a personal attack. We do not agree, but I deal with all comments thoughtfully and try to explain my point of view. You simply treat me with contempt. CalJW 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Until you explain yourself to me, I'll have to assume "who do not understand the structure of the United Kingdom" is also a rather chauvinist typo of personal attack. At least, I experience it as such from my side. —Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

I've created a fairly simple Misplaced Pages:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 19:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

British

Mais oui, there has been no policy to remove British as a nationality on Misplaced Pages so please refrain from endorsing the disruptive acts of this anonymous user. Many people do not identify as English such as ethnic minorities and other people with a strong connection to another country or ethnic group so it is not appropriate to label these people English. Regards Arniep 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui, sorry but someone who systematically over a week does hardly any other edits then to change British to English is (i) almost certainly not a newbie and (ii) not acting in good faith. Arniep 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no not just Irish, I find anyone who has at least one parent who is not English prefers to be called British. And as it is not practical to check whether people may be offended by calling them English I think we should stick to using British unless they have positively asserted their englishness, not just by supporting the England football or cricket team, but in some sort of writing or speech. Arniep 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

Thanks for your help with this. It is much appreciated. Rhion 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

de rien --Mais oui! 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party

Hello (again) Mais oui! Just saw your edit to the change I made to the Scottish Labour Party (1976-1981). Not sure why you think it is POV at all. The people listed did rejoin the Labour Party (UK) and not follow Jim Sillars into the Scottish National Party. Indeed I can't even see how you think it is bitchy as you indicated. Glad it gave you a laugh...but again, I fail to see how it did. All I did was state something that is entirely factual. Feel free to reword if you want but I cannot see any justification for your deletion! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 31 Jan, 14:32

It must have been entirely subconscious on your part, but if you look at the usage of the term "active politics" I think that you will have to agree that there is a certain subtle comedic meaning being portrayed to the reader there! (Do I really have to spell it out?: you are ruining the effect!)--Mais oui! 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "active politics" is meant to indicate that they remained active in politics...it has no other meaning intended. Feel free to delete the term "active" if you feel so moved. I do not agree that there is any comedic value portrayed, but then maybe you and I have different senses of humour! ;o) User:Big Jim Fae Scotland 14:40, 31 January 2006 (btw, our clocks are out of synch...I'm replying to you earlier than the time you posted!)

Ah, the moment is gone: back to the drudgery... --Mais oui! 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your compliments, Mais oui!, they're appreciated. Using actual names in the text is becoming the scholarly standard, and that on wiki to a certain extent (see many continental monarchs, and early Scottish/Pictish monarchs); there are no set guidelines on Scottish Gaelic monarchs, and I regard anglicizing Gaelic names from this period as crude (remember LCD?). For the monarchs I now follow a set rule; do not anglicize Gaelic names, and do not Gaelicize standard European names after the Norman conquest of England.

I'll try and get around to that article, perhaps producing a stub (I'm much better qualified to comment on earlier styles than later ones, and I'm not sure we actually know how one was supposed to address the Scottish king in the earliest period).

The Thoraldus article is trash. Essentially it's just a name in a charter upon which the author or his spurious source has invented a biography. Many of its claims are false, such as that on the "Earls" of Lennox. Lawries' Early Scottish Charters lists in its index only one Thoraldus (alternatively Toraldus, Thorandus in other charters), a man who was the archdeacon of Lothian (as Lothian did not have its own bishop, he is the next best thing). The charter he was talking about, (Lawrie CLIX, p. 122) does not contain the name Thoraldus, but Thor (a different name), so the entire article is nonsense. This Thor is known from other sources, Thor de Travernent, son of a man called Swain, and held the manor of Tranent in Haddingtonshire - i.e. he was a native Anglo-Saxon lord of the area. Articles like this are why people call wikipedia a "dumping ground".

Anyways, the Scotland in the High Middle Ages article has been nominated (by me :)) for featured article status. The vote so far is favorable: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Scotland in the High Middle Ages, but more votes don't hurt. :) - Calgacus 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS, I did a stub of that article you requested. It ain't great, but at least I covered the early period decently: Style of the monarchs of Scotland. BTW, what do you think should be done with the Thoraldus article? Deletion? Or will I have to re-write it? Regards. - Calgacus 00:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party - AGAIN!

Hello again Mais Oui. Saw your change to the text. Don't you think your wording is more POV than mine ever was. You have inferred that these individuals chose to join the Labour Party as they were more likely to get a career out of them than the SNP. This was never my intention. I merely wanted to indicate that they had been active in the SLP and chose to remain active in politics but by joining the Labour Party rather than the SNP. I think you have made the article more biased with your terminology! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 01 February 2006; 11:19

I tend to agree, but you were so adamant that that sentence was not to be deleted that I had no choice but to try to work with it, but I repeat: I still do not understand what you are tring to say with your version: it is purely redundant, as it simply repeats the info in the preceding sentence, except with the sneaky implication that people who join the SNP are leaving "active politics". I repeat: exactly what are you trying to say?--Mais oui! 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that by stating they chose to remain in active politics by joining the Labour Party rather than the SNP does imply that...sneakily or otherwise. Would it not just be easier to remove the term "active" though if this is indeed your concern? User:Big Jim Fae Scotland, 01 February 2006; 13:05

Not very helpful, cos then you are implying that by joining the SNP these other individuals were leaving politics! I'm sorry to keep asking this, but I really do not understand: what are you trying to convey to the reader with that sentence? ... because it really does seem to me to be an exact duplicate of the previous sentence. I think perhaps what you are trying to say is that the ones who joined Labour were increasing their chances of attaining "elected office", but "elected office" is NOT the same as "active politics": one can be in "active politics" without being in "elected office" (see Machiavelli). But then these people did not KNOW that they would be later elevated to "elected office", so what on earth has that got to do with the article?--Mais oui! 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the politics 101 class Mais Oui! Most appreciated but I knew all of this already. I was not trying to indicate that they were seeking to advance their political careers in anyway...although this may well have been their motivation. What I was trying to do was say that these people are examples of those who joined the Labour Party rather than the SNP as Jim Sillars did! That is all, pure and simple. Not trying to be snide but merely offer them as examples of what a section of the SLP did upon the party's collapse, as the article already stated that many joined the SNP alternatively. I think you have read too much into the sentence to be honest with you! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland 14:12, 01 February 2006

Thoraldus

I put up the Thoraldus article for deletion. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thoraldus The article could, I suppose, be salvaged with a major edit, but not under that title. - Calgacus 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shetland Islands

The "red link" you reverted to in Shetland refers to a non-existent article. I reverted back to the previous version containing the link History of the Orkney Islands as it contained the details of Shetland's history. clintie 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Skerry

Doesn't Scottish coast and countryside and Scots language cover it? It's also claimed as an Irish word in Skerries. Labelling as a Scottish stub, Irish stub and a Welsh stub seems like overkill. I think that fjord is a similar concept but isn't labelled as Norwegian, but I'm not about to start an edit war over a stub cat.--JBellis 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish King Names and the Treaty of Corbeil

In reverse order - why make things simple ? - WP:SCOWNB has a note that the Treaty of Corbeil article has been started and is no longer wanting. Unfortunately, it's a different treaty so there is still no article on the treaty in question. I suggested a move and disambig page just in case anyone should be confused in the future, so if you could provide some support at Talk:Treaty of Corbeil, that might help. I imagine that I could cobble up something on the offending treaty when we've got the namespace sorted.

As for the names of early kings, renaming the articles is out, so I don't see any other way but piping them to put "real" names in articles. Opening a couple of books at random I found mentions of "Bridei mac Maelchon", "Angus son of Fergus" and "Fergus son of Eochu", but not Bridei III, Angus I and Fergus II. Still, you might have a point as regards Duncan's wee laddie. That might be too much of a good thing. If there are reasons not to do it, just leave a note here and I'll see it. Cheers ! Angus McLellan 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem piping these names. It's crude to "anglicize" some of these names, especially when the context is Gaelic, and until they move the pages, there's no real choice but to pipe them. It's fine with some of the garbage Scottish kings articles, but most medieval Gaelic names have no anglicized form. I noticed that you changed today Máel Coluim to Malcolm in Lulach's succession box. Fair enough, but the reason that form was like that was because Máel Snechtai also appears in the succession box, and that name has no anglicization. So you've got the word Máel written twice on the same page in different forms. Most unuseful. It also implies that Máel Coluim was not Gaelic, but Máel Snechtai was; false and misleading. - Calgacus 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mais Oui!, in regards of this point, i.e. king names, please see the discussion on my talk page and please do stick your oar in. Angus McLellan 23:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish in GB cat vote

Hi, it would better to vote rename for this cat, otherwise someone would have to go through and change all the people in the cat by hand (the Irish in GB cat can then be recreated or just make the England Wales and Scot cats as sub cats of Irish emigrants). If the cat is renamed a bot will automatically change all the articles Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30#Category:People_of_Irish_descent_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dougie Brown

Hi, just letting you know that I reverted the changes you made to the infobox of this article (I left your other alteration alone). The infobox refers solely to Brown's international career, which he spent with England (his Scotland appearances are not "official" as they predate Scotland joining the ICC). I realise that there are problems with the format of the infobox, particularly in regard to the large flag potentially misleading readers about the nationality of individual players, but at the moment it is all we have. If you would like to suggest any modifications a good place to do so would be Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket, which is perhaps more visible than Template talk:Infobox Cricketer. Rje 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 2006

Hi. I notice you added links to this article from various place articles. I'm not sure I see the relevance here - we haven't done these sorts of links from anywhere else to other by-elections and in any case it will pretty soon be old news. Any objection if I remove these? What I think would be useful would be to make links to the actual constituency articles (both of them) for each place. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hullo - on the "swing" debate, I actually agree that a Lab/Lib swing exists, but I think the discussion at the Newbury article suggests there is controversy on the matter and I felt some kind of disclaimer was required. I think another debate may be required on this one... doktorb | words 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. One senior Wikipedian holds a very, very strong POV on the matter which is completely at odds with the rest of the planet. We should not humour him for one second.--Mais oui! 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the stub on Aeden

Hi Maisoui. I have a question about the change to the stub categories you made on the Aeden page.

I don't think British royalty stub is right for that article - if you click on the link for "Royal Family" in that stub description, it goes to an article direct about the modern day British royal family. Aeden is not really a member of that family - it seems more appropriate for him to be classified instead as a British noble "stub" especially when you read the category description for the British nobility stubs on that category's page - the British noble stub category is supposed to include "royalty from the formerly separate kingdoms which make up what is now the United Kingdom."

I note, though, that there are a lot of Dalraidan monarchs listed in the British royal family stub. So your change is consistent but I don't think it is strictly correct for all those Dalraidan monarch stubs to be included as members of the modern day British royal family.

More generally, there does not seem to be a lot of consistency between articles in the the "British royal family stub" and "British nobles stub" categories in any case - What do you think? Is it time for a clean-up? All the best and pedantically yours, LeighBCD 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Caerlanrig

Thanks for the tidy-up! I like what you did. :)

Corgi 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hospitals

The Scottish NHS Boards are OK. They are now called that rather than Health Boards. Sorry for not realising what the 'in use' meant. Hopefully we'll put our quarrel behind us. Please let me know for future how to put a major edit notice on a page. Thanks. Samantha of Cardyke 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. It's not stroppy at all. Samantha of Cardyke 11:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Selkirk

Mais oui! I realise that you are editing the Selkirk page with the best intentions, but I feel you should consider the following: the colours worn in Selkirk at the Common Riding are True Blue and Scarlet, it is with particular historical reference that the colours are not simply blue and red It is also important historical information that Selkirk men fought at of Stirling, Falkirk, Bannockburn as well as Flodden. Also as many people visit Selkirk to celebrate Hungary’s national day, this information should also be included. Category:Selkirkshire listing should also not be removed Also I must question why the pictures were removed

Selkirk is a small town in economic decline, anything that can promote the town or give information about it be it Misplaced Pages or any other website, is a positive thing, however removing large amounts of relevant information from the site is not.

Eh... thanks for that, whoever you are, but if you look at the History of that article you will see that I did not write it! If you want to contribute, just click the Edit button and add whatever relevant info you like, as long as sourced.--Mais oui! 12:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

from selkirk history page 00:46, 15 February 2006 Mais oui! (rv supercat) as there is no link to supercat, users can only persume that Mais oui! is the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:51, 16 February 2006 (talk • contribs) 81.156.24.6 (UTC)

Please see my earlier reply on your Talk page. And please log in, and sign, when commenting.--Mais oui! 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Summit Tunnel fire

I'd be interested to know why you added a stub tag to Summit tunnel fire. I don't think it needs a stub tag, but that's probably just because I'm the originator and therefore biased. What info do you think needs to be added?

Ecb 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness knows? It is clearly an error. I have just reverted it. Sorry.--Mais oui! 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I have a consensus of the entire British Government behind me. You want a fight?! 68.110.9.62 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Well, have you told User:TharkunColl about this rule?