User talk:Mais oui!: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:31, 25 March 2006 editBertilvidet (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,253 edits Here we go again← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:37, 25 March 2006 edit undoBertilvidet (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,253 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 433:		Line 433:
	Hi Mais Oui. Thanks for editing the ] article. There is a DAB for canmore that I've tried to link to in the CANMORE article but am havinf trouble. Can u help? Best regards, --] 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)		Hi Mais Oui. Thanks for editing the ] article. There is a DAB for canmore that I've tried to link to in the CANMORE article but am havinf trouble. Can u help? Best regards, --] 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Here we go again ==		== Here we go again.... ==

	Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan ] 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)		] - ] 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:37, 25 March 2006

Welcome!

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

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

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)

WP:AN/I

I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there's a post on WP:ANI concerning you. Leithp 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Veterinary stub proposals

Hello Mais oui!. The proposal for the new stub on veterinary medicine has now been modified. There are 51 articles at the last count which can now be included. Would it be possible please for you to review the current discussion at Stub sorting proposals and see what you think? Thanks a lot. Thor Malmjursson 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Timber bush

I had a quick search for information but didn't come up with anything. I'm not from Leith, although I now live in Edinburgh, the Leith in the username is part of my name. I don't really know anything about Timberbush other than the pub of the same name (if that's still open). Not much use, I'm afraid. Leithp 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AIV vs VIP

Hi Mais oui!. I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) --lightdarkness 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral changes

If you wish to make changes to pages please contribute to the discussion pages. In examples such as Plaid Cymru you are undoing agreed changes without any discussion. This is unacceptable. Normalmouth 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I notice you didn't even participate in the discussions on Talk:Welsh nationalism and Talk:Plaid Cymru. I'm a PC supporter, and I found the changes acceptable. If you thought they weren't, why ignore the discussion and then make wholesale unilateral changes well after the event? Gareth 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that a time limit be placed on articles; I'm just intrigued by the fact that you ignored my attempt at mediation and decided that tit-for-tat mass editing was the solution to this. Gareth 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Welsh laws

I see you are removing UK parliaments Acts that relate to Wales out of the Category British laws, whereas I think they ought to be in British laws as they are made by the UK parliament, and Welsh laws (a category I recently created). I would like to agree the way to categorise laws like this. Kurando | ^_^ 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the introductory text at Category:British laws should be changed? Kurando | ^_^ 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Association of British Counties

In cases where there are two points of view, we must try and present both POV to their merits, and specifically only use verifiable and sourced information. And we shou'd discuss these matters on talk pages and use full edit summaries, something you have failed to do in the Association of British Counties article.

The use of the word "obfuscatory" in the Association of British Counties article is clearly relative to one's own view on the matter; although I do not agree with their interpretation of the legislation, I do not think they are being wilfully (or indeed inadvertently) unclear on the matter - I understand what they are trying to say perfectly clearly.

Unless you can cite a source that shows that people generally find this labelling of counties confusing, your edit counts as WP:OR and should be removed as such. If you do not cite a source, but continue to revert I am happy to RfM and/or RfAr the matter as necessary. It is your prerogative to do this now if you wish, but I am hoping for an amiable and quicker resolution than this.

Please let's try and defuse this matter as much as possible; I am not a fan of confrontation at all.

PS please could you reply to my question on the Counties of Scotland talk page? Aquilina 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Mais Oui!, you're a gentleman. No offence was taken; I ought to have clarified my concerns here earlier. I agree - the ABC article is better without the comment at all.

As for the Counties of Scotland article, there's a couple of additions I would like to make (eg giving a rough date for the first recorded use of the word "county" with some source from the NLS, and adding the material about the ongoing names, but making it explicit that the names in some/most cases predate the counties and thus the correlation is somewhat coincidental - I'd prefer to qualify the info rather than omit it, as it's a fairly commonly held belief), but I'm very busy today and need time to mull over the ideas... I'll get onto it asap though and we can discuss it then. I think we're getting close to a pretty good article now. I haven't seen any non-technical document which charts the history of this clearly, so it's quite a rewarding and worthwhile article to work on. Aquilina 10:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lockerbie investigation

A message requiring your attention is at Talk:Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Thanks.Phase4 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Secretary for Scotland

I've amended your changes of earlier today to the Secretary for Scotland article, primarily to remove the suggestion in the first line that the post was of Secretary of State rank. That did not happen until 1926, even though the Secretary for Scotland had sat in Cabinet since the late 1800s. I've amended later sentences to make this upgrading of the post clearer--George Burgess 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta George. As usual I defer to your vast knowledge in this area. In my infinite ignorance I had not realised that there was a difference between a Secretary (minister) and a Secretary of State. I had consulted the Secretary (disambiguation) article for guidance, but it hadn't enlightened me: perhaps someone ought to make that explicit on that page, maybe even with a new, wee stub article for the less elevated post?--Mais oui! 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Laws- British Laws

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws

Astrotrain 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:

"British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
"contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.

I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.

By the way, you missed out a third, crucial, category of Scottish law: Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union.

Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved archived material back, shortly after the post above.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Misplaced Pages article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.

The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Please only make further contributions to this discussion at User talk:Astrotrain.~~

I note now that a new comment has been left under the relevant notice at Misplaced Pages Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. I had hoped that we could keep this discussion in one place. I would therefore like to recommend that we stop discussing this on personal Talk pages: I am going to copy the entire discussion thus far to:

Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Scottish_laws

Please do not leave any new comments on this topic here at User talk:Mais oui!.--Mais oui! 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notice Rod. It certainly seems to be a good article, but I have not the time at present to rigorously test it against all the tough criteria. Excuse me, but I am going to take the lazy option of "wait and see" what compliments/criticisms other Users come up with. All the very best though.--Mais oui! 20:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Welsh Nationalism

Rather than persist with an edit war why don't you at least try to engage with me on a discussion about the content of Welsh Nationalism? Have a look at Talk:Welsh self-government and you'll see I've started that discussion.

Ultimately, I just don't agree with what you've done, which is why I have first discussed and them implemented edits to it. I'd like us to reach consensus on a revised wording, but I can't do that if all you do is revert any and all changes to your work.Normalmouth 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Team GB at Torino

I see you've reverted my edit at Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the 2006 Winter Olympics. As near as I could tell "Great Britain" had been used exclusively by the British team and by the Olympic/Torino people. If you've found some source otherwise, that's great. Nobody else seemed able to find one yet. Could you just let me know where it is? Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Your edit-war re the terminology used for original names of Scottish counties needs to end. Take it to Talk. If you continue to push a version which is not supported by consensus then you will be blocked form editing Misplaced Pages, which would be bad since I see you are an industrious editor. Please be calm and work to achieve consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am absolutely delighted that you have also put a warning at User talk:Owain, because his behaviour in the area of "traditional" (sic) counties has been truly disgraceful, throughout Misplaced Pages.

Points of info:

it has nothing to do with "the terminology used for original names of Scottish counties". It is to do with when they were invented (1889, well into the late Modern Period), and when they were abolished (1975). "Former" is the standard adjective to describe something which once was, but no longer is. "Traditional" and "historic" are thoroughly inappropriate (nay, deceitful) adjectives to describe something which was a neologism, invented very, very late in the history of Scottish local government.
"a version which is not supported by consensus" - yes it is (see Talk:Counties of Scotland). It is User:Owain's version which is at odds with consensus.

I have left new comments at:

I urge all Users who care about factual accuracy here at Misplaced Pages to get over to those articles/templates and monitor them, and contribute to them, to prevent them being hijacked by the Association of British Counties and County Watch.--Mais oui! 16:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just the janitor... Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should have looked to see who spewed, before accusing another janitor of puking all over the lovely polished floor. Please direct sawdust, mop and bucket in the correct direction in future.--Mais oui! 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I looked into it and I see valid points on both sides (without detailed knowledge of course) but I do see you as an experienced and good editor who will probably calm down, whereas Owain is going on my watchlist. Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui!: please don't take this the wrong way, but I have just reported you for violating 3RR on Template:Infobox Scotland place.

I am happy for your version to stand - but I want you to push it through using the correct channels and methods. I want to work together with you, but we are all bound by the same editing rules. If I'd known about this particular problem first I could have tried to help you; but by the time I noticed the problem you'd already violated 3RR only half an hour after getting a warning from User:JzG. It's really not worth it.

You're currently involved in a couple of edit wars simultaneously - it might be best to take a break for a day or two, take a few deep breaths and come back try and win your battles on the talk pages. You're good enough at that as it is without having to resort to multiple reverts.

Just one last thing - unless you've got firm and verifiable evidence that User:Owain is a member of ABC or County Watch, it's skimming on WP:NPA to keep calling him so. I agree with the core principles of liberalism without being a member of the Liberal Democrats, the implication isn't direct.

You're an extremely good editor, I just don't want to see every UK geography and politics article to turn into a battleground - that's what the talkpages are for! Aquilina 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bugger! I didn't spot that I was anywhere near that dreaded 3RR boundary. Owain and Astrotrain have both been driving me to distraction with their edit wars: Astrotrain even made a 3RR pact with another "disruptor" (being kind) User:Normalmouth recently in order for the pair of them to continue abusing Misplaced Pages without either one breaking 3RR. Oh well, I suppose that Astrotrain's campaign of disruption has finally suceeded and forced me to make an arse of myself. Fortunately, I am not the type to let bullies have the last laugh. I await the executioners sword. Vi ses... --Mais oui! 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I know you're not the type. I'm just off to leave a few suggestions on User:Owain's talk page too, before I go back to the real world for the weekend - I just think as it's becoming a bit of a running thing on these matters we need a firm decision one way or the other written into the official Naming Conventions - an RfC and a vote via the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard is my preferred option, but if you have any better ideas, I'd be glad to hear them. RfC always throws up a few good new ideas to try out wither way.

When I feel like you do now, this page goves me a laugh (although I expect you've seen it before!). Give me a heads-up on the talk page if there's any more conflicts on these subjects and I'll see if I can talk things down...

Speak to you soon Aquilina 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm genuinely sorry about that - I forgot to count the reverts at the time, I should have reminded you that you were close. Bummer :-( Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another message from someone who patrols WP:AN3: please be more cautious and back off the edit warring. If the reporter hadn't practically begged us not to block you, you would have been blocked by now William M. Connolley 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I acknowledge I made an error here - it's increasingly obvious to me that Owain is the problem. But I echo William's comment: if things get nasty, call for the Cavalry because otherwise you might end up blocked, which doesn't help anyone. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised Mais_oui! has been blocked for 3RR violation. I find this user is always involved in various edit wars with different editors. He is most unpleasant in his editing, and aggressively edits against anything he dislikes (particualry references to the United Kingdom or British). I suggest that when his block period ends that he seeks to communicate with others in a constructive manner, and avoid labelling other editors as vandals. Astrotrain 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, har de har. I was wondering what your reaction would be. That it was smug superiority does not surprise me in the least. You yourself are the most unpleasant, aggressive, edit warring, unconstructive, disruptive editor it has been my misfortune to encounter, by quite a long way. Do not think for one second that Wikipedians will be pushed around by thugs. I have had it up to here with you, and when my block expires I will be unwatching your User Talk and your Contributions watchlist: you are not worth spending a second of my day on. But let me assure you that if you disrupt any of the articles that I do continue watching, because I do care about them, then I will pursue your abuses of Misplaced Pages within the full extent of Wiki law. Finally I would urge calmer Wikipedians to watch Astrotrain and his edits like a hawk: I have not met another editor (apart from newbies perhaps) who loves the edit war as much as he: he beats me by a running mile. Oh, and another thing, if anyone cares about a true World View here at Misplaced Pages, just have a look at some of Astrotrain's British Nationalist edits on the Antarctic and other southern hemisphere territories' articles in the last couple of months.

Finally, anyone who is familiar with my work will know that I am a lover and admirer of all things to do with the North Atlantic Islands. I am an an Anglophile, Cambrophile, Hibernophile and Scottophile (are two of those actually words?) to the very, very bottom of my boots. I love to trumpet the achievements and history of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Man in all the work I do. I also love Australia, Austria, the Basque Country, Canada, Flanders, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden and the U.S.; and economics, architecture, fine art, natural history and languages; and of course David Bowie, boating, birdwatching and cycling; but unfortunately I rarely get round to working on those articles because I put so much time and effort into the first four topics. The contempt in which Astrotrain clearly holds me has quite the opposite effect to that which he hopes: it motivates me tremendously to redouble my effort and work at Misplaced Pages. The lad clearly knows absolutely nothing about how bloody tenacious we Scots can be.--Mais oui! 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24hours for breaking the 3 revert rule on {{Infobox Scotland place}}. This is a fairly minor infraction, but you've also been warring lately on Template:Scotland counties and Falkland Islands and edit warring is always bad, so please stop. Thanks. -Splash 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Style boxes

Please don't remove style boxes. They were adopted after a long debate with an overwhelming consensus behind them (92% support) to stop a bitter edit war that had gone on for months. Both sides endorsed the solution and they were included in the MoS for usage. They are an automatic part of all royal and papal articles. If you remove them they will simply be reinstalled and you will face edit wars against all those who have been involved in their adoption and installation in hundreds of articles, and that includes both sides in the edit wars that preceded their adoption, where before then royal articles usually started with Her Majesty Queen X, His Holiness Pope Y, Her Royal and Imperial Highness Princess Z etc. The style boxes were adopted as an alternative to that form of opening articles. FearÉIREANN\ 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"They were adopted after a long debate with an overwhelming consensus behind them... " I was not aware of that: I just thought that it looked unbelievably infantile and silly, but if you have come to it by consensus then that is that. How many other people are going to look at those daft boxes in the future, and, not knowing the turbulent history, just remove them because they look bonkers? (By the way, they are not even accurate: they are mostly English language translations of titles in other languages - when translating, you must first provide the original and then the Eng lang version, making crystal clear that it is a translation. And some of the translations are inaccurate: for example the English language does have a word for "Catholic" you know: it is "Catholic" - we don't just leave it out cos it looks funny in English versions of the title!! Who does these "translations" anyway? Are they qualified?)--Mais oui! 10:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Inverness-shire geography stubs

There is chaos arising due to the categorisation of stubs for places in the Highland Council Area (such as Lochcarron) with such remarks as This Inverness-shire location article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it

I'm not sure whether you are the source of this chaos or not but I thought you ought to be aware of it. So far as I know such places as Lochcarron and Shieldaig have never been in Inverness-shire.--PeterR 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not the cause of this chaos (why did you think I was?). Quite the opposite: I was the primary arguer in opposition to the hairbrained "Inverness-shire" stub, and the whole unbelievable scheme to divide the Scotland-geo-stubs by "lieutenancy areas" (Eh? you may well ask!) instead of by the blindingly obvious method: council areas. This whole debate is about to start afresh I suspect, because other areas of Scotland are crying out for their own geo stub templates and cats (especially Edinburgh I understand). I will keep you informed. (As to your specific point: no I did NOT apply the Invernesshire-geo-stub to Lochcarron or Shieldaig - I am perfectly well aware that they are not in Inverness-shire - in fact, you may find this hard to believe, but I recently had to remove that bl..dy stub from some Harris places. Lord preserve us.) In conclusion: great minds think alike!--Mais oui! 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotland portal link

I added this below the millionth article section of my talk page. I did it this afternoon, but, being at the library, needed to scarper before I could let you know about it. I love the Scottish noticeboard and all the good work done from it, and I'm only too happy to spread the word about it on my talk page. Once all this fuss dies down, I'll do some more, my only major contribution thus far being Rosneath. Nach0king 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medal count pages

Thanks for trying to help, but as you may not realize, you are causing some problems. First, "Great Britain" is the offical name of the NOC (National Olympic Committee), not "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Please stop changing it. Second, our medal counts are supposed to be EXACTLY the same as olympic.org's. The way you changed the distribution of the 1908 medals is not accepted. King nothing 2 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham International Airport

Why the big change to Birmingham International Airport (Alabama) from Birmingham International Airport (US)? This doesn't match the naming conventions discussion which was deciding whether or not the article should be US or U.S. In all fairness, the article should have the country mentioned, not the state. ClarkBHM 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Forgot to thank you for your vigilance, and the announcing of both the NI Portal and notice board on relevent pages. I'm still getting to grips with Misplaced Pages, and I'm not completely clued up as to procedure (both official and unofficial), and I appreciated your help. Cheers. --Mal 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Olympic convention pages

The Misplaced Pages:Olympic conventions pages have been nominated for deletion. I know you have been an avid contributor to the debates, so I urge you to go to the deletion page and vote KEEP, as the sake of all of the work we have done might go down the drain. Thanks for your support! Respectfully, Jared / 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

List of schools in Edinburgh

Could you please explain the reasons behind your recent edit of this page? Is there a policy matter? Samantha of Cardyke 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as "official" policy goes: I don't know, although it would not surprise me because many, many Wikipedians' absolutely hate articles about schools (I am not one of them by the way). But I can assure you that if a single article is created for a local primary school then it will be deleted at Afd. This being the case, it is unecessary to have about fifty red links to local primary schools on a single page.--Mais oui! 07:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - there are so many schools all over the world that the number of articles could become incalculable. Perhaps there should eventually be a separate area of Misplaced Pages for them, if at all, and article information to be limited to supplying the school website (if it exists). I have read comments about getting too 'crufty' by discussing what goes on in a local place that is of interest to only a few people. On a global scale, writing about what goes on in a particular school is pretty much like writing about what goes on in your own home. Samantha of Cardyke 09:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User 203.206.167.124

Is this guy really my sockpuppet? It makes perfect sense, given how User 203.206.167.124 seems to be South African, and I... don't. That's not to mention the fact that I would never commit the cardinal sin of considering conservatives to be 'right-wing', nor would I be physically capable of editing the article on David Irving without calling a spade, a spade (or a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist, a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist). Considering anyone that agrees with my stand on nationality labels a sockpuppet of mine is incredible. Bastin8 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Duly removed. --Mais oui! 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Bastin8 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

British/Cornish/English overcategorization

I have answered your complaint on my Talk page. Evertype 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish deletions

I really find the repeated attempts to delete Kurdish-everything tiresome. Thanks for pointing out those; I don't usually monitor stub deletions, but this is a many front attack. It's good to see that there are other polyglots on WP -- I have made contributions to the German, French, Slovene, Catalan, Turkish, Greek, French, Italian, and Spanish ones as well. I wish I could speak the Scandinavian languages, but too complicated for me. takk! Carlossuarez46 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Again, those happened during the Squidward attack and the promblem seemed to lie in the IRC RC feed from WikiMedia, it was causing basically everyone to screw up reverts. If you check the bots history now, it's running perfectly in the last little while. The bot may have made a tiny bit of work to clean up but it also fixed a lot of the vandalism all by itself, you can't blame it for the RC feed going wonky. Sorry about that -- Tawker 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

relax, man, I am almost certain it was nothing personal; just look at how much work it does, correctly, it must save about four man-hours a day at least. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui, are you familiar with the ED-209? :-) Alexander 007 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newroz

A rather bitter debate is going on about the articles Norouz and Newroz. It would be great if someone fresh to the problem would weigh in. Bertilvidet 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Help With DAB Needed

Hi Mais Oui. Thanks for editing the CANMORE article. There is a DAB for canmore that I've tried to link to in the CANMORE article but am havinf trouble. Can u help? Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again....

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)