User talk:Lurker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Election notice: Your endorsement

Hi! You have endorsed one of the candidates in the current board elections. However, you have not provided a link from your local project (this one) to your user page on Meta, so we have no way of confirming that you are the same person. Please provide a link to Meta from your user page or user talk page to Meta, then reinstate your endorsement, which I struck and indented. If you like to have your user page in a certain way, you can do it in a diff, like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJon_Harald_S%C3%B8by&diff=138817866&oldid=136122013 this], but then you have to provide the link to the diff for us. Thank you for your cooperation! Jon Harald Søby 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)emagination listing edit

Hi Lurker...

I've added references to the emagination listing. Can you please tell me if this satisfies the notibility, attribution and reliable sources? Although emagination is Baltimore-BASED, the clients and partners are national.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twhittle (talk • contribs).

No, I still don't think it meets the notability criteria. See WP:CORP Lurker 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion tag for reposted content.

Hello. You recently put the tag {{db-repost}} on this version of the article The Nichols-Chancellor's Medal. Speedy deletion of reposted content is however limited to cases where the article was previously deleted through a debate at articles for deletion. If you see that a page that has been speedy deleted previously reappears, then please tag it appropriately as you would tag any other speedy deletion candidate. Also make sure that the new version still fits the speedy criteria. In the present case, the article was first deleted because of a complete lack in context but the reposted version was actually decent and is well worth keeping. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

info

I am so SORRY my former friend is the one who threating you I signed up as Sonic riders and Mario rules to try and unblock me I am Sonicrules3 I am sorry you probably hate me now like you always willSonicrules3 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules3

List of islands of Scotland

Thanks for your support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of islands of Scotland - it was much appreciated. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And I see it's made the grade. Good news. Lurker (talk · contribs) 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up. We are now 'live' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands! Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh - Rockall. You are bold my friend! Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did think it could raise a few eyebrows among certan people, but it is officially a Scottish island. I wasn't sure about whether it should be classed as one of the Outer Hebrides, even if it does fall under that area administratively. So I put "North Atlantic" as its location. Lurker (said · done) 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it be removed from the list, but whilst it is 'officially' a part of Scotland, no one but the UK recognises this and it is almost certainly unenforceable as a legal position. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So it maight not be a good idea to put a Scottish Islands infobox on the article? Lurker (said · done) 18:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free of course, although I shall direct enraged Icelanders, Irish nationalists, Faroese and Danish imperialists and their lawyers to this vicinity. Perhaps waiting until April 1st might be advisable. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Kintyre Way

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kintyre Way, by Stormbay (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kintyre Way is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kintyre Way, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Automatic revert"

Before running off with your "automatic reverts", maybe you could try reading up on our policies, specifically WP:FU, unacceptable use #8. Not that I already discussed this before in edit summaries down below. The Evil Spartan 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

7stanes

Hi, thanks for you work on this article. When you think the article is beyond a stub, if you don't want to reassess yourself (if I contribute to an article, I won't give it about Start-class), you can just remove the assessment and it will be back on the long list to do. If you ever do fancy doing some assessing, the list of unassessed articles is it Category:Unassessed cycling articles. Regards, Severo^TC 09:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I've simplified the RFC instructions, and hope it no longer gives the false impression that it's somehow a formal process. >Radiant< 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of personal attack

I've reported myself here. Support your assertion, or stand accused of making unwarranted talk page deletions and personal attack yourself. BusterD 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of POV pushing is a personal attack. Lurker (said · done) 12:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this "Working" barnstar for your tireless and endless work on the more laborious or repetitive wikipedia tasks. We need more like you! Wikidudeman (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balfour, Orkney, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

St K GA

I notice it has not appeared on the WP:GA list. Is this pending a bot or wot? Also, now that I am reminded of it, Saint Kilda (disambiguation) annoys me (see talk page). Can this just be moved do you know or does this need admin assistance? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I just forgot to add it, sorry. It's fixed now. As for the disambig page, just move it. "Saint Kilda" simply doesn't exist. There is no need for admin assistance to move articles. Lurker (said · done) 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - Ta. Bit busy right now with Renewable energy FAC, but hope to pick up again on serious island matters soon. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves as the article St Kilda has an edit history in its own right. Lurker (said · done) 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work - and also re the North Rona snap and the 'peat' issue. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for your help with Renewable energy... much appreciated. Anyone for tennis? Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found a form of wording on the Andy Murray article that'll maybe stop the edit war for now. I was amused by the description of The Scotsman as a POV source, though. The first thing I thought was "this would screw up the refs on Renewable Energy if it were true" Lurker (said · done)

Re Dinning - you sir are a pedant - and thanks again. (This is an automatic daily message sent to you by Ta-bot). Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are in the mood for more referencing, I've nominated the almost entirely unreferenced Skara Brae for the island project's collaboration of the month. Enjoy! Lurker (said · done) 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkBul

Hi, I see you tagged him as a sockpuppet of PEAR, but I noticed he is not blocked and has been participating at AfD. Just curious. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Barra Head - Island and Marilyn

What are trying to achieve with your Barra Head edit? You have removed the coordinates from the title (ie top right of page) which is standard for Scottish Island pages. The template allows for dual display. The page doubles as a page for the island and for the island top (a Marilyn). We have not resolved how to handle two infoboxes on such pages, but the default right alignment looks odd on such a short page (such as a stub). The mtn infobox was removed from Ailsa Craig on the basis that the island was the more significant entity and the additional mtn information could all be contained in the text. Barra Head has a mtn infobox within a wikitable - that sorts layout, but changes some of the colours. I'm open to ways to maintain appearances for both projects, as I suspect these island Marilyns are never likely to have sufficient independant content for 2 pages. Finavon 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking at it in IE, the title coords are superimposed over the table text. (I'll have to wait until I get home before I see what it looks like in IE). Lurker (said · done) 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a seperate entry for the title coords, it works on my computer. Does it work on yours? Lurker (said · done) 11:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

With the second declaration it looks fine in MSIE6 and Firefox. With single declaration it looks as though MSIE tries to put it at the top right of the wikitable - will try to remember as I rarely use MSIE. Thanks. Finavon 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Murray

I have let it have both. I included Scotland as his birthplace and British as his tennis nation. Which is to Wiki guidelines may I add. I'm not pushing point of view I am keeping to guidelines. If anything is this SNP brigade that pushing his Scottishness. You can't be a Scottish tennis player, Scottish tennis does not excist, you can be a Scotsman who plays tennis for Britain, have your birthplace as Scotland and it say British tennis player, but you can not be a Scottish tennis player as much as you cannot be a British footballer. JimmyMac82 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus you are clearly Scottish. Seems to be a theme with people who want to call him Scottish. JimmyMac82 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Insinuating that my edits are suspect because of my nationality is unacceptable conduct. Do not do so again. Murray is both Scottish and British- the article should say so. Not using some form of weasel words to satisfy those who do not believe that Scottish is a nationality, or those who believe British should not be. What is wrong with using both terms? The fact that he plays for Britain is irrelevant. A footballer from Britain is still British, even if there is no UK football team. The agreed-on version does state that he is the highest-ranked British player. Lurker (said · done) 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing agrred just what the Scots wanted, sorry but that is how it is. Of course David Beckham is British, but he not a British footballer, he is a British person and an English footballer. I clearly put Scotland next to Glasgow as his Birthplace and British tennis player which is true, this is to guideline more so than the way it was before. JimmyMac82 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murry

Sorry, when I found the page I just saw the sources being blanked, and thats what happened. Apologies. • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the sources in question do not actaully support the removal of content that JimmyMac82 was carrying out (removing the term Scottish as nationality), which, I imagine, is why the IP editor removed them. Lurker (said · done) 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Don Murphy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. There is nothing about this situation that is exempt from the WP:3RR policy, please keep that in mind. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page Lurker (said · done) 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know all about that page. Arbcom cases do not dictate policy and the decisions apply to the individual cases. Take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES_.2F_NPA_in_articles. You do not have a license to violate 3RR. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The wroding of the ruling makes it sound like a general rule. Maybe a solution would be for my case to be referred to ArbCom? Lurker (said · done) 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording makes it clear that NPA does NOT apply to article text, see the clarification. SirFozzie 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the wording of the original ruling does sound like a general ruling, one that is currently being clarified as it may have been overly broadly worded and subject to just this type of misinterpretation. There is already an active request for an arbcom case at the top of the same page regarding pretty much this topic: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES. Perhaps you can participate there instead of starting a new one? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist spam? :)

You called my argument racist spam. Well the US Government are racist spammers then: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

What I said about cranial capacity (race & brain size) is all in that study. Its even on wikipedia: Race_and_intelligence#The_evolutionary_history_of_IQ

Quoting wikipedia: "East Asians have a cranial capacity of 1,364 cm3, Whites 1,347 cm3 and Blacks 1,267 cm3." Also quoting wikipedia "there is a positive correlation between brain size and intelligence in humans"

Other then that, its a fact that blacks have larger proportions of melanin in their skin, which make them more sun-resistant. Also, its a fact that europeans & asians are less genetically varied, because only a few people emigrated from africa, and all europeans & asians descend from that small out-of-africa group. Therefore there IS an inferiority-superiority relationship between blacks and whites, but its in particular areas and not generalized.

Its funny how any white person like me that mentions race is a racist spammer. This shows the mentality of wikipedia and why its still so biased. Nobody can handle the truth. SenseOnes 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a fact that black people tend to have more melanin in their skin, and that non-africans tend to be less genetically varied than Africans. But your intelligence argument is nonsense. I noticed the article you are quoting is disputed. Anyway, this isn't a discussion forum, its an encyclopedia so I see no point continuing the debate here. Lurker (said · done) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Emotion

Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Northern Colletes at DYK

Interesting article, which seems to meet the criteria. However, the hook does not appear to me (no expert on bees) to distinguish from other solitary bees. Can you either make the distinction plain to non-experts in the hook or choose another hook? The machair habitat seemed unusual to me. Thanks, Espresso Addict 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the hook to mention the machair, and the fact the bee was recently discovered to be thriving there. It's a pity the machair article is so poor- I'll have to work on that one. Lurker (said · done) 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was quick -- thanks! I've added the article to the update template, so (if no-one removes it), it should be featured on DYK soon. By the way, if you nominate something else, it's worth checking back on the Suggestions page, as DYK editors often discuss the hook/article there, and if objections aren't answered in time, the article can miss out. Cheers, Espresso Addict 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 18 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northern colletes , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae

Lurker, regarding your comment of my "edit warring" over Colin McRae's nationality is simple: I do accept that McRae is Scottish, however the infobox in question is for the WRC and their sanctioning body is the FIA who do not recognize Scotland is a country a driver may represent (neither are England, Wales and Northern Ireland - See Richard Burns (English), Tom Pryce (Welsh) and Eddie Irvine (Northern Irish) as some notable examples, especially the latter two). You can see a discussion on this topic at WikiProject Motorsport for full details.

And for the record, I'm putting McRae as British to keep it consistent with other Motorsport bios, not only that but the British version is supported by both the WP:MOTOR project and in this essay as well. If you have any further questions than feel free to drop me a line or start a topic at WP:MOTOR on the issue. ps: I apologies if I have caused any offense in my edits. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely an infobox is for the person as a whole, not simply in one particular context. Lurker (said · done) 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Orkney saga

Thank-you for your support of the FL nomination, which was successful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes for banning

Hi. I have reverted your removal of the heading. The heading adds context to my comment, its removal will change the context. Please do not delete the heading. Thanks you, Mercury 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, if everyone were to start using headings to draw attention to their comments, discussions would look ridiculous. Lurker (said · done) 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from... I tend to reserve the headers for if I change the direction of the discussion greatly, I'll make it a level smaller. Mercury 12:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks better now, thanks. But I'd still lean towards not having sections at all in short discussions. Lurker (said · done) 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, looking good at Northern Colletes by the way. Mercury 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lurker (said · done) 10:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD Results

A MFD you recently participated in, arguing to keep the content has been closed with a non-standard closure, requiring additional action to maintain the content. Please review my closing and participate with the required move action if you desire. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to bring this up in the AfD, but the nominator actually moved the userboxes to the blocked users' pages from User:UBX, which comes across as underhanded to me. I think the best way to deal with them is to move them to their original location. I'll have to go to requested moves for this, though. Also, why was the heroin one deleted but not the Shrooms one? I can see one person in the debate who suggested deletign this and not the others- surely this, too is a no consensus? Lurker (said · done) 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lurker

Regarding your accusation of me using a Sockpuppet, regardless of whether YESYESandmanygoals is or is not controlled by me, what you really have to ask is what 'wrong' has YESYESandmanygoals done? has he broke any rules? is that really 'Trolling', I'm not saying "get a sence of humour", but i am saying take a look at his page with a smile instead of with inspection glasses, and ofcourse try to assume good faith. Gazh 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lady Isle

Hello Lurker. Thanks for the comments and advice. I may need some help here and there. I have an account already on Wikicommons & will endeavour to make more use of it. Rosser 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Editors with service awards

As someone noted in the discussion, all the subcats need to be tagged, else no action will be taken for them. Tagging is necessary to alert anyone interested in the categories (for transparency, for example). Please let me know when this is done, and I'll be glad to relist the nom from that day. - jc37 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged all of the subcats. I had to use my own slightly altered version of the template code to do this, as there doesn't seen to be a template to tag multiple categories and have them all direct to the same discussion. Lurker (said · done) 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll go ahead and relist. - jc37 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay

Well done for boldness. Three issues that you might want to take a look at.

• There is, or may be, an inconsistency regarding the owners of Balfour Castle. "Richard Zawadski, owner of Balfour Mains as well as the Castle" and "a hotel by the family of Captain Tadeusz Zawadzki,"
• If I were reviewing this for GA I'd suggest getting rid of the reference to owls on the grounds of non-notability.
• I think the last three sentences in 'Folklore' need attention, but I've run out of time for now.

Good luck!! Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this site, Richard is Tadeusz's son, and runs the farm at Balfour Mains. I don't think the page is notable enough to cite, but I'll correct the statement that he owns the castle. Unfortunately, both spellings seem to be used in the sources, I'll go with the one on the castle website. Lurker (said · done) 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the road at present and don't have much time at present, and am using the usual crappy browser. Looks like you're having fun and it's all under control. I'll be back Thursday if you need anything. Ben MacDui^(Talk)/(Walk) 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found some census data but its in the form of several excel files, which have cryptic file names. I'm slowly going through them when I have time, and should be able to add some more useful info to the demographics section. Apart from that, the issues with the GA seem to have all been solved. Lurker (said · done) 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on getting Shapinsay to GA. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some unfinished thoughts about FA candidature for Scottish articles here that Globaltraveller and I discussed. It's not finished and you are welcome to use and/or add to it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk —Preceding comment was added at 08:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow missed that last comment. I'll take a look at the page when I get a chance. and thanks for the barnstar. Lurker (said · done) 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your are very welcome. I notice that WP:SCO's 'Current candidates for good article status' needs tidying up and wondered if you were going to do the honours there...Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for the weekend, so haven't had a chance to look at it yet. I'll take a look this evening. Lurker (said · done) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to think your persistence is going to pay off here. My very limited experience is that is is good news when Tony moves on to grumbling about the facts, and the arrival of the delightful Sandy G suggests all is not lost. I'm next in the queue with St K btw. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony's withdrawn his oppose (though he hasn't voted support), so I'm hopeful. 3 supports generally aren't enough, so I'm hoping Sandy G will vote support now the issues she raised have been fixed. I'll also hit the usual noticeboards again. Lurker (said · done) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Great news and congratulations. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

St Kilda in the new year, then? Lurker (said · done) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Or sooner if I can make the time. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury

Thanks for your review of the Didsbury article, and particular thanks for dealing with the MOS issues yourself, instead of listing them and putting the article on hold. Much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I find that to be the most constructive option if there are only one or two issues. No point leaving it on hold if the problem can be solved in ten minutes. Lurker (said · done) 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae edits

Lurker, I'm Scottish and a rally fan for over 30 years. The Colin McRae WRC infobox is a good compromise of British/Scottish nationality contention (it was me who came up with this compromise in the first place if you check the page history!) but this 'represents Great Britain' in the first paragraph bit really riles me. Rally drivers don't 'represent' a particular country when competing, its not like athletics where Sebastian Coe would 'represent' Great Britain or England. Rallying and Formula 1 and all other forms of motorsport are individual competitions pitching driver against driver. You wouldnt say "the Monte Carlo rally was won by Finland", it was won by a driver competing for himself and his team, not a driver competing for his home country. Ive opened a discussion on this subject on the Colin McRae talk page. Please lets not start another edit war on Colins page! scancoaches 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Scotland article assessment

Hello. You or User:Ben MacDui seem to do the assessments for Wikiproject Scotland. I had put in a request for John Knox. Could you do the assessment (both quality and importance)? As for the quality rating, I would be interested to know if it goes beyond GA to A-level (I also asked the same question from Wikiproject Biography). Even if your opinion differs from the other projects, that's ok, it just means more work to be done. You can leave feedback on the article's talk page. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given it an A. Well done, it's a great article and is near Featured Article standard. Lurker (said · done) 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Inverness Orkney and Shetland Movement Shuna Eilean Glas, Scalpay Sumburgh Head Sule Skerry Barra Isles Vatersay Grutness Hirta Ascrib Islands Udal Law Soay Highlands and Islands Start Point, Devon Cowal Fife Northern Constabulary Craigleith

Cleanup Broughton High School, Edinburgh Braer Queen Margaret Union Merge Islands of St. Paul RAID Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney Add Sources Martin Webster Paisley National Trust for Scotland Wikify Milton, Glasgow Cursillo Theonomy Expand Lewis Dumfries History of Jordan

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

UCFD tag for Anarchosyndicalist Wikipedians

Thanks for adding the tag; I apparently closed the tab before saving the edit when I tagged it. (I had about seven tabs and three windows open when I tagged it, and I was starting to get a little confused.) :\ -Horologium t-c 16:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Lurker (said · done) 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaborator

Great new collaboration template. You may be interested in this [1]. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I used to have one of them, but I got bored of the joke.

Ah ken fine.

I wonder if Fisher Queen is making a point or genuinely doesn't know it's a joke. Or maybe she does know and is being ironic. Lurker (said · done) 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah dinnae ken.

The Shapinsay review is taking its time... Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Dr Cash has forgotten. I've left a note on his talk page. Lurker (said · done) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Inverness edit

I have to say I'm shocked by your response on the Inverness article. This is not an edit war, it's one change where a page clearly violates consensus for no conceivable reason. I don't think it's even worth taking to the Talk page as it is such a clear-cut error. Inevitably, however, I expect since it touches on The Almighty Motherland that the usual POV pushers will take issue.

It also strikes me as rather contrary to your supposed objective of preventing edit wars to revert a page without giving any viable reason or explanation for doing so. --Breadandcheese 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this issue has been the subject of multiple edit wars, as a look at the page histories of Scottish town articles will show. Controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page before being made. That is consensus.

I've also noticed that this isn't the first time in the last couple of days you have made accusations that people who edit Scottish articles are unreasonable. A little civility would be good. Lurker (said · done) 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The requirements of civility do not generally stop me from calling a spade a spade. As for edit wars, I did not know there were any - which of course makes my opinion of editors of Scottish articles rather lower. There is clear consensus, there is no need to take it to the talk page. --Breadandcheese 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. If a change you make is reverted, the correct procedure is to take it to talk. Lurker (said · done) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful that your replys to Breadandcheese at various points are not helpful and could be seen as inflamatory. It is convention to discuss content, not contributors. I'm not condoning either standpoint (and simillarly don't think Bread's choice of words is helpful) I'm just offering some advice.

Re Inverness however, a codified consensus does exist and thus it is you who has to achieve a new consensus in order to keep the flag in the infobox, certainly not the otherway around. Using edit histories to assert consensus is going to be ridiculed should this go futher. In the spirit of goodwill, would you be so kind as to remove the flag per that consensus and WP:MOSFLAG. If you achieve consensus to change the convention, please then feel free to re-insert it. It's not fair to personalise and politicise a specific article, and I'm sure you'd feel the same way should the Union Flag had been appended.

On another note, by co-incidence, I took part in the review for Shapinsay‎, and hope you are able to facilitate some of the notes I left. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the Inverness article is to keep the flag- this is shown by the fact that the flag has been there for a long time and no-one has deleted it until recently. Citing a straw poll or userbox discussion page is irrelevant- userboxes are tools and can be adapted. People who are into the creation of userboxes do not get to decide on the content of every article containing that userbox. There is nothing wrong with using edit histories to show consensus- if edits last a long time then they are considered to be reliable edits. WP:CCC shows that if a change to a page is reverted the correct procedure is to take it to talk. I'm not actually overly attached to the idea of using flags in the userbox- its not an important issue for me. What I do consider important is establishing consensus. Breadandcheese's edits go against consensus- and his repeated assertions that there is no need to discuss the issue (on at least one occassion using intemperate language) verge on actually showing contempt for consensus.

I'm not going to overturn the established consensus in the article, and do not consider the consensus on what fields should be included in the infobox to be binding on the Inverness article as I believe infoboxes can and should be adapted by contributors to the articles which choose to use them. The Inverness article will be changed when a consensus to do so is established. Tbh, I'm not going to be a strong defender of the "include flags" position, but I will continue to revert changes which take place against consensus.

On the Shapinsay note, thanks for your reply. I've taken some of your advice and made a few edits accordingly. I'm not sure I agree with all your suggestions, and will reply on the review page once I've done some more reading of FAs and rereading of the MOS. Lurker (said · done) 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, then there's a conflict of interest here. I'm afraid you're picking and choosing what consensus applys and what doesn't to suit a personal approach. It's a shame you won't self-revert in goodwill. Can you:

a) Provide a quantifiable codified consensus that Inverness is a special case to breach the aforementioned consensus and WP:MOSFLAG policy?

b) Provide a link to a policy that asserts that the longevity of a style of edit means it can stay on an article unchallenged and unapplicable to policy and consensus?

c) Provide justification why other flags, like the Union Flag are not also suitble for inclusion?

d) Explain why, citing policy (not opinion), a consensus about the displaying of flags in that infobox no longer applys to that infobox?

e) Explain how the inclusion of the flag adds any thing of value to readers about Inverness?

-- Jza84 · (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not picking and choosing consensus. That a controversial edit should be discussed on an article's talk page is a long-standing policy on Wikipedia. As for specific issues:-

a) The aforementioned consensus is irrelevant, for reasons i have given above. The aforementioned consensus regards what fields should be used in the UK infobox. I have made no edits to the infobox code, therefore I cannot have violated consensus on the issue. Infobox creators do not get a veto on how "their" infobox is implemented. As for WP:MOSFLAG policy, there is no policy saying infoboxes should not have flags. Indeed, MOSFLAG shows, approvingly, userboxes with multiple flags, such as this one. Whether the flag breaches policy in this case is a matter for discussion- either on the Inverness talk page or a discussion set up specifically to tackle the issue of whether or not flags should be displayed in city articles.

b) Strawman. I am not saying any edit should remain unchallenged. It should be challenged in the appropriate manner. In the case of a reversion of an edit which overturns an established edit, the standard policy (per WP:CCC) seems to be to take it to talk.

c) Strawman. I have never said that the Inverness infobox shouldn't contain a Union Flag.

d) An infobox is not an article, it is a tool to be used and adapted. Consensus on the infobox talk page should be sought for any changes to the infobox code. There is no policy saying that infobox creators have a veto over implementation. Given that the default norm for dealing with controversial edits to an article is to discuss it on that article's talk page, the burden of proof is on anyone who believes such discussion to be unneccessary to show why that is the case.

e) That is a matter for the Inverness talk page. Once again, I am not particularly attached to the flag, but I am attached to the idea that edits should follow consensus. Given that this issue has caused conflict in the past, the established consensus on the Inverness article should not be overturned without a discussion. Once again, this is standard practice for a controversial edit. As Wikipedia:About says Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process. Lurker (said · done) 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom comment

Sorry if my comment came across the way it apparently did. At times I fail to appreciate the sensitivity of the UK's internal politics (you'd think I catch on by now). Again, my intend wasn't to jab anybodies ribs. GoodDay 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. There is currently a discussion over this issue, so sarcastic comments about the issue are likely to be challenged- and some would use far stronger language than I did. Lurker (said · done) 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

re Roy Lewicki

I'm not sure why my new article on Roy Lewicki keeps getting deleted due to non-importance. I've stated the significance and notability, and I'm not sure what else to do. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lountrob (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:NOTABLE. Simply stating that the subject of your article is notable won't do it, you have to match the notability criteria. If you think you do, and have your article nominated for speedy deletion, add the {{hangon}} template, and explain how your article's subject meets the criteria on the talk page. Lurker (said · done) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nom

You better double check your nom, sunny. It's already be removed from my page. --Endless Dan 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't MfD an arbcom election, mate! ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, show me the rule that says I can't. If someone sets up a page to mock Arbcom elections there should at least be a discussion about the appropriateness of it. Lurker (said · done) 19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has a case of the Mondays! --Endless Dan 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is such a discussion - and it's called the election, which you already participated in as a voter. There is such a thing as disrupting wikipedia to make a point, as I recall. This could be argued as a violation of that policy. I respectfully ask that you withdraw the nom. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's Endlessdan's standing which is disruptive. A mock candidacy clearly breaks WP:POINT Lurker (said · done) 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Endless Dan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chill out, my friend. Your anger is just wasted energy. --Endless Dan 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

colour

Thanks for fixing the red colour issue on my talk page. I've never understood why simply reversing the colour with a color=black code isn't enough. Tony (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversing it works until someone posts a /font closing tag (such as the one in my signature). Then browsers go back to following the first font tag on the page. Lurker (said · done) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Award!

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		For your majestic efforts in bringing Shapinsay to featured article status. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your feedback on Shapinsay's peer review. Lurker (said · done) 11:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! It's great to have such a great article on an interesting place. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lurker (said · done) 11:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland

Looks like I was a little too brutal with my comments at Talk:Scotland. I'm trying to convince Mais Oui to open up and not to take things to heart.

Anyway, that said, agreements and disagreements aside, I'd be interested in aiding you in getting Scotland to FA. I'm not a raging unionist (which seems to be as socially unacceptable than a raging queer on Wiki!), but, like you, I have some experience with FA writing. I think it would be acheiveable. I would like to tackle the lead first and foremost though - I'll see if I can work on something that the editting community could agree on. Certainly a major problem I see is the blatent over-reliance on internet sources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop Mais Oui a note too, so it doesn't look like the unionists are clsoing ranks (I think Wikiprojects get to decide whose banner goes where- I used to be active in WikiProject Fascism, so I've seen more heated arguments about this issue).

I was thinking of leaving the lead until last, as it is supposed to summarise the article. I'm also focusing on the technical stuff first (ndashes etc.). This is the opposite way around from the way I've done things in the past, but I thought it'd be good to get the fiddly stuff out of the way before tackling the prose. Also, I'll have more time after the Christmas rush, so it'll be easier to do some proper writing then. Lurker (said · done) 13:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've put something together (as I would like to see -emphasis) in my sandbox. I've elaborated a little on the context of the Acts of Union - fully referenced of course. I've reworded somethings that seemed compromised.... It won't be to everyones liking, but its just some ideas.

In the meantime, have a very merry Christmas! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a peer review request. I'll be taking a wikibreak for a few days, so I wonder what the peer reviewers will have said by then. Merry Christmas. Lurker (said · done) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section title to Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland. Have a good wikibreak - I hope to be in Scotland myself for Hogmannay! Season's greetings, Geometry guy 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As was recommended to me for London congestion charge you might want to ask User:Malleus Fatuarum to see if he could copy edit the article. He spots errors you can't even see and makes what you think is great prose into featured article prose. Regan123 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An image request

Hope you enjoyed your break, and many thanks for you assistance on the St Kilda front, which now joins Shapinsay in the roll of honour. I find myself indebted to various Wikipedians and it occurs to me that it would be a giant step towards world peace if we had a barnstar or similar to hand out to those who support Scottish island (or even Scottish) articles. An example image might be [[Image:India Barnstar.PNG]], but I lack the skill to attempt this. My inclination is to offer it to those who do exemplary work who are not members of WPSI (or WP:SCO) rather than existing project members just giving one another a new gong. However, if you are interested I'll leave it up to you to decide how to proceed.

I had taken a break from watching 'Scotland' during the St K FAC. I see you have not been put off by Shapinsay. Good luck with that. I'm off to do something a little less taxing for now, but I hope to pitch in later. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 13:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on another FA. I think getting Scotland to FAC is going to take some time, but I'm hopeful it will happen.

I'm not very good with image software either. Maybe you should post a request to the WSPI talkpage. Lurker (said · done) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill FAC

Hi, noticed your comments on recent FACs and wondered if you might look at another UK-GEO FAC in Wormshill. It has had at least one copy edit but is causing at least one editor/reviewer a few problems. Perhaps you could take a look and let us have any comments? Many thanks in advance Dick G (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Hopefully I've addressed most of the issues on this one. If you're passing by in the next few days please let me know if there's anything else to improve on. Cheers Dick G (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Raul has rebooted the above's FAC, I'd be grateful if you'd take another look and see whether your previous concerns have been addressed. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Highwaymen100.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Highwaymen100.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Don't know if you saw any mention of it, but the Wikipedia:Rollback feature is now available for anyone (within reason) who asks for it. There's a complete explanation of what it does on that page: short version, it undoes all the edits by the last editor, like using undo repeatedly, or Twinkle, except it does it with one click. If, after reading the grisly details, this seems useful, drop me a note and I'll enable it. Happy New Year, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IT WASNT ME!!

The vandalism to Glasgow and Star Trek wasn't me. It's a works p.c. but isn't left open. Havn't a clue who is vandalising but it's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.124.196 (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are being misidentified as a vandal by someone else using your PC, the best thing to do is to create an account. Lurker (said · done) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dario Franchitti

Hi there,

Rather than get involved in an edit war I thought I'd leave a message on your talk page. Surely the edit summary of WP:flag is right? I added UK as Scotland is part of the UK.

Cheers

(78.86.131.61 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

There is no policy saying flags cannot be used in infoboxes. Lurker (said · done) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it just makes the page a little more cluttered than it needs to be.

(78.86.131.61 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Chagrin

Hi Lurker, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot yesterday over the "I", "i" business in Shapinsay. Not only did I not know what was correct, I was unaware that a low-level edit war was occurring until you posted a note on my talk page. I was focused on the article and did not look at the history page until after you sent me the heads-up. I realised afterwards that you could not have known I was from the LoCE and working on the article by invitation. I didn't bother to post the LoCE in-use tag when I started editing because I could see at a glance that Shapinsay, in excellent shape already, was not going to take long to edit. I began editing at the bottom of the article because I've noticed higher error rates near the bottoms of articles than at the tops. I must have seemed peculiar and rude rather than dedicated. This is to assure you that, though quite possibly peculiar, I am not usually rude. Thank you again for taking the trouble to send me a note of explanation. Finetooth (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered why you made the same edit twice. Thanks fro your note. Lurker (said · done) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC

Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks— Rod ^talk 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)