User talk:Barryob/Archive 3

National Anthem of Scotland
Could you please stop changing the National Anthem away from God Save the Queen. I have stated that:

"The official National Anthem for Scotland is "God Save the Queen" as all countries under the rule of Westminster have this national anthem. This not only applies to Scotland but also Bermuda and other British Overseas Territories (BOTs) as well as Wales and Nothern Ireland. The only places this does not apply to are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and this is because they are not under the rule of Westminster and are not considered not to be BOTs but "Crown Dependents"."

Although the Scotish hate to think so, it just is.--(Alxh 13:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC))--

Scotland
An agreed consensus was reached (look at the talk page archives) Astrotrain 14:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did and you are wrong the image is mentioned once and that was to state that it was fair use and may hamper any WP:FAC, that is unless you where reverting me without even checking what you where reverting. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on Scotland. When you return remember not to repeatedly undo another user's edits. There are always better ways to improve the article. --John 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not return to repeatedly undo another user's edits I removed and image that had an invalid fair use tag and was cluttering the section that it was in leaving white space at the bottom of the article it was Astrotrain who reveted me citing a discussion on the talk page archive that does not exist. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I think this block is unfair Astrotrain has been disruptive editing over a number of articles and Templates over the past few days, has has been blocked for editwarring about 6 times since February for this and making personal attacks on other editors yet he only recieved a 24hr block for his part in this.--padraig 17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back.--padraig 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Party shortnames and colors
Thanks for the reasoning for the Plaid Cymru colour change - if you could include something like that in the edit summary or on the talk page should you change any other colours, that'd be really useful. I've changed back the Scottish National Party's shortname - as I'd already noted on the talk page, these shortnames need to be as short as possible, and "Scottish National" is perfectly clear, and in the format used for all the other party shortnames. Warofdreams talk 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Length is the most important factor; the shortname is used in a large number of tables, and some of them have very little space (see, for example, the list of UK by-elections, where adding "Party" makes the column take up two rows on many displays).  The consensus so far has been not to use acronyms, but rather to spell out the words, to give readers unfamiliar with British politics some idea of the parties.  This could change, but if so, it should be a general change for all party shortnames.  Finally, there are plenty of other examples of parties whose names have been shortened in a similar manner - for example, "Green" or "Scottish Socialist".  For some reason, the SNP's shortname has provoked a lot of discussion. Warofdreams talk 13:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm not entirely convinced that "Scottish National" isn't an appropriate name, if you are still convinced that the party is a special case, and that despite the space issues, it is necessary to include "Party", I'll happily accept that. Warofdreams talk 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish articles assessments
It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.


 * The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are Irelandproj listed on the main project page and WikiProject Ireland listed on the assessment page&mdash;the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully&mdash;can you help?


 * The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines&mdash;some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?


 * Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?


 * As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.


 * Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing on alex salmond
Why did you remove objective information on Alex Salmond's page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by England's Rose (talk • contribs).
 * The term separatist is not objective also do not go around calling people neanderthals --Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex Salmond doesn't want separation? He doesn't want to tear apart the fabric of our ancient island nation? Well, you may be right, but his policy is for separation. And why is "British" removed. This is objective information. It says so on his passport! Please educate yourself at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles)!
 * Ancient island nation? 300 years is hardly ancient, and as for this I suggest you educate yourself by reading Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles)! --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The British race has been around since the days of Brutus and Arthur, and our ancient Teutonic spirit is even older yet. No backward looking kailyard Scotch separatism will ever hide that ancient truth. You dishonour the millions of people who fought and died heroically in our wars for British freedom and the freedom-loving ideals of our race against the tyranny of the vile Hun. You dishonour Churchill, and Cromwell and Alfred the Great, and the other heroes of the English nation who bravely gave up their lives for the glory of our Empire, the greatest the world has ever seen. Trying to irradicate Britishness on wikipedia is POV and non-objective, for which you should be ashamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by England's Rose (talk • contribs).
 * LOL I dont think Cromwell had any freedom-loving ideals. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Freedom" always has been a slippery and much-abused concept. I've warned England's Rose for the comment above by the way. Let's all try to focus on improving the article please. --John 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I agree with you about the use of the word Freedom I wonder how England's Rose would have reacted if I had put in Alex's article that he wants Scotlands freedom from the rest of the UK. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on various flag templates
Barry, please use the talk page to discuss, especially when you are referring to talk pages you have not contributed to. Edit wars are pointless and we will continue to go round in circles if you can't compromise or reach consensus. Thanks 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs)
 * Yes edit wars are pointless especially when you try to insert a defunct flag. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  11:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish elections
The Irish Republic wasn't yet established by the time of the 1918 elections. See Irish Republic and First Dáil. Baksando 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Irish Republic was established by the First Dáil in 1919, which was created by Irish MPs elected in the 1918 UK parliamentary election who refused to recognise the British parliament. Baksando 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Quay
A template has been added to the article Victoria Quay, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Rambutan (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Victoria Quay
Victoria Quay, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Victoria Quay satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Victoria Quay and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Victoria Quay during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Secession from UKBGI
I've left a message on the UKBGI regarding secession. --sony-youth pléigh 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lib Dem Colours
The correct shading for the Lib Dems has been discussed previously and the #ffd700 is the agreed result. I have reverted back to this agreed colour. By all means take the discussion back to the project page and re-open the discussion but simply reverting it back without reference is not the way to proceed. Galloglass 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Victoria
Cheers for doing that, bleakley was Labour though Traditional unionist 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done :) --Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Vigeur de dessus  10:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG. 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 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 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 07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Scottish independence (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom fighter
Your unilateral revert of my edits in favour of an inferior and POVed prior version is not appreciated. Please read through and decide rather than being reactionary. 216.194.4.123 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the uncited section. --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Vigeur de dessus  01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scottish royal coat of arms.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish royal coat of arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article
Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:House of Lords logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:House of Lords logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bee article
Hi. It's a simple request. Leave the dablink, PLEASE, because the article is CONSTANTLY being visited by people who don't know that it's the wrong place to look for information on Colony Collapse Disorder, and if there's nothing in the header to redirect them, they start screwing around with the article, or whinging on the talk page about "Where is the information on Colony Collapse Disorder?". It was a nagging, ongoing problem before the dablink was added, and I'm asking politely that you STOP removing it, to keep all those other well-meaning would-be editors from resuming all the inappropriate edits that we HAD been experiencing. Sometimes, dablinks exist to serve a function other than the standard function, and this is one of those cases. It's been stable for months now, and it's necessary for the sake of the article that it remain stable. Thanks, Dyanega 20:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Norway
The Royal Standards of Norway are supposed to have the lion design from 1905, not the present one. I have reverted the flag changes in the article.Inge 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But thank you for the contribution anyway :) Inge 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UnitedUtilities.png
Thanks for uploading Image:UnitedUtilities.png. 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 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 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 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Georgeiii.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Georgeiii.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UnitedUtilities.png
Thanks for uploading Image:UnitedUtilities.png. 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 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 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 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG. 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 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 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 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dumfriesandgallowaybadge.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Dumfriesandgallowaybadge.PNG. 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 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 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 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CentralScotlandBadge.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:CentralScotlandBadge.PNG. 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 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 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 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CentralScotlandFire.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:CentralScotlandFire.PNG. 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 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 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 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Argylleandbutelogo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Argylleandbutelogo.PNG. 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 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 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 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of flags
I note that you have reverted the flags that I had inserted on those few FTSE companies that did not already have flags against their locations. I was merely trying to be consistant across all FTSE 100 companies and am aware of the relevant wikipolicy. In order to be consistent you should now remove all the flags against all other FTSE companies. There are quite a lot of them! Dormskirk 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont worry I plan too. --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Vigeur de dessus  18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to complete the removal? I think you got as far as 'L' Dormskirk 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot all about it have been preoccupied lately should finish the job tomorrow --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Vigeur de dessus  23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Royal Standard
Instead of accusing me of knowingly changing it to a wrong version, could you please explain to me what you think is wrong with it? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That version is copyrighted. Notice "© Crown copyright". Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and we don't have permission to use that file. As a heraldic flag, we follow the blazon of the Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. The blazon for the harp calls for a "harp Or stringed argent" - a yellow harp with white strings. There's nothing in the blazon that calls for the naked bust of a woman. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, there are two options. We can revert to the version that I uploaded, or we can put it through the deletion process as a copyright violation. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "created" in inkscape. It was traced from a Crown Copyright image. Crown Copyright is not allowed on commons. See commons:Template:Crown copyright. I'll mark it for a deletion discussion so we can get more input. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The copyright tag on the page isn't the Bible. It shouldn't ever be taken at face value. What matters is the copyright that the image actually has, not what the uploader claims. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:House of Lords logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:House of Lords logo.PNG. 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 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 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 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Crown Copyright
Sorry about the delay in responding to your message, but I've been quite busy recently. I am not sure what argument you are refering to that I made- don't really remember. Generally I don't bother getting involved in copyright disputes on wikipedia and simply delete any of the stupid bot notices that appear from time to time. I uploaded lots of images to Wikipedia at a time when such images were allowed, and I won't be held responsible for changes in policy since then.

As for the Royal Standard, as far as I can see, the image is a trace of what the flag actually looks like, rather than a poor quality made up version as some would like to use. I can't see how it should be treated any different from any other flags traced onto SVG. Astrotrain 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #8AA5DB; border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; border-color: #FF4F00; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 400px; float: center;"> <font color="#002FA7">If you voted in my RFA... <font color="#002FA7">...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. <font color="#002FA7">Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk <font color="#002FA7"> This RFA thanks was inspired by <font color="BA55D3">Lara <font color="00CED1">❤ <font color="FF1493">Love's 

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors.

The page has been fully protected for a week, so please sort out the dispute on the article's talk page. Caknuck (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotland edit
I note you reverted my addition of the S of S entry on the Scotland page. I'm afraid I simply don't see the problem with adding more than two government officials there, particularly considering this is included (in fact, in some cases more) on both the Wales and Northern Ireland pages. --Breadandcheese (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may as well add the whole Scottish Government cabinet then as they are government officials who deal with Scotland as for Northern Ireland I think it should be removed also Wales I feel is different due to its devoution settlement with its Secretary of State still having overall power for legislation in Wales. --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> Vigeur  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">de dessus  19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)