User talk:Canaen/Archive02

Campaign to "Shire-ify" Scotland
Please see: --Mais oui! 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Argyll
 * Talk:Bute
 * Talk:Ross (area)
 * Talk:Moray (county)


 * Thank you for informing me. I haven't been checking pages so often as of late. Canaen  23:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Shire-ification campaigners targetting Template:Scotland counties too. --Mais oui! 09:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gladly. It's good to see that people are working on this stuff. Canaen  08:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

New category: Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies
Some new categories: I wonder if you would consider reviewing the CFD debate about the first-mentioned, and contributing your thoughts? It is at: Ta. --Mais oui! 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies - has immediately been nominated for deletion
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Edinburgh constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Aberdeen constituencies
 * etc.
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_9


 * Thank you for diligently keeping myself and many others informed on about the existence of these issues. I really am terrible at checking the Notice Board; I'll try to start reviewing it more frequently from now on. I think there's no harm in subcategories, and in fact the home nation ones are needed. I'll add my thoughts to the page. Canaen  07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Clan Gordon acquired Aboyne from Clan Fraser
That is why Clan Gordon quarters Fraser in their coat of arms. See here:   IP Address 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Maybe we could write this in somewhere in the Clan Gordon article? If you have more information on how this happened (it seems like marriage to me), when, who, etc., I'd love to get it into the Clan Fraser article as well. Canaen  19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already linked there. IP Address 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More CFD fun
Request for comment: I have pointedly ignored the rather bitter aside regarding my good self, but I don't mind telling you that I get a tad p'd off with the low tone adopted by my detractors. Is such behaviour really conducive to the best interests of Wikipedia? Every single Scottish cat that I, or anybody else, has created is a subcat of the appropriate UK cat: a fact which the anti-English/Scottish/Welsh/NI cat campaigners choose to ignore or obscure. (While you are there, you may want to have a look at the Cinema of Northern Ireland deletion nomination. I really do wonder about some folk sometimes.) --Mais oui! 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_deletion

"eco eating" link
Hiya, I am removing the "eco-eating" link again. It had been removed multiple times previously, is linkspam, is not representative of an important vegan-related organization, and is an awful read. I am also removing the "environmental" section as it is now empty. It has also been removed before; we don't need to preserve it, and it can be re-created if there is some important and applicable link. Kellen T 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kellen, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me what makes it "linkspam," and also if you would give me a run-down of what you consider "linkspam" to be; I've never heard that term before. Your contribution links just show me that the link has consistently been added into the article; they don't show me why it was deleted. I wasn't aware that external links had to representative of organizations. I think, though the page is poorly structured, that it contains a lot of relevant points of information. I also think that if you want it gone, you should provide a more suitable link. Something is better than nothing. I don't go around deleting stubs because they're poorly written; instead, I either ignore them or improve them, where I can. We're building an encyclopedia here, not destroying it. Your labeling of the page as "pseudohippie" tend to give me the idea that you simply don't like the link, which is no reason to delete it. Especially when 4 people now (that I've counted) have added it back in. I think it presents information which many vegans take into account, and should be included. I've added it back in. Canaen  06:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the contribution histories I provided above. They show a pattern of a single person whose main contribution is adding that link to many, many, different articles and receiving a warning about it (not from me). This is classic linkspamming. I also happen to not like the link, and I like being snarky in edit summaries, which is probably what you took offense at; I'll be clearer next time. I disagree that "something is better than nothing"; it is better to have the essential links only than lots of semirelevant "something" Kellen T 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One aspect of why we use consensus here on Wikipedia is that concerns and issues lack ownership; as soon as they are brought up, they become the group's concern. I didn't see any evidence of "linkspamming"; as I said, all I saw was 4 or 5 different people adding that link. As for the warning: it is very ambiguous. I don't see a connection between "commercial links" and an environmental vegetarian link. I don't even think that the link was commercial in any way. Your being "snarky," as you term it, doesn't help me (or, I assume, others) to build the encyclopedia.


 * Regardless of who's added it in the past, I think the link is a good one, and that if your disagree, you should come up with a better one. I assume you don't go around deleting stubs for lack of information; rather, that you would go around and mark them as stubs, to be improved upon. Referring to the link as "linkspam," the defenition of which was provided me by Skinwalker, does not add to the good faith feeling we like to try to keep. I intend not to mess with any search engine, simply to provide more viewpoints for people to look at. I don't see what the problem could possibly be with providing links to more information. Canaen  18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "linkspam" is a standard term for links posted by people in order to get their particular websites visited, not one I invented to slander the site. That page is classic linkspam, as I noted in my edit summary. Please refer to WP:WIW for why we cut out trivial, non-notable, and crappy links that are related to a particular article. I personally class the "eco eating" link as both non-notable and crappy. The criticisms it presents are better presented elsewhere and from sources that are not in the practice of spamming their site on WP. Kellen T 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Canaen, why don't you find a couple of better links and we'll post the best one. The topic certainly belongs in the article, and the concept is widespread enough that there have to be lots of good sites out there.  I agree with Kellen, still; that link sucks for the reasons he described.  There has to be a better source of information we can refer people to.  Cheers, Skinwalker 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotland
For the scottish ten pound notes, I only see a thumbnail but no pictures, it might just be my browser, that's why i deleted it but if its only my browser then reverse it. Can you see the money on the page and is it just my browser? thanks - Patman2648 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it is just your browser; I've had similar things happen to me, and I believe I know what you're looking at. Have you refreshed? I see the ten pound notes fine. Canaen  01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, now it works when all day it didn't, thanks alot and have a wonderful night, thanks - Patman2648 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive talk template
Greetings! I moved your talk page archive template to User:Canaen/archivebox out of template space because you will be the only user, and it is more appropriate to put this into userspace, in your area. I've modified this talk page to point to the new location. --Durin 14:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks all the same to me. I thought that I had just snagged the code from the normal one and changed it to suit my tastes, without creating as template. Thanks, though! Canaen  04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

userboxes, T1, T2, anarchistm &c
noticed you asking about the anarchist userbox over on Tony Sidaway's argue talk page. i applaud your effort, although i think, after a lot of observation and some participation, that arguing with tony is inherently counterproductive. if he thinks something violates t1 or even t2 he'll just speedy it. if you do manage to build some sort of consensus to eventually undelete a userbox, he'll just speedy it again. in any event, there is currently a an rfc on tony's deletion of user signatures from talk pages happening at Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frymaster (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the tip. That's the impression I was getting. It doesn't seem like an admin living up to his duty, at least in this respect. I'll put in my thoughts. If I'm to assume that Tony has undergone 2 other RfCs, with no result, then maybe something more serious should be considered. Canaen  18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Lovat
Hi - and many thanks for dropping me a note. Unfortunately, I don't think I can offer you any support with the Lord Lovat debate that's raging over there. The fact that the title had been deleted does mean that the current owner of the title is indeed, technically speaking, the 16th. As a Highlander, I think it's good to see reinforced the distinction between being a Lord and being a clan chief, as such discrepancies help to highlight the differences. I do see your point of view, and am a vigorous supporter of Highland culture and an extremely keen student of Highland history. The fact that the Fraser clan consider the current Lord Lovat to be the 18th is an important piece of Highland tradition, and is extremely worthy of inclusion in the article. However, to refer to the current Lord as the 18th is factually incorrect. I would say that it would be appropriate to list him as the 16th, while explaining the history and the fact that clan Fraser effectively ignore the period when the title didn't exist, when it comes to counting their Lords. Lianachan 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I'm slowly being convinced that there's no way that a society so concerned with law will always think of it as standard, or neutral. It's very good to get input from someone actually concerned with the culture and area involved here. [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] Canæn [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub status for Scottish clans
Hi - I'm curious over your addition of to most Scottish clan pages - is this a high priority among the many tasks needed to enhance their quality and complete the set? Most of these pages don't seem to me match Wiki criteria for stubs: I'd say the clan pages are genuinely useful. They aren't odd bits and pieces, but rather an systematic attempt to get all the clans covered. A Scottish clan is definitely a narrow subject - I'd say the length is appropriate. The least subjective measure. Most of the clan articles embody what's easy to find out (i.e. are not a stub). All could be improved, but only with specialist knowledge or in-depth research.
 * "A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to be useless."
 * "a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub".
 * "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library".

I should add that some pages are much shorter and less complete than others, e.g. Clan Menzies - I suggest the stub tag would be more meaningful and more likely to be acted on if restricted to those.Mark Nesbitt 07:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They all need work. My reasoning here was that though a few of the articles are indeed very decent, that they should all be reviewed. I figured that since all edits are reversible, those users who were working on particular clan articles could review them, and decide whether or not the article really does deserve "stub" status. I hadn't realized that there were set stub guidelines, though I guess that I should've figured there were, and bothered to looks them up. Thank you for taking the time to bring these to my attention. [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] Canæn [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response - yes, agree all need work, but some definitely need more than others! Will see if I can upgrade the really thin ones in next few days.Mark Nesbitt 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Waves back at fellow UU
Failte Canaen! (I hope that's correct—I have been interested in Celtic languages for a long time, but I have not been able to do much about learning any for lack of friends who speak them) Thanks for your little note on my talk page; I am hereby returning the favor. Checking out your own user page, I found it interesting that aside from being fellow UUs, we also seem to share a strong interest in languages and a penchant for nudity. I was also thrilled to hear from a Scotsperson, as it has been one of my longtime cherished ambitions to visit Alba ma mhuirnin. I once made it as close as Carlisle, but sadly a violent attack of influenza laid me low and prevented me from crossing Hadrian's Wall before my schedule ran out. (I did make it to Finland, but that's another story.) Regrettably I seem to have no blood ties to Celtic lands myself, as all my ancestors seem to be Germanic or Frankish, but my son Thomas could supposedly claim blood ties with the clan Henderson (admittedly through my ex-spouse), which I admit I have shamelessly used as an excuse to occasionally deck myself out in the Royal Stuart tartan. Ah, I'm rambling, aren't I? Anyway, thanks again for saying hi Vremya 08:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had the same troubles with language; the only one which I've been able to make progress in is Scots, though that's not technically a celtic language. Still, much easier for me with my american toungue. I've gathered a few Gaelic books (an english-Gaelic dictionary, a grammar, one or two "learn to speak Gaelic" books, and a few Gaelic childrens' books), but I'm afraid my pronunciation has come to naught. I'm waiting until I either take up residence in Nova Scotia, or the Highlands, or meet a somewhat-fluent speaker closer to home. "Failte," as I understand it, is usually "Welcome," and commonly used as a greeting. However I'm not sure as to its relevance on a wikipedia talk page; I'm not sure if there is another word closer to simply "hello." Either way, I'd find it fitting, being such a hospitable people.


 * That very hospitality is something I've long admired about the culture of my forebears; they had a very accomodating nature. Something I've learned of in recent years is their practice of adopting those who were not of the blood into the clan. Your admiration of Alba, may very well make you a Scot one day, if you so wish. On the matter of the Royal Stewart: it is generally acceptable for anyone whom identifies as a subject of Queen Elizabeth II to wear the tartan. There are also a great many tartans which have been made (such as the Flower of Scotland tartan) for those who are not neccessarily blood relations to any clan (you may wish to see this article). As well, there are a great many Contemporary kilts, which often have no tartan at all. Inevitably, you'll find something!


 * Thank you for being quite personable with me. It's always nice to be reassured that your fellow editors are indeed human. :-) [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] Canæn [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Baronies
Ok, I've taken it of the page as it was getting off topic.

Now, for some big generalisations which I hope you'll forgive as the area is very complex and full of exceptions. England and Scotland both had feudal baronies, from the earliest times but they were abolished in England centuries ago. Feudal titles came into being for those who held land from the king and had certain rights and privileges over that land. Essentially the land and the dignity were united, so losing the land lost you the dignity. Until last year that was still the case. Now the land and dignity are separated but the dignity is still treated as property. So you can sell a Scottish feudal barony to someone else. You lose the dignity and certain rights as well as a need to change your coat of arms. The new holder gains what you have lost. The transfer of this dignity has to be agreed with the Lord Lyon. Feudal barons have no precedence, see the order of precedence for Scotland. They are correctly listed - as John Brown of X (where X is the feudal title) or sometimes John Brown, Baron of X. Using it as Baron of X or Lord/lady X is horribly wrong but as with anything you see a few people try to get away with it - usually those that have recently bought a title. Feudal titles are never placed ahead of any other title. So for example Major Sir Ralph Anstruther of that Ilk, Bt, GCVO, MC holds a three hundred year old Scottish baronetcy (+ another younger one) but also two feudal baronies. The baronetcy is however the only title used.

Peerages, by contrast are not territorial but personal. Other than in the earliest times they descend according to the terms set by law in the latters patent or by common law. So in Scotland this is usually heirs general and in England and the UK usually heirs male. They cannot be sold or extinguished other than by law and their decent - other than Scottish titles - cannot be altered without an act of parliament. Which is part of the reason for attainder. Does that answer what you asked about? Alci12 12:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)