User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 02

Re:Scottish public schools
Heh! You must have seen my comment on "Ned" at AFD! I'd like to comment on it, but I know too little about the Scottish school system to do so without risking making myself look like an idiot. (FWIW, I'm in New Zealand, but a part settled by the Scots and with still enough Lallans mixed into everyday language to know how meikle a difference there is between it and standard English!) Grutness...  wha?  09:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm American, and I don't know a thing about the school system in any country but the US, Canada, and Germany. I only voted speedy keep on Ned because it was clear that nobody at all wanted it deleted, so it didn't belong on AFD. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite, and I agree with your sentiments about Scottish linguistic difference not being respected. I will defend separate usages when I know the correct situation.  However, I am English (of Scots descent and parentage) and public-school (English sense) educated, and I have simply never heard of the alternative use of this term in Scots.  I'd therefore be uncomfortable being involved on this occasion, since I'd be talking without true knowledge of the situation.  that said, if there are other debates of this type do keep me on your list of "alertees".  Cheers. Vizjim 09:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, it makes a change for us to be agreeing for once. And, by the way, it's great to see your willingness to work for a genuine compromise in the wording here - I sense it is nearly there. --Doc (?) 19:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * agreed with the objection, schools not paid for by the public purse are usually known as "private schools" in Scotland.Benson85 02:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up"; mind you, I've already voted for the option you suggest -- and indeed, argued for it, repeatedly! Alai 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Union 1707
The talk page discussion clearly shows a consensus to redirect to Acts of Union 1707. Since you insist on discussion on the talk page- perhaps you should read it first. Astrotrain 20:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been a discussion already on the talk page. The consensus is to redirect to Acts of Union 1707. Given the article is a poorly written stub, I fail to see your opposition. Astrotrain 21:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Constituent Countries
If you are insisting there must be a discussion it is your obligation to take part it in. I have left a notice on the talk page noticing the falsehood of the definition A MONTH AGO now, and you haven't commented in that time! Why did you not comment in that time? Morwen - Talk 15:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Scots law
You edited Scots law to the effect that Scotland no longer shares the Westminster legislature. I'm afraid this is not accurate. As one of the authors of the Scotland Act 1998 it may be helpful to explain more fully. The Scotland Act permits the new Scottish Parliament to legislate on matters that are within "legislative competence" defined in the Act. But it does not restrict the power of the UK Parliament to legislate on any matter. So the UK Parliament can still legislate for matters of Scots law. The fact that this happens regularly, by agreement between the UK government and Scottish Executive is a source of controversy - see Sewel motion. Your edit summary referred to "Justice" not being a reserved matter. That is so, although there are aspects of justice that are reserved, eg interception of communications, judicial salaries. However the important point is that Scots law is not just about justice. Copyright law in Scotland, although reserved, is as much a matter of Scots law as any legislation of the Scottish Parliament on a devolved matter. The Scotland Act 1998 attempted to recognise the need for coherence of Scots law despite the reserved/devolved split. It therefore allows the Scottish Parliament to amend Scots law relating to reserved matters, but only so long as it does so to maintain consistency between reserved and devolved. For example the levels of fines in statute are described as Level 1 to Level 5, and one bit of legislation puts sets what the maximum fine for each level is. The Scottish Parliament could change the values across the board, even though the effect would be to alter the fine for an offence in a reserved area. I hope this is helpful - happy to provide more detail if desired.--George Burgess 08:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Jacobite Party
Hello Mais oui! I notice that you have nominated Scottish Jacobite Party for deletion. I wonder if you will reconsider now that I have found their registration on the electoral commission website. See the following website: 1. This shows that they are in fact a registered party with the Electoral Commission. If it is the case that they are in fact registered (as it would appear they are) there is nothing in the article text that is inaccurate thus no justification for deleting the article!

Do you have any other objections to the article that you feel necessiates deletion, if so, what are they?

Big Jim Fae Scotland 12:47, 10 October 2005

Cheers for getting back to me Mais oui! Couldn't remember off hand how I found the registration exactly, the Electoral Commission website is not an easy one to traverse. However on visiting it there you should look at the "search the registers" option on the right hand side of the front page, then look at the "register of political parties" option and there they are, included as a registered party!

I rather agree with you that they seem to be a "joke" party, and a rather expensive one at that - although you never know, some people do hold to a particularly strange world view, so maybe they are serious.

Anyway, now that we have established they are in fact registered can we drop the nomination for deletion? Perhaps though we should include something along the lines that they may be a joke party in the article text till we can establish one way or another?

Also, if I don't hear from you I'll know you're not in the huff! :o)

Cheers, Big Jim Fae Scotland 11:48, 11 October 2005

List of active autonomist and secessionist movements
You may notice the criteria at the top of the list which state:

"Entries on this list meet two criteria; they are active movements with living, active members, and they are seeking greater autonomy or freedom for a geographical region (as opposed to personal autonomy)."

This came out of a discussion on the talk page over what is and is not appropriate to include on the list. Look under the discussion on Macau/Macao, and further down a discussion which includes: ''this isn't supposed to be a list of "troublesome regions" but a list of movements. Entries that refer only to a region don't provide us with much at all-- they should be the names of actual movements, even if its just a red link'', which met with agreement. I removed the entries that were only regions without a movement listed. If you would like to do the legwork (which I am currently doing) on finding information on movements in said areas, then by all means add those entries. Until then, it is still a list of movements and not a list of regions, and I'm going to remove them once more. siafu 20:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish British people
Hi many people are objecting to this category name because the term Irish British is not normally used. I would be really grateful if you could change the suggested rename (Categories_for_deletion) to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as the phrase Irish diaspora is commonly used. I would really appreciate this as I think it is perfectly OK to show how Irish people have contributed to Great Britain (and I have put a lot of work into it...) Thanks Arniep 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bank of Scotland
You must give a source for your claims. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Astrotrain 19:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snap!--Mais oui! 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not giving original research. You are the one stating the Bank of Scotland was a central bank, without any evidence to back this up. Astrotrain 20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not true. I have provided evidence at Talk:Bank of Scotland, see monopoly supplier of money. You have now broken the Three Revert Rule (again).--Mais oui! 05:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peerage of Ireland
Hi is this not a duplication of Category:Peers of Ireland, should it be merged or deleted? Arniep 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

piped links
Hi, you made this change with the justification "Wiki policy: direct links are best". That policy refers to avoiding redirect and disambiguation pages; it does not mean that piped links like Scots should be avoided. There was nothing wrong with your edit, I didn't revert it or anything, but just so you know piped links are perfectly acceptable. --Angr/undefined 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I also meant to point this out to you a while ago; but I kept forgetting. Sorry. Doops | talk 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish British
Thanks for your support on the rename. I am a bit unsure as to what to do with people often thought of as British and described so on Wikipedia but born in Ireland and not AFAIK British citizens. People like Peter O'Toole and Todd Carty who, although born in Ireland moved to England at an early age, and Terry Wogan, Henry Kelly, Dermot Murnaghan and Desmond Lynam who have spent much of their life in and are mostly only famous in Great Britain (many of those are actually in British categories). Also Tom Paulin who was born in England but grew up in Belfast, spent most of his adult life in England, but I don't think his parents were Irish. I would appreciate your thoughts on these people. Thanks Arniep 00:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry to bother you again. I have realised there is a snag with name which I proposed a few days ago Category:Britons of Irish descent as I intended the category to refer to people of note in Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. I would prefer Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as this would avoid the possible inclusion of a huge amount of Northern Ireland people (as they are all British citizens) which wasn't the intention for the category. I have three supporters for this so far, If you agree to the new name I'd appreciate a vote or comment at Categories_for_deletion Thanks Arniep 18:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for changing to the new name. Personally I think it is OK to include people of further descent than just 1st generation as people still gain a feeling of Irishness from a grandparent whose parent was Irish. Arniep 19:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Scotland
Replied on my talk page. Thanks/Wangi 13:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scotland stubs
As per the comments on WP:WSS/D, would you mind putting Category:Scotland-related stubs back to Category:Scotland stubs? Or at least, not reverting me again when I do so? Technically I should list in on WP:SFD to be renamed by process, but as it was created out of process, then moved out of process once already (by me), and then moved out of process again (by you), it seems a little late to be too troubled by such niceties. Renaming whole categories is a real pain, as it requires every article in the category be edited to complete the move, so I'd prefer if we could converge on the "standard" name sooner rather than later. Alai 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And in particular, can you please stop sorting stubs to this category, since as I've argued elsewhere, it simply means they'll have to be recategorised later. Alai 23:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mais Oui! got here a little late but basically Foo stubs is the standard. It was a bit buried but I found the discussion here. AFAIK they are still in the process of moving them, I was only really concerned with Category:European Union stubs because I created it (out of process too, newbie that I was!) and that was moved back, you can see the deleted edits on the old cat here Category:European Union-related stubs, it's taking a while but I'm sure they'll get there in the end! Hope it's all been cleared up. -- Lochaber 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that my actions, and the history of these categories, are being misrepresented on that page.
 * ... misrepresented how? BTW, the WP:SFD listing isn't a duplicate, it's a) for the "other" category, and b) is in the correct place for such nominations, and someone else already pointed out on WP:CFD.  Alai 23:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Misrepresentation was perhaps a little harsh, but boy, this whole issue is really starting to piss me off. None of the people from WikiProject Stub sorting had made the slightest attempt to come clean and explain their policy on this matter: you have all tried to finesse it. Unfortunately, the effect has been about as finesseful as a hephalump. Anyway, let us proceed as best we can. I appreciate your arguments, but I still fail to understand why you cannot rename United States-related etc, and get a "bot" to whizz round changing the articles.


 * Anyway, for the record, you did not present the facts correctly here: This was seemingly originally created as an attempt at a redirect to the (also not proposed) Category:Scotland stubs (actually, the opposite was the case), and because User:Mais oui! has... single-handedly populate the category (also not true). But "misrepresentation"... Mmmmm... a tad harsh. Withdrawn.--Mais oui! 00:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what you wish (or at any other point wished) to have explained: you asked why I'd made the change, but reversed it before anyone had the chance to explain anything much, and explanations duly arrived afterwards.  Notice I haven't changed it back, so I don't see how I am, or indeed anyone else in WSS is, being hephalumpesque here.  You've covered a lot of territory in your WP:CFD comments, but that hardly seems to be the place for expositions on WSS conventions, procedure, etc.  You've objected to WP:WSS in general (which doesn't claim any more 'power' than any other Wikiproject, i.e., none, and is to which one is "appointed" by the usual Wikiproject method, i.e. adding oneself to a list (or these days, a category)), to WP:SFD (which is an authentic process page, to which WP:CFD itself redirects you, and which you were immediately referred when you listed there), and to WSS template messages (which you're not obliged to use, but did so anyway;  which can be edited, discussed, and indeed proposed for deletion if you find them objectionable;  and which do indeed have numerous analogues used by other wikiprojects).
 * A bot to whizz through the category: probably be handy.  I haven't looked into coding bots myself (though this one would seem to be about the simplest possible, in logical terms), but I gather that the procedure for having them approved is rather horribly slow and tortuous.  I may moot this, just for larfs.  Certainly if anyone volunteered to do the renaming, by that or any other means, I'm certain there would be nothing but approval.  But surely it's not necessary to have some "big bang" implementation, just to have the principle.
 * The opposite was the case: Scotland-stub was created pointing to Category:Scotland, so strictly speaking neither was the case, but this does not seem to amount to clear intent to link to Category:Scotland-related stubs, and seems somewhat closer to Category:Scotland stubs, at least textually, if not in intent.  I do confess to a certain degree of confusion on this topic, though, I think partly based on your own comment:  Both were created on the same day by the same user, and they were clearly aware of the standard "Foo-related stubs" naming convention, because they pointed the non-standard Category:Scotland stubs towards the standard Category:Scotland-related stubs.  'Single-handedly' may have been hyperbole, with an element of surmise:  I confess I didn't check every single stub, just several of the recent additions.  Would 'substantially' be accurate?  Anyway, this is all by the by as regards the deletion nomination, so I'm going to strike it to be on the safe side.  Alai 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ta.--Mais oui! 09:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whizzing robots...
I mooted the idea of a null-edit robot, and seemingly there indeed already is one, at least: User:Mairibot. Hopefully soon to be in operation... Alai 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Scotland-geo-stub template
Not sure what you were trying to do by piping the Scotland-geo-stub template, but it successfully listed all the stubs in that category alphabetically under " Template" in an otherwise completely random order. Please don't mess with how the templatesfeed into the category if you're not sure what you're doing with them. Also, please note that most stub icons have been specifically chosen so as not to be offensive to anyone (that's why WP:WSS put a notice to that effect at the top of the stub type index). Adding a map which showed not only Scotland but the northeast of Northern Ireland on the stub template has already caused at least one complaint, so I've reverted it to the flag. Grutness...  wha?  11:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I piped the cat link at the Scotland geo stub was to get the Template to appear first in the list of articles, otherwise it is buried under the letter "T". If this causes ancillary problems then clearly better to just link to the Template directly in the intro. Lordy some people are sensitive: it is actually impossible to get a geographical (as opposed to political) map of Scotland that does not include bits of England or Ireland. Eg have a look at the BBC weather map of the British Isles: do the Norwegian or Belgian govts complain that the UK is trying to claim their territory? Nope. Can we not find a nice image that represents Scottish geography: a U-shaped glen, a loch, a river, a cliff, a mountain, forest, tree?

The template is already linked at the beginning of the category, and on each page in it - look above the list of articles and you'll see "To add an article to this category, use Scotland-geo-stub". That's the link - you can click on it to get to the template. And no, the Belgians and Norwegians don't complain, but they've not had the uneasy relationship that Northern Ireland and Scotland have had over the centuries. As to an image for the stub, I'll see what I can find (note though that most countries simply have their flag for their geo-stubs, unless - as in the case of Northern Ireland - that causes problems too). Grutness...  wha?  11:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it - it was difficult to find something that would suit and was still recognisable (a building would have been far easier, but buildings are struct-stubs not geo-stubs). Grutness...  wha?  13:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Image inlining
You're welcome; I couldn't find quite the right markup, as the one I ended up with ignores the image caption argument completely. But hopefully that wasn't essential anyway in that context, and I suppose it could be moved out as plain text if necessary. I'm sure there must be a cleverer way of doing it... Alai 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish British eureka moment
Hi maisoui I think I've finally worked out the best solution to resolve the disagreement on this category. We should split this category into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Irelandor born to ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). I would appreciate if you could update the header at Categories_for_deletion. Thanks Arniep 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Scots disambiguation link repair
Our old haunt of Scots has made it onto the list at WP:DPL, :(. I thought I could could entice you (and your obvious knowledge of the usage of the word) to help clear up some of the "What links here" for Scots. --Commander Keane 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)