User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 07

French dab
Hi Mais oui!, thanks for letting me know. I'll be careful to do that in the future. --Deville (Talk) 05:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aois-dàna
Not quite sure why you put the tag on the article. Martin Martin is not the worst authority on the subject. I think that the Celtic mythology articles are in greater need of attention. All the best --MacRusgail 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Association of British Counties
Dear Mr. Oui, I invite you to read and respond to my detailed explanation of my changes to this article before attempting to change it back. There is no justification for refusing to discuss changes, and I am happy to discuss them as per normal wikipedia standards. If you have specific reasons for reverting every individual change I have made (all of which I have explained), please state these on the talk page. Thank you. 82.26.198.108 20:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament
I'm really sorry about reverting your couple of sentence addition at the Portal:Scotland. I almost only deleted the 2nd sentence, but it that Intro is already a little too long. --Mais oui! 19:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your note about the revert. Rest assured I know you are awesomely dedicated to Scottish issues and am delighted to "devolve" such matters to your judgement. However, I would still contend that the topic is "Scotland", rather than "History of Scotland", and should reflect that as well as being a "constituent country of the UK", we have devolved powers as well.  Dei zio  19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there you go. I was born in Edinburgh and grew up in North Berwick (self evident from User:Deiz/myedits I guess) but never knew for sure. It's certainly an understatement to say it doesn't have as much currency as Glaswegian. In Trainspotting (the book) Sick Boy talks about himself as an "Edina Lad" which I guess is a viable alternative.  Dei zio  20:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Investigation
An WP:RFI has been placed against you by Owain. It seems that you are both involved in a long running edit war, which could do with being solved. I will suggest the same thing to you as I did to Owain. Please take a look at dispute resolution and try and follow the advice towards the beginning there. I.e. please discuss changes rather than reverting. The 1RR is good to help encourage this.

I'm certainly not going to comment on every single edit you have made, but please try to keep edit summaries neutral and avoid accusations of sock-puppetry in edit summaries like this. If you have good reason to suspect use of sockpuppets file a WP:RFCU. Petros471 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Petros471 says, please try and keep your edit summaries neutral. Vitriolic edit summaries like this one don't help you or anyone else.  Please remember the Neutral Point of View policy.  Your claim that "traditional counties are a fiction" is most definitely your point of view.  As it happens, I don't follow the Owain point of view on this subject either, and I suspect my own personal viewpoint on the subject is closer to yours than his, but I (along with users like Stringops) am trying to be neutral here.  Opinionated edit summaries are not the way forward here.  --RFBailey 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to both of you
This is not a comment on who is 'correct' in the content dispute.

The two of you clearly have a strong difference in opinion about traditional counties etc. You both strongly believe that your position is correct, and for understandable reasons want Wikipedia to hold the 'correct' version. This has caused you to get into this dispute that has been doing on for a while and shows no sign of stopping, unless you both decide to go about this the right way. First of all take a good look at Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Then instead of edit/revert warring on articles that you disagree on discuss between yourselves and any other editors around on the talk page until consensus is reach. More like this, not like this.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox: That means neutrally report accurately what verifiable sources state. Not what is your opinion (however correct it may be) of the 'truth'. Other editors might be able to help through the request for comment system.

Finally if for some reason you can't get that to work (I can't see any reason that it shouldn't if you give it a proper go); try and take a step back. Take break from editing UK related articles. Go off and edit something totally different on some subject that doesn't attract controversy. Or do some Maintenance! Petros471 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotlandshire
Well, it'll have to be a real stub, coz I don't have access to my books which cover this general area, and won't have for a long time. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I created the article for you. User Stringops has subsequently listed it for deletion. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Query
Mais Oui, while I have no problem with you nominating county flower for deletion and will accept the verdict, I'm not sure I can read your comment that "this article is being used as a promotional tool for a charity." as anything other than a breach of WP:AGF. Could you clarify? Do you really mean that my motivation for writing this article is to promote Plantlife, or have I misunderstood the comment. Thanks SP-KP 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm prompted to ask one more question, which is that when you say this is an entirely unencyclopaedic topic, why is that? There is an equivalent article on U.S. state flowers; ought that also to be proposed for deletion, or is there something intrinsicly different between the two concepts which I haven't picked up on? SP-KP 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold off from doing any more work on this for ow, and see how the AFD goes. If the article survives, I'd be pleased to work with you to come up with a suitable wording to explain that the British system is NGO- rather than GO-sponsored. SP-KP 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I like these categories. Which is why I am doing this, since it's ridiculous to list someone as "whatever-American" because they had a great-grandparent of that group. People listed in a category should have at least one parent, or show some kind of identification with it if it's more distant. What I'm doing is clearing the decks, especially when someone like Brian Austin Green is in something like 6 categories. JackO&#39;Lantern 14:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Traditional counties of the British Isles
I suggest you leave it as-is, it is very much more neutral than it was a few weeks back. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry
I don't think I've seen any absolutely conclusive evidence either way - MonMan/Owain is a distinct possibility, but I honestly believe Stringops is somebody different. Their pattern of editing and comments, to me, are fairly different. If someone is passionate about the use of traditional counties (and a lot of people in the places I have lived are), then they will edit the same articles with the same viewpoint; I'll admit I could be wrong, but I hope not. As for 80.255 - again the style of comments on the talk pages seems different, but I've never come across this user directly, so I'm not sure at all. As this user is no longer editing, I suppose it matters less anyway.

I'll keep an eye on the situation as it develops  A    q    uilina   12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefully the CheckUser will kill this one stone-dead anyway. I didn't mean to say sockpuppetry wasn't a serious issue - it is, apologies if my comments implied otherwise (I was just referring to the fact 80.255 is not taking part in current votes, that's all).  I'm not convinced Owain and 80.255 are meatpuppets either - mmeatpuppets are accounts created solely to campaign on the same issue - looking at their respective contributions that is not the case - which were brought in from outside to do so - again I've seen no evidence for that.  I just think that they have similar views on traditional county matters, so have always voted the same way; just as myself and RFBailey do, and you and JzG do.  Again I could be wrong, and I'm glad to see something is being done to sort this out for good.   A    q    uilina   13:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "... and you and JzG do." Mmmm... not sure about that one! I've only just encountered the guy, and we did not meet in the happiest of circumstances (he was telling me off, in his capacity as Admin, I seem to remember). Unfortunately, unlike you, I do not have any "buddies" who routinely back me up. On the other hand, I do not need them: cos I am always right anyway. Mais non? ... Mais si! ... Mais oui! 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, GMan would have been a better example. But that was pretty much my point - there's other users out there who you may not have agreed with, or even spoken to directly (I don't think I've ever spoken to RFB directly), but because of similar interests and views you end up editing similar articles and casting votes in similar ways. I'm not sure "buddies" is the right word - there is no cabal!  A posse of "buddies" would have its uses though - just think of all the mundane spellchecking jobs you could give them...   A    q    uilina   13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. As far as I am aware I have never met GMan in my life before today. I simply spotted his signature on a discussion page Owain had been on, and copied him in to my notice-posting. You are trying to make up a "buddy" simply to illustrate your point. --Mais oui! 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that was my point! - I was just referring to the fact that he has a similar stance to you, and has voted in the same way as you in debates, despite there being no direct contact. I was just trying to show that I don't have "buddies" in just the same way you don't have them.  The only thing was that I as doing this in a very unclear way - sorry.   A    q    uilina   14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you were too zealous in posting your allegations against MonMan simultaneously on AN/I, RFI, RfCU and about 10 user talk pages. However, after analzing MonMan's edit history I have withdrawn my comments in defense of him at WP:AN/I.  You may be interested. Thatcher131 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw a number of postings in your edit history but did not analyze the flow of events. It may be as you say.  As fas as sockpuppetry itself, MonMan has been permanently banned, and I expect that will stay if my comments are read.  In my relatively brief experience I have found that users of sockpuppets are first warned, but allowed to keep editing as long as they stick to one account (maybe after a short block).  Only the truly disruptive, usually after an ArbCom decision, reach the point of being banned on sight (like Gastrich, Lightbringer, and so on).  If Owain realizes that he can't fool all of the people all of the time, he may settle down and behave himself.  As far as we know this is a first offense, and Wikipedia is pretty generous with second chances. Thatcher131 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the comment about your pursuit of Owain from my summary on WP:AN/I. The RFI and first ANI postings were definitely not by you. Thatcher131 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I see, sorry for the inconvenience. Restore them at will  Dei zio 

Scotland-splits incivility
I can agree with the "veering off the subject" part, at least. I'm not sure what an appropriate forum for calling my actions "insane" and "incomprehensibly obscure", but that certainly wasn't it. You might also want to sign your comment. Alai 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my suggestion to split on that basis, so it's difficult not to take such characterisations somewhat personally, but your statement on intent is noted and accepted. I'll refrain from comment for the time being on the relative merits and demerits of either scheme, as it's not what I contacted you about, and as far as I know, neither is a current proposal or going concern.  Alai 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On another matter entirely...
I assume that can be speedied as a typo (and empty, to boot). Alai 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... your rushed little sins will always come back to bite you on the bear bahoochie. Done. --Mais oui! 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers
The page to which the articles link, county flower, gives the citations. Your additions of fact, and especially your edit summaries, make no sense. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE

 * 1) We don't add citations for every fact in every article; if we did, the articles would be unredable. We use common sense, guided by the advice in WP:CITE (which is a style guide, not policy, incidentally).  If a claim is uncontroversial, and contains links to other articles that provide external citations, then cluttering up the article is unnecessary.
 * 2) Using fact in order to make a point about the fact mentioned violated WP:POINT.
 * 3) If you know what the citation is (as you do, having read and argued against the County flower article), then you should add it; again, disfiguring the article with the "fact" template in such circumstances is very close to disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * 4) My instinct is to make this a formal warning, and to block you for disruption if you continue; I've first raised this at the Administrators' Noticeboard in order to get other opinions, though. Consider this an informal warning, therefore. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding you're talk page messages to me on this, I'm not going to look into this further at the moment, the key point really is that some action is disruptive (or can be construed as such), the best course of action then is not to stubbornly push forward but to stop and discuss. Regarding you're second post, again I haven't looked into it, but people sometimes make genuine mistakes or word things badly, WP:AGF, much hand waving and indignancy generally does nothing to strengthen you're view point, remain calm and discuss things rationally. --pgk( talk ) 10:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact template
I think that you are right that the flower information is not appropriate to have in the articles, but I also don't think placing a fact template on all of them is helpful, either. However, it looks like Bwithh is the one who removed all of the mentions from the article. -- Kjkolb 11:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Support
I have not chosen a side and do not plan to. I believe that the fact template should be used in a manner similar to what Mel Etitis said, but I do not think that the flower information belongs in the articles. I strongly suggest that you let the matter rest for a few days, especially on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I don't think anyone is going to sanction you if you do so now. After that, you can bring up the issue of what to do about the articles in a centralized place, such as an RFC or the talk page of the county flowers article. If you chose the talk page you might want to leave a notice on the Village Pump so that it gets some participation. Make sure the notice is neutral, though. -- Kjkolb 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers
Hi. Just thought I'd let you know I've messaged each of the AfD contributors to let them know the discussion at the Plantlife talk page is taking place. SP-KP 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shires
Edited, with a chainsaw. No more shire counties in Scotland (shurely shome mishtake), just a little note tagged on in the section on Non-county shires. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Mergers - Broughton
Hi,

I noticed you reverted my suggested merger on the Broughton, Scotland, Broughton, Wales & Broughton, England into Broughton diambiguation page. Wouldn't it have been more polite to have placed a comment in the Broughton discussion page to explain your reasons before taking action? Road Wizard 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, if you wish to disagree with a merger then that is fine, but however stupid you feel the suggestion is you do not revert just to get your own way. Robdurbar 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Scotland and Bud Neill
Hi Mais, no problem with the portal, I usually get round to it when something pops up on the radar, often a DYK entry. I'll draft a Bud Neill summary for inclusion in the portal featured box in the next day or so. The article's turned out well but still needs a few rough edges to be smoothed out before going up for Good Article status. It would also be worth waiting for Dave to get some decent shots of the statue to replace the traffic cone version which he should do in the next month. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Spring indeed, the Nils Olaf photo is brilliant (as is the whole story). I particularly like the slightly skewed angle the shot is taken from which just adds to the air of surrealism. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Template redirects and recategorisation
You raise a good point: until relatively recently it was the case that when a template was recategorised, all the transcluding articles had to be null-edited (though it wasn't a huge probem in practice, as several people ran bots to do that very thing). But that no longer is the case: I didn't see any annoucement, I just noticed the new behaviour on one occasion I was going that very thing. The articles starting "rippling" from one category to the other over a few minutes. I assume someone has in effect built the null edit hack into MediaWiki in some manner. So in short, it's not currently a problem. Alai 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Alai 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivisions

 * Talk:Administrative_division has a vote on a deletion of the template subnational entity from the article that until recently was named subnational entity itself. I contact you because you once contributed to the template. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers / Plantlife
Hi - I wondered whether you had an opinion on whether the merge debate has run its course and/or if we should do keep or remove the merge tags. Also whether you had any views on name changes? SP-KP 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Wars in Ireland
I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Might be a good idea however for a self-confessed non-expert such as yourself to check it over from time to time to see if it at least reads well and keep us (so-called!) experts from going overboard on it. And as I seem to be getting better in health (yippee!) will do as asked; am always delighted to be asked, and to help if I can. Cheers! Fergananim 20:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers
Thanks for the reply. I've made some small tweaks to the county flower article as you suggest - let me know if you think it needs anything further. Also, I wasn't sure whether to add further notes to County flowers of the United Kingdom (where the UK list is - now a separate page as it got to big for the main article) or whether the link there to the main article is sufficient; happy to listen if you have a view on that. All the best SP-KP 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:No More POV Please
We have a "new" user, User:No More POV Please, who is going around POV pushing on Gaelic related articles. The crux of his POV pushing is Gaelic being synonymous with Irish. He is certainly a version of a previous user, as he knows too much about wiki culture to be otherwise. It'll be worthwhile to keep an eye on his Contribution History. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Plants article renaming
No probs. It seemed much more logical. Thanks for the thanks, which was a nice surprise. I guess you are having a good day today? SP-KP 18:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK?s
Just noticed your kudos on scownb for my did you know? efforts, my pleasure. Hopefully a few more to come...  Dei zio  09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions to appropriate divisions
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15

At Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4, you wrote:
 * Oppose I'm sorry about this, but if you really are proposing an umbrella name change then you really do have to go and tag all 103 categories and do this properly, giving people due notice. No, you will not get "lynched" - you may well lose the argument but no corporal nor capital punishment will ensue. --Mais oui! 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I started to do so, but was rebuffed by:
 * I don't think that you need to list all the categories here by name (please don't), just tag all the categories so they have notice. --JeffW 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The closer decided:
 * Exactly what is being changed to what is not clear. I'm sorry, but with this complex a set of changes, they really need to be spelled/listed out. Some of these were overlapped by the debates below that were definitely No Consensous. I will encourage the submitter to resubmit as one unbrella debate, not three, and this time listing out exactly what he wants changed. There really is no rush on this. It can easily wait another 7 days. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have knowledge of UK and Scotland. Please look at those entries in particular.

Could you please indicate whether I've covered all the bases pursuant to your recommendation? It took 12 hours or so, and several hundred edits. (watching here)
 * --William Allen Simpson 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

R. Fulton
Yeah, I thought "Ricki" was the correct spelling. There is the article Rikki Fulton - if "Ricki" is the correct spelling, then the page should be moved? Camillus (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

County flower
Hi. Re: your message - what is it about the last but current version by Stringops (which he/she feels is NPOV) that you feel needs to change? SP-KP 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Basic factual information is being concealed. Firstly the header: "Trivia" is necessary, because the information about the "county flower" (sic) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the former Scottish county: it is purely the modern invention of an external, private organisation.


 * Secondly, why the attempt to conceal that this was part of a marketing campaign? That is absolutely fundamental information, without which it is hopelessly POV.


 * Thirdly, how can Renfrewshire have a "county flower" imposed upon it 27 years after its demise? If the WWF suddenly decided that they were a bit short of cash (when aren't they?) and that the "imperial whale" of Phoenicia was the Giant beaked, or that the "state bird" of the Dutch Republic was the Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse, or that... (you get my drift... ) ... do you think that the editors of the Phoenicia or Dutch Republic Wikipedia articles would be very amused if advocates of the "Association of British Whale-spotters" or "Sandgrouse Watch" tried to insert the trivia in the introduction of those articles? No? I thought not. Then why, may I ask, must Renfrewshire (the county of my birth, proudly printed on my birth certificate) suffer such post-mortem indignities. The dead should be left to rest in peace, and not poked around with a dirty stick by a minor charity looking to boost its meagre coffers, nor less by a bunch of antediluvian "traditional county" (Lord preserve us) fantasists.


 * Finally, just a minor point, but the term "nationwide" is highly ambiguous in Scotland (and England, Wales and Ireland too I would argue) - if that is to stay it must be changed to "UK-wide". --Mais oui! 05:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think what I'm going to suggest is that you start a discussion on this on the article's talk page, and then I'll chip in if you want an "independent" view. I'm not terribly emotionally attached to either new, old, or any other county definitions, and I like quite a long way outside of Scotland, so hopefully can contribute something helpfully detached. Cheers SP-KP 18:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Harry's Place
Did you even bother to read the talk page for this article before nominating this article for speedy deletion?! I have stated my reasons clearly for why the initial finding of non-notability was in error and why this article should go up for another vote. I do not appreciate your attempts to unilaterally have the page deleted without further review. Peter G Werner 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dublin
Hi Mais oui! - Well, of course you are absolutely correct! :) - but my concern is that naming Dublin as part of the UK might bother some general readers for one reason or another. It's not altogether easy to get round this neatly without the dreaded British Isles phrase, but what would you think about putting:
 * and some students moved to Glasgow, London and Dublin; there were no other places in Britain or Ireland where women could study medicine at that time ?--HJMG 15:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. (Afraid the pic of the day on my user page misled you - I am a lot nearer to Glencoe than Australia!) --HJMG 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross naming again
Surprise, surprise ! Yes, a few weeks have passed, and it's time for another vote on the naming of Ross, North Britain. I think we could kill this for good by moving it to Ross and renaming the exisiting dab page there to Ross (disambiguation). Then we just need to persuade the doggone Countywatchers not to come north across the Rio Tweed again, and all would be well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am no sockpuppet! i just haven't registered as yet! Haven't broken any rules! Mais oui, s'il vous plais! 86.40.9.251 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:IP Address
I note that banned User:IP Address may now be using a sockpuppet: --Mais oui! 12:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please report things like this on WP:AIV or WP:AN/I in future as it is more likely an admin will be able to deal with it appropriately and more quickly. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, User:IP Address was not banned, he was blocked. They may sound the same, but they are different! Stifle (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

National Archives (England)
Hi! Though with my Scottish roots I sympathise with the change you apparently made from The National Archives to The National Archives (England) I'm afraid that as far as I am aware the official title of the place at Kew is "The National Archives" and its records are for the whole of the UK. Thus I think The National Archives (UK) was better in the first place. Here is the home page of the institution concerned. Regards --Historian 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have answered your response to this on my talk page. --Historian 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with MPs cat
Hi there - and thanks for moving some stuff around with the Current MPs category I created earlier. I wonder if you might be able to help sort the category into better shape? My intention was to create a category of Current MPs, so a user could click on it, and see the current makeup of the House of Commons - direct links to the MPs wiki pages as oppose to sub categories - what do you think? I also felt that having the list of current MPs in an article titled 'MPs elected .... in 2005' was a little misleading - and will of course become more so over time.

If there were a clever 'category' tool to allow the import of all members of the 4 sub cat.s into one list, I think that may be the best solution. I was a little surprised that the cat. system doesn't allow us to simply browse all MPs at once - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts... Petesmiles 12:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How long does an article need to be before it stops being a stub?
Hi - is Nisbet, Berwickshire really a stub? It's a much longer article than the typically one-sentance articles that forms your other stubds. looks like the right length for a hamlet of 7-8 houses. Mark Nesbitt 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)