User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 08

Double-stubbing geo- and structs
Borderline, and possibly useful for the reason you suggest, but on balance I'd suggest not: my understanding is that X-geo-stubs and X-struct-stubs are generally considered to be siblings, and both children of X-stubs, rather than the former being a parent of the latter. If the "X-stubs" were themselves split on geography (as has happened with a number of US states, for example), then I'd double-stub those, certainly. In the meantime, you could always add in the permanent category for the given UA, which would similarly help with re-sorting/splitting. Alai 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationality
I usually do that but when i tried to do it for Karen Dotrice i got reverted and told articles should link to the x people article. PMA 13:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

County Londonderry categories
Hi Mais oui, I noticed you created the "Transport in County Derry" and "Sport in County Derry" categories. In line with the other County Londonderry categories and the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute agreement (See Derry page) would you support a move to "Transport in County Londonderry" and "Sport in County Londonderry"? Stu  ’Bout ye!  14:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd support that, though I would wonder if there might not be a problem somewhere along the line with the GAA articles. --Mal 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish cuisine
Hey there. I was wondering why you'd made that edit to this cat.. all it appears you have done is to add a space to Northern Irish. What does that do to it..? --Mal 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

==Why do you nominate so many stubs for deletion with the simple description "notability not established? It is really not the best way to improve the encyclopedia. Even if you just said something individual about them instead of just copy-pasting "notability not established" would be better.== SECProto 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alice Barnham and Rex King-Clark
Hi, you started Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham and Articles for deletion/Rex King-Clark. I made a complete rewrite to the articles, and wonder if you could look them over, and see if that could have changed your mind about them. AnonEMouse 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mais merci beaucoup! AnonEMouse 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Piping nationality links
I quite understand your point and I did give it considerable thought but many of the people concerned have very little conection with Scotland other than a Great grandfather or some such ancestor. I will happily change to scottishfor native and/or resident and/or Scots parents but I have huge reservations for many people - those that couldn't play the beautiful game for Scotland without involving Fifa and a change of nationality! Argyll Lassie 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But Robert Burns!?! - --Mais oui! 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

East Lothian people
Your opinion sought: Should the "Natives of East Lothian" category be renamed "People from East Lothian" (assuming there isn't a "East Lothianite" type adjective I don't know about), or should people famous for being from EL but born outside the county be counted as natives? I came across this when going to add Edinburgh-born Ben Sayers to the cat, and as I myself am a native of EL but was born in Edinburgh it got me wondering. As e.g. the Edinburghers category doesn't specify the need to be a native there is a bit of a discrepancy here. Your input appreciated as always.  Dei zio  talk 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom
No, it wasn't me (see response on talk page for diffs and actual user etc.) The comments had existed on the page for over two months without contestation, plenty of time for them to be considered consensus. Furthermore the subpage had existed for a long time - it was here since at least August 2005, and has been for as long as I can recall on Wikipedia. Please do not go slinging around accusations. --Robdurbar 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that the "is the UK a country" discussion continues. I think it's good that everyone's opinion is heard. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Burns
Please stop moving Burns to Burns (disambiguation) unless you can provide a decent reason. This action has been undone four times by three different users. I realize Robert Burns is also known as Burns, but there are far too many instances of other uses of the word "burns" (town names, other people, etc.) for it to simply redirect there. The size of the disambiguation page alone should indicate this. Before you move it again, consider adding your argument (besides "restore") to the discussion at Talk:Robert Burns without simply dismissing the opinions of others. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Players Nationality
Hello there, Mais Oui.

I am about to revert Andy Murray to the "British Tennis Players" category. Please check on the Andrew Murray talk page for my reason for this, and please do discuss the issue there with me. I understand that for reasons of accuracy and neatness you may not want to categorise him as both Scottish and British and rely on the fact that Scottish is a sub- category of "British" in this respect. However, for ease of reference of the users of Wikipedia, not to find him in the "British" category along with the other British greats (including Canadian Greg Rusedski, Serbian Alex Bogdanovich, Ukranian/Scot Elena Baltacha etc etc) is confusing. RobbieC 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ronald D. Laing
I apologize in advance if the following words may seem not polite to you, but I have to ask if you have ever read his books. Have you ever heard of him before coming to WikiPedia? Well, he was (is) well known to the whole scientific community in the world for his contributions on the sciences of mind; scientists never really care about nationalism. So, it will be very strange and confusing for WikiPedia users and guests not finding him in the Psychologists cathegory. best wishes for your next contributions; in some way, I like Scotland. Brian Wilson 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Graphic novelists
Just to let you know, about a year ago I created Category:Graphic novelist, which was eventually deleted after much discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive02, Category talk:Graphic novels and ultimately Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 25. The passage of time may prove to nullify those arguments against the category, but I bring it up because it's technically a speedy and I'd appreciate your thinking on all of the above, if possible. Sorry to trouble you with this, Steve block Talk 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Auld Alliance-Corrections Undermined
You'll find my response to your repeated attempts-now successful- to undermine my corrections to the Auld Alliance article in the relevant talk page, if you can be bothered to read it. Rcpaterson 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith
Hi Mais, she's not familiar to me at all, other than as a media "name". I'll have a look at the article over the next day or so, although I'm not sure what enlightenment I might be able to shed on any controversial content. I'll also have a look at Category:Quackery, the mere title sounds a bit dubious. Thanks again for the pointers, keep up the good work. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've had a quick look and the article starts off OK but fairly quickly turns into a bit of a POV hatchet job. I think it's reasonable to say she is a controversial figure, but that could certainly be presented more neutrally and properly referenced. Some of the external links are highly dubious, and at least the last 2/3rds of the article could quite conceivably be liberally sprinkled with fact notices, but I see you've already had some problems trying to attach one. There seems to be one fairly vocal main protagonist, although there is quite a bit of editing activity, so things may pan out better over time. I'll keep an eye the article, although I'm not particularly inclined to contribute any fixes at the moment. The joys, the joys ... :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wold Newton family members
I have just discovered that this piece of cruft which you nominated for deletion was improperly kept despite a strong consensus for deletion. I have renominated it, so please visit Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 31 to help me kill it off if you can spare the time. Bhoeble 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Scottish catholics
This cat is a bit crufty, but so long as it is kept under control - no William Wallace or James I - it isn't ridiculously so. On the other hand, where's Scottish episcopalians ? If there were a vote, I'd probably vote delete, but nobody would mistake me for an inclusionist. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not in any sense that would justify inclusion. Everyone notable who lived between the Early Middle Ages and the 1550s could be shoved into the cat, but that wouldn't be very useful or informative. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I emptied the category. Whether everyone should be there, or not, I don't know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the SCOWNB, I think this is going to still be a problem. User:Gianmaria Framarin (talk • contribs) seems to have some odd ideas. Seeing as how he appears to be here in Belgium with me, he may not appreciate how odd running around slapping religious categories on people looks. He's also been doing the same for Northern Irish people, which either means he's brave or lacking in information. All that stub cat stuff you did today has got me started on unstubbing some of the easier candidates. Anyway, hope you're well, nil carborundum and all that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, that guy labelled Brian Eno as a catholic. I reverted his contrib. I've noticed that the same username is registered also on the Italian Wiki. Brian W 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've placed Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as a Scottish Roman Catholic. As far as I can tell from the article, the only evidence of his Catholicism is attendance at a Jesuit boarding school, and it is stated in the article that he soon left Christianity for agnosticism. I was wondering what your reason for putting him in that category was. Homagetocatalonia 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation v Redirect
Hello, Mais oui!

I hope you can spare a little time to help a less-experienced editor. Can you explain why you changed Anthony Preston from a disambiguation page to a redirect? My problem with redirects is that it seems unhelpful for one subject to grab all the Wikilinks relating to people bearing his or her name, unless he or she is much more notable than any of his or her namesakes. I felt that the naval historian was not sufficiently notable to justify sole use of the "Anthony Preston" name, which is why I named the article Anthony Preston (naval historian). Your redirect effectively negates this decision.

I appreciate that a disambiguation page with only one article listed looks incongruous, but it will facilitate the creation of articles on other Anthony Prestons in the future. Why demolish it now?

Regards, John Moore 309 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I have put this page on my watchlist, so you can reply here if you wish.


 * There are already several Anthony Prestons in Wikipedia. I have rebuilt the Anthony Preston page so as to list them. Hope this is helpful. Regards, John Moore 309 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Category talk:Social democratic newspapers
Hi. I see you have created this cat, and I have raised some concerns. Could you reply on that page? Many thanks. Dahn 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I'm proposing taking down the merge tags on Old growth forest and Ancient woodland as there seems no consensus on merging them. I've added a 'See also' link on one of them. The articles seem sufficiently different to merit this treatment. I thought I would let you know as a courtesy. Do please let me know if you disagree. Nice to see another Scottish Wikipedian! --Guinnog 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland
Hello ! MonMan been being naughty again I see. Give me a yell if you need moral support ! For Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland, it's a a subcat of Category:Scotland, whereas none of the other subdivisional cats are. What are the implications of changing it ? Would it be uncontroversial to do so ? Anyway, I hope you're well, and the sun is shining. It's a lovely day hear in Brussels, so I have taken the pc outside. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Mais oui!, further to your post on the CfD page a few hours ago, I think a more extended response is necessary. First of all I would like to again thank you for pointing out that the word nation has equal meaning between a political entity, a geographical entity or a cultural entity, that is indeed a correct interpretation of the word. However, I take strong exception to the way you presented your point, as I feel it was thoughtlessly cruel. In fact, I can honestly say that I have never heard or read anything more hurtful to me in my entire life. Whilst you were careful not to breach WP:NPA by referring to the issue indirectly, throwing in the accusation of someone being anti-Semitic even indirectly is a very dangerous and damaging thing to do. Having had the best part of a day to consider the matter, I think the only things you could have said that would have hurt me more would be if you replaced anti-Semite with child abuser, rapist or murderer.

What really hurts me the most was that there was absolutely no reason to bring up anti-Semitism in the first place. Yes, a number of anti-Semites in the past have propagated their argument by suggesting that Jews have no common cultural identity or status as a nation so as to work on a principle of divide and conquer. However, it is equally true that other anti-Semites have in the past promoted the cultural identity of Jews as being an entirely separate nation in order to foster discord with their neighbours (see National Socialist Program where Hitler proposed the identification of Jews as a separate race or "nation", whilst demanding the removal of their rights as German citizens). Given that both promoting and disparaging a national identity for Jews has been used by anti-Semites, someone who is confused about the issue asking if the status of "Jew" also infers the status of "nation" should not be automatically tagged with the label of anti-Semite. That philosophy is hypocritical and foolish. If I was willing to follow your methodology, I might have said that, "you are treading on very dangerous territory if you are trying to say that the Jews are not a nation but purely a faith : that line of argument is commonly deployed by anti-Semites." However, I doubt that your intent in pointing the situation out to me was intended as an anti-Semitic remark so accusing you of such even indirectly would be cruel and not serve any purpose.

Which brings me onto the crux of my point, intent. Before you throw such statements around, you should perhaps examine the intent of the individual. Was the person intending to support an anti-Semitic agenda? In your case, I would say certainly not - to assume anything else would both break WP:AGF and also cause needless suffering. In my case though - was my asking for clarification on how another editor seeing the status of Jews being a nation related to the categorisation of articles in an encyclopaedia even remotely anti-Semitic? I will leave that decision up to you. However, I would ask that you be more careful in future, as a few simple words said in haste can have devastating repercussions. Thank you for your time. Road Wizard 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Merseyside
Just a line to say you have my support. Jhamez84 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the swift reply. It's great to hear from a simillarly progressive and level-headed Wikipedian! I'm constantly having trouble trying to protect the pages which relate to areas near my part of the country (Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester). I had a minor skirmish against one user last week (see this rather angry message I left once I'd had enough) - I thought I'd check his edit pattern since, and found both his and your edits on the Merseyside article.


 * You may also be interested in seeing Talk:Shaw and Crompton for a constant debate about the counties, despite all the consensus, conventions, legality, royal representation, so on and so forth...


 * I agree this is just a fruitless and seemingly never-ending battle, and really isn't fair to users of our persuassion (who like you say are backed up by the conventions) who could be spending more time adding encyclopedic content rather than reverting this kind of regressive agenda-ridden vandalism.


 * Are there more users who abide by the conventions such as us? If so, could we indeed put together some kind of movement/amendment via the Village pump to make this kind of vandalism more punishable?


 * I'll leave you with that thought, but should you ever need back-up for this kind of work, do please get in touch. Many thanks, Jhamez84 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, thanks very much for your revert to the Shaw and Crompton article - this added weight to the cause and has meant the page is now protected by an admin! Thanks very much - certainly worth messaging you with my support! Jhamez84 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandals or cranks?
The antics of these vandals/cranks reminds me of the Tennessee "Inherit The Wind" court case in 1925. Do these people have nothing better to do with their lives?

I cannot say that I was ever in favour of the newly-created counties of 1974. The county of Clwyd, for example, was only an afterthought (the original intention was for Gwynedd to cover the whole of the north of Wales) and was never more than a "Micky Mouse" county. Avon, Cleveland ... not to mention those Metropolitan counties (or should that be Socialist Republics?) could only have been devised by civil servants! But we simply cannot deny that they ever existed!

I believe that the second major reorganisation, in 1996, produced a far better (but maybe not perfect) solution.

To return to the pre-1974 administrative counties would be akin to reinstating the old "rotton-boroughs" for parliamentary elections. Since the Industrial Revolution there have been major shifts in population in the UK and in many cases the "traditional" counties, some dating back to the Middle Ages, had become totally meaningless.

Now, ever time I see the word "traditional county" I hear the words from "Fiddler on the Roof"! Tradition, Tradition! Tradition! --maelor 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No-one is denying they ever existed! I don't want a return to the pre-1974 administrative situation either. I am more than happy for current and former administrative areas to be listed in an encyclopædia. All I want is for administrative areas to be detached from people's notion of geography, and for the ancient county system to be used as the primary reference frame for popular geography. No more, no less! Owain (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:World Heritage Sites in Scotland
Template:World Heritage Sites in Scotland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Astrotrain 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

reversion
Hi - good to 'meet' you. I am however, concerned about the total reversion, without explanation, of a reasonable edit, that merely recorded controversy. Please let's discuss. - Ballista 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't say to which article I refer - it is the RSPCA article, in case you didn't know. Having received no response, I'm copying this to the relevant 'talk' page, in case you didn't see it. - Ballista 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)- Ballista 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Union of the Crowns
Thank you for your good opinion of this item. To say the previous entry was bad would be heaping too much praise. I've had a quick look at the Acts of Union, and with so many of these Wikipedia pieces it reads as if a hundred tailors have been at work. Most of my spare time at present is being spent either in creating or in improving articles on the Wars of Independence. My work on the Union of the Crowns was in fulfilment of an overdue promise. I will, when time allows, look more closely at the Parliamentary Union of 1707; though my gut reaction is that this is likely to be a dangerous enterprise, as there are too many people simply not interested in historical objectivity.

I can assure you that I bear you no personal animosity. I have, I should also stress, no difficulty with people arguing against a position I may have taken on any particular question; but I do resent what I consider to be unreasoned intellectual sabotage. Rcpaterson 09:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I need your assistance and others in the Scottish Wikipedia community. This piece is being murdered by an oddball.Rcpaterson 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What a nice personal attack. Scots business only?  What a great POV consensus.  Lord Loxley 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lloegr meaning 'Lost Lands'?
I'm sorry, but do you have a really reliable source for the claim that Lloegr means 'The Lost Lands'? It bears no obvious relation to any Welsh way I know of of saying 'Lost Lands'. I've heard the claim before, but my impression is that it's just a romantic fiction. garik 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes for England places
Hi! How are you doing? OK I hope! Just writing to ask you for a little clarification.... A point has been made on the Shaw and Crompton talk page about the use of the term "Nation" in the Infoboxes for England places. Apparently this is not the correct useage of the term, and should be changed to "Country". I'm not sure if you have or had a hand in the creation of the infoboxes (or where I may find access to them?), but wanted to clarify with you if the term "Nation" and its use in the infoboxes has gone through any kind of consensus or guidelines in this respect, or if you know anything more about this.

Hope you can help, thanks, Jhamez  84  21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * --I've since located the infobox, and changed the term nation for Constituent country. Hope that makes sense! Jhamez  84  23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Respectful Request about Union of the Crowns
I understand that you wish to voice your own say in all articles of Scottish relation, but please discuss your disagreements before plunging into edit wars. Point out your disagreement first and then we can work out the kinks and idiosyncrasies, or other unbecoming attributes. I'm willing to hear you out, but only through the talk page discussion. Lord Loxley 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you understand the artful concept of diplomacy, because Wikipedia is a community of collaboration to compile a NPOV presentation of all things--including those Scottish topics you lurk on and fight over. Lord Loxley 11:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the point is that I am willing to see what information you have to add to the article. I'd rather not have my contributions be stricken by a lurker simply because you don't like me or whatever personal reason you can concoct. Please, contribute positively to the article or butt-out and mind your business. Lord Loxley 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland Article
I got your message on the Scotland Talk page about "state", "conflict laws" etc. The point that I have made and can be verified by just going to the UN website under the International Law Commission. The UN is the holder and promulgator of international law. It has been expressedly given the power to do this ( a role handed down with the demise of the League of Nations). It defines "state" for the purposes of International Law. That is the definition we should use when talking about international law. The "conflict" laws also uses the term "state", but does so for a peculiarity of English Common Law. That is a private law definition and cannot be generalized outside of that sphere. ( It is also important to point out that the article cited in the Scotland article has a footnote which clarifies this point and specifically states the diference and Scotland's position and why it is a "state" per conflict of laws.)--Gary Joseph 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting
Howdy, per your comment on my User Talk Page, I'm fairly sure it was a one-off mistake (or at least one of a handful) while I was splitting the Singer-stubs into newly created categories, but to be on the safe side I'll quickly parse through the UK-singer-stubs. Thanks for the heads-up! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I've reverted your change of icon on the template. Per our Fair Use Policy, fair use images can't be used for decoration in templates, especially when a free-use image'll do the job. Thanks again! :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 14:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

SOCA
Why have you removed the proper UK police infobox from the SOCA article? SOCA is not strictly a police organisation but it is certainly intimately concerned with law enforcement in the UK. Many of its personnel have the powers of a constable and it is the successor to police organisations. I don't want to get into a revert war with you over this article so I would like to know why you want to deviate from the standard for UK police articles? David Newton 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Robertson
Hello Mais_oui!. I note you have added back the Category- SNP Politicans to the article of The Right Honourable Lord Robertson of Port Ellen KT, GCMG, FRSA, PC. However I do not believe this is appropiate for his Lordship. Given that his Lordship was only a member of the SNP between the ages of 16 and 17, he could hardly be described as an "SNP politican". Let me know what you think before I revert you. Thanks Astrotrain 11:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)