User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 10

"Compulsory Education Act"
You're quite right, I'll change it. Your edit got lost in there when I was trying to draft a compromise version. --Guinnog 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)



CFM for national subcats of Category:British female MPs
See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2. --BrownHairedGirl 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanadalism: desist now
You made a nomination to delete Category:British_female_MPs, but in doing so, you overwrote the existing CFM (see above). This appears to be an attempt to disrupt the CFM process, and I am reporting you at WP:ANI. If you persist before other admins intervene, I will if necessary take immediate action myself. --BrownHairedGirl 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that at Removal_of_Category:British_female_MPs I have placed a warning, questioning the good faith in which you made this nomination. I would welcome a reply to my warning note, but please do not remove my warning. --BrownHairedGirl 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: acting quickly so that other comments would not be misplaced before the reversion, failed to notice that your CFD did not overwrite the CFM, just had the same link. Sorry for the mistake.
 * However, as per comments elsewhere, your CFD nomination is very strange: it's a valid nomination, but why on earth nominate for deletion a category for which you created subcats and helped to populate? And why do so now, other than to disrupt the CFM? --BrownHairedGirl 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made zero "vandalism" edits. You though have made a crystal clear vandalism edit:. Removing an entire CFD nomination is a crystal clear act of vandalism. I have not made one single edit that could possibly be described as "vandalism". --Mais oui! 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vindictive block
Malicious block. --Mais oui! 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give me more information, Mais oui. It's not clear what's happening ATM, but I'll happily look at it if you can give me diffs or something solid. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

has acted in an utterly disgraceful fashion. She removed an entire CFD nomination that I made earlier today, and has since made personal attacks on me; told foul lies; and tried her utmost to disrupt that CFD discussion. She is unfit to be an Admin.

She is far, far, far, far, far too involved in this situation to make a sane, rational judgement, and has made a very grave error in throwing her weight around. In short: it is a malicious block. --Mais oui! 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mais oui - I'm talking to her on her talk page atm. Just wanted to keep you informed. Syrthiss 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the discusion on BrownHairedGirl's talk page, she agreed to the unblock. Now, would you two mind if I combined the two discussions on the CFD page and made my own comment about it?  I'll make sure that the links all point to the correct discussion etc etc.  Is that reasonable? Syrthiss 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have once again tried to disrupt the CFD process, by renaming a pre-existing CFM so that links from the category pages and elsewhere for the deletion of subcats of Cat:British female MPs point instead to a new CFD created by you. You had also deleted the comments I left above, explaining what was happening.

I had already reported your behaviour, and in view of your latest attempts to disrupt CFD -- se these edits, I have put a block on you.

In doing this, I am unsure whether I have followed all the correct procedures. However, repeated disruption of a CFM is vandalism, and I will leave it to other administrators to decide whether and when to lift the block.

I geatly regret having to do this. Why can you not just discuss a CFM without trying to disrupt it? --BrownHairedGirl 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "renaming a pre-existing CFM " - that is a plain, foul lie. Show us the diff. It is you that re-named my CFD!!! --Mais oui! 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Why can you not just discuss a CFM without trying to disrupt it?" - you cheeky wee *****. I have made no attempt whatsoever to "disrupt" your CFD - show us the diff. In fact, until about 10 minutes ago, I had not even commented on your childish CFD, let alone "disrupt" it. --Mais oui! 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mais oui, you did try to disrupt. You tried to hide the CFM by creating another one with the same name, and when that was sorted, you tried renaming the earlier one so that the links pointed to the new one you had created.  Effectively, you were trying to hide a CFM you disliked, and your latest attempt to as what prompted me to block.  --BrownHairedGirl 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here
First I am "blocked" by BrownHairedGirl, but now it says that I have been "blocked" by User:Redvers. But what really, really pisses me off is that the "reason" given is (I kid you not): Right, I am not a mind-reader: I am due an actual reason for this utterly inexplicable block. --Mais oui! 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Adds up to about 24 hours, which seems enough. But calm and reflection is urged."


 * You should be unblocked. Can you verify for me that you are?  Maybe try to leave a message on my talk page? Syrthiss 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I cannot, because BHG has "blocked" me again! I did at no time log out, or use an IP address, I have been logged in the whole time. Take your time if you like: I will just piss off over to no:Wiki or somesuch while you guys sort this mess out. --Mais oui! 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I could see, the block was removed before I got back to it. If it wasn't, I hope that someone will get to it now. --BrownHairedGirl 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here II?
OK, now I am really, really confused. Now, apparently, I am "blocked" by BrownHairedGirl for (and I kid you not):
 * "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mais oui!". The reason given for Mais oui!'s block is: "Disruption of CFM"."

Before this gets any more surreal, will someone please explain what the heck is going on? --Mais oui! 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Its just the autoblock. Let me go try to clear it. :( Syrthiss 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm hoping that got it. Lets try this again (and my apologies for not remembering the autoblock... I can explain that in more detail later if you would like scary details about how wiki software handles blocks). Syrthiss 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * huzzah! my apologies again.  now, do you object to me refactoring the discussions into one discussion on the cfd page?  I'm hoping to try and sort it all out and make everyone as happy as I can at this particular time before I'm forced to run off to dinner which I'm late for. :/ Syrthiss 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do as you see fit. No apology necessary (from you anyway). Smaklig måltid. --Mais oui! 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If an apology is necessary from me, then I offer it immediately. I reduced the block as I felt that a week was punishment, but 24 hours was a good cooling-off period from whatever had gone on. If you disagree with that, then I truly apologise. Please let me know if you have issues with my editing or my admin decisions and I will attempt to rectify them. ➨  ЯEDVERS  23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you're still blocked. -- Pilotguy (roger that) 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

British female MPs category for discussion err discussion
Hi there. As someone who had commented earlier today at CFD for British female MPs, I wanted to inform you that there was a later nomination in the day regarding the same related categories and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to view the newly refactored discussion. Both original nominations and their discussions are preserved. We can try to sort out the best decision regarding these categories if you choose not to clarify, but I'd appreciate it if you could. Thanks very much for your understanding. Syrthiss 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Category:Organizations based in Australia with royal patronage
Mais Oui, are you OK with the renaming of Category:Organizations based in Australia with royal patronage to Category:Organisations based in Australia with royal patronage ('s' instead of 'z')? If you agree, I think it's easier to speedy move it, as you created it. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 07:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Glasgow, Scotland
It is not patronizing to say Glasgow, Scotland. Look at the disambiguation page for the number of places (founded by escapees?) which are called Glasgow. It is rather conceited and parochial to say that Glasgow (Scotland) can stand by itself but, presumably, want or be happy that the other places sharing the smae name should be distinguished. Even in the context of an article about Andrew Marr, a semi-professional Scotsman, it is simple good manners to be precise and not leave the reader having to deduce. Wikipedia is not Scottish property...it is a big world. Pliny 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)