User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 15

The Border
Now that's a damn good idea for an article! I'll leave the Deacon to fill in the historical stuff and see what I can come up with on modern things. Thanks for letting me know, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

South Ayrshire/Ayr images
Greetings, Mais Oui!, having noticed you around a lot on Scottish articles I would like to ask your opinion on the following; I have taken a few decent quality photographs of the Heads of Ayr and the Carrick Hills recently and was wondering if you think they may be able to benefit related artices. I would of course be willing to make them free license etc, but would appreciate your opinion on if you think such images might be relevant. I noticed the Ayr article is rather poor photographically, and feel an image from the seafront looking back towards the seaward fringe of the town might be good. I'd be very grateful for any response. Yours, The Geography Elite 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:86.129.215.193
I removed this anon user's comment from your user page; on the face of it it doesn't look like persistent vandalism though? --Guinnog 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. It makes sense now; that actual IP's contributions don't show vandalism, that I can see. --Guinnog 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 8
Thanks for fixing my mistake at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 8! I nominated Template:Scenes From A Movie for deletion but then Firefox truncated my text area and removed over 4 000 characters. It happens repeatedly, but I'm still not used to it. --Iamunknown 20:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI
I just placed a category you created (didn't you?), Category:Place of birth missing, at CFD (here). Since you created it, I thought you might be able to provide some good reasons for it to stay in the discussion. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

CfD on your category
seen this? Johnbod 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Ferguson
I can see that wiki-linking a country where a people should be linked is commonly done, however, I would ask you to cite the policy to which you are refer. If, in fact, you believe it better to include two links to Scotland and none to Scottish people as you are contending through your contributions, what of the common practice of linking only the first instance of an article reference? 67.101.243.74 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have yet to respond. I would like to change the article so that "Craig Ferguson is a Scottish actor," etc., links to Scottish people and the link to Scotland remains in the Glasgow, Scotland place where it is now.  Please let me know why you disagree, if you continue to do so, and I will go ahead and remove the second reference to Scotland and find a way to link to Scottish people later in the article. 67.101.243.74 08:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said about Scottish links has been said, but let me know if I can be of any further assistance over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit at James I of England
Hi there. I noticed this edit you made at James I of England, and I was puzzled by your edit summary "Wikipedia not a free advertising service". As far as I can see, what you removed (and it is not really clear what you removed, as you combined this with a copyedit and linking edit,making it difficult to see what has changed), were notes discussing different history books on the topic. Do you really think that is advertising? Carcharoth 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carcharoth 10:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming and codified consensus
Please refrain from this, there is an overwhelming consensus not to use any flags in the infobox.

Your edit summaries are somewhat consistently misleading on this matter which concerns me. Jhamez84 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly will not have to argue my, your or anybodies case at this article's page. What I can do, inline with policy, is bring your edits to the wider editting community, particularly those interested in the United Kingdom, and the UK infobox place, and, assuming you won't conform to consensus, have the editting community revert this kind of contribution.


 * You cite WP:FLAGCRUFT when you want the Union Flag removed, but state "image" for putting the Saltire in every possible article you can find. It's unacceptable, distruptive and POV, and the community will swiftly agree here. Jhamez84 11:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see
Template:Scottish Cities, the mysterious IP warrior has returned. Kanaye

James I "citation-needed" tag
Since you have tagged with a "citation-needed" tag a sentence which has a citation, could I ask what you require? I'm sensing that you disagree with the sentiment expressed rather than its citedness, in which case, would a change to "relatively successful" or "successful in his own terms", to leave room for dissent (though some is acknowledged in the note), meet your objection? I have cited Croft's summary of the recent re-evaluations of James as a convenient way of referencing a general point for which one might otherwise have needed to note a list of quotations from historians; but Croft goes on to devote more space to James's rule in Scotland than most general histories and biographies, and her verdict is that he was successful. I should add that I did not choose Croft out of the blue; her book was well reviewed by peers and she does not come into the category of popular historians. qp10qp 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Extract from a review by John D. Cramsie and Catherine T. MacArthur:

"Beyond James’ personality and style, Croft helps us appreciate how much his Scottish kingship centred on the expansion of royal power: simultaneously subordinating the nobility and drawing them into a ruling partnership (with the rising literate laymen), fashioning a workable royal supremacy over the reformed kirk (including the reintroduction of bishops), and attempting to expand royal authority across the ‘Highland line’. What emerges from her synthesis of work by historians like Roger Mason, Alan MacDonald, Michael Lynch, Julian Goodare, and Wormald is a Scottish king with a practical sense of his imperium – the claim to unchallenged royal authority in secular, religious, and territorial matters – entirely in keeping with the pretensions of his Stewart predecessors and Tudor cousins. We are far better equipped to understand James in his three kingdoms after 1603 when we understand his evolving imperial kingship in Scotland."

qp10qp 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

England Society (Keele University)
The box added when considering for deletion clearly states that YOU have to give reasons why it should be deleted and the page owner is free to remove that box. You have failed to give any reasons at all.(Atraxus 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Note: I have reinstated the AFD tag and posted an appropriate notice on their Talk page. Regan123 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I have reverted the mentioned change and explained myself on my user page. (Atraxus 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

List of oldest universities in continuous operation
Is there some logic to putting the locations of UK universities as "England" and "Scotland" rather than "UK" (with a more-widely recognised flag) apart from dislike between the English and Scots? The flags and countries shown are all the modern locations of the Universities, and do not always correspond to the country where the University was founded.

Rnt20 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP 1.0
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to nominate anything for inclusion in any of the 1.0 releases. I think the articles are chosen primarily on the basis of their being of sufficient importance that they are, as it were, most likely to be required in any standard encyclopedia. This includes most of the countries, major cities, REALLY important people, and the like. I do know that there are various criteria for inclusion in the various "releases", and that on the most recent CD most of the articles which had made FA by the time the CD was being prepared were included. Beyond that, I'm really not sure. User:Walkerma is much more familiar with the process than I am, and he could probably give you better information. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. John Carter 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Scotland
Hey; thanks for helping out above - every little helps! Since you passed by and seen the Portal, might I enquire about your opinion on it so far? Do you spot anything that needs to be improved (and in what way), or added/removed?

If you do think of anything, please raise it at Portal talk:Scotland, where Daniel or I will be around to answer it.

Kind regards, anthony [ review ] 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

British Magicians
A user has been depopulating without any concensus or discussion the subcats (English, Scottish and N. Irish) for British Magicians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_magicians

I believe you are up on these things on Wikipedia so your involvementt would be appreciated.

81.145.240.193 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aschaffenburg
Please let me know where this long established precedent is documented, or was agreed. I need to know the difference between consensus and personal preference in this case, and so far I regularly see changes in both directions. I want to know which group is in the right, and which one is not, so I can know when to revert. Thanks for any reply. Notinasnaid 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reply, rather than reverting without comment. Thank you. Notinasnaid 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at Craig Ferguson
Please do remember that no one owns articles, and that others will edit them. It is expected without exception that content reverts will be explained and discussed on the article's talk page, and will not be made with uncivil edit summaries or false claims of vandalism. Please discuss the matter and seek dispute resolution if you cannot agree rather than continuing to edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

History of golf
Hello, could you please help me out with this, Talk:History of golf. thanks! Bu b0y2007 05:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Danilo Di/di Luca
Hi. Could we please use Talk:Danilo Di Luca to find an agreeable solution to the spelling of The Killer's real name before reverting and changing this around. Revert wars are good for no one. :) SeveroTC 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American category result
Bonsoir Mais oui! Thanks to your message I contributed to the Anglo-American debate. I would have been pleasantly surprised, to say the least, if we had won it, however I am a bit perturbed not so much by the adjudicators' decision (without a summary) as by the adjudicators themselves. Or rather one of them in particular: Setanta747. You are greeted on his User Page by bold proclamations that he is proud to be from Northern Ireland and of being British. In other words he's an Ulster Loyalist of some sort. Each to his own opinion, and all that, but isn't that just a wee bit biased for an adjudicator on this issue? I admit to not knowing much about these things, but shouldn't someone neutral be assigned to judge this and similar issues. So 50% of the "decision" was a foregone conclusion. I freely admit to being a patriotic Welshman and so would not expect to be asked to judge the matter, and I'm sure all hell would break loose from certain quarters if I did (understandably). I don't suppose there's much we can do about it now, just wondering if you knew of this or have previous experience of Procedure in these matters (I do most of my work in the peace and tranquility of cy.wikipedia and am not used to all this!). Regards, Enaidmawr 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Stewart & David Coulthard
Hi. Of course Stewart and Coulthard are Scottish, as is acknowledged in the opening paragraph of the articles. I hope that you'd acknowledge that they are also British. The reason for the British flag and the wording of the opening para is to do with the way Formula One works as a sport. Like the Olympics, where you will not see any Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish results listed, the FIA, the governing body for motorsport specifies that the nationality of a driver is determined by his or her passport: Scottish (English, Welsh etc) drivers compete under the Union Flag and their nationalities are given as 'British'. This has, as you can imagine, been discussed many times, but the consensus of WikiProject Formula One has always been that this is the correct way to do it. I hope that's helpful - you are of course free to challenge the consensus, but since the approach is used on all UK nationals, I would ask you to discuss it at WP:F1 to change the consensus, rather than altering those two articles. Apologies for taking up so much space on your talk page. Cheers. 4u1e 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't revert again until we've discussed this. 4u1e 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraph does of course make it quite clear that both are Scottish. WP:MOSBIO says only that "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)". I don't think (I may be wrong) you can be a citizen or national of Scotland (this may of course change fairly shortly :-)). Even if you can, you would also be a citizen or national of the United Kingdom, so I don't believe we are contradicting WP:MOSBIO. I will open a discussion on this at the WP:F1 talk page. I hope you will be happy to discuss it there and accept the consensus. I'm happy if you also want to discuss it at any other forum on Wikipedia - just let me know where. Cheers. 4u1e 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will copy your response to the WP:F1 talk page. I hope we can continue the discussion there. 4u1e 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have appreciated an attempt to reach consensus before you changed more articles. 4u1e 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that this is obviously a sensitive topic for you. I apologise if I have hurt your feelings, but please try to keep the debate calm as I am finding your appraoch to this rather aggressive. I have to admit it didn't occur to me, or any of the others involved in many other discussions on this topic, to raise the issue at WP:SCOTLAND, the latest form of words was actually thrashed out on the Eddie Irvine talk page in relation to Northern Irish drivers, where at least one editor from WP:Northern Ireland was involved. As I said above, I'm happy for the debate to be as wide as it needs to be. Would you like me to post a request for them to join in at the various national Wikiprojects involved, or would you prefer to do it? 4u1e 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One compromise has already been suggested at WP:F1, it would be useful if you could contribute to the discussion. 4u1e 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting articles to standard format agreed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One Isn't vandalism in any shape or form. It is impossible to hold the nationality "scottish" It is not recognised by the UK government, the EU, the UN, the MSA or the FIA. Posting a test 2 warning on my talk page is completely pathetic. It's a pity you have nothing better to do M100 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're an experienced editor, so you'll be aware that you have twice broken WP:3RR tonight. I'm not going to report it, but please consider discussion rather than continuous reverting. 4u1e 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last revert at Jackie Stewart, none of us are denying that Stewart is Scottish (Ian Dalziel is Scottish too, by the way). The infobox on the page is an F1 infobox. The sport of F1 categorises drivers by nationality, and in the case of the UK, it is done by the FIA, the world governing body, at the level of the UK, not of England/Scotland/Wales etc. That is essentially why the project agreed to do it this way. I am disappointed that you do not wish to discuss this with other editors. 4u1e 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Arms
"... but I really wish the two of you would stop back-and-forthing"

I hope that you do not mean Doops and I, because we appear to be in total agreement! It is the IP numpties who are acting the fool, not the known and respected editors. --Mais oui! 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am dreadfully sorry if I misread the situation. I admit I did not research it in detail. Let me know if I can be any help. --Guinnog 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've protected it meantime. I really don't have any strong opinion about the actual issue being argued; but I hate to see the page being fought over like that. Makes the history really difficult to read apart from anything else. --Guinnog 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Thanks for just wandering around the articles I edit and reverting them. Peter Green is not English, by any stretch of the imagination, despite being born in London. Being born in a stable does not make you a horse - ask Jesus. It might be more adult to stick to subjects you know something about. No discussion was held on the project pages of the Scottish wikipedia community on the Scottish drivers, because no member of those projects contributed to the articles. The relevant project is the F1 project, please try and discuss constructively there rather than reverting the concensus of many months' effort, and many editors' input. Bretonbanquet 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'm glad you deleted that previous little edit.. that was a hell of a leap to make, and in NO WAY what I intended, as I'm sure you will have gathered. That kind of accusation lowers the tone in every sense. This is absolutely NOT about ethnicity or race. Bretonbanquet 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Scottish topics / Template:Scotland-related topics
Hi Mais oui,
 * ''(moved Template:Scotland-related topics to Template:Scottish topics over redirect: rv pointless, undiscussed move)

Sorry to've made a move you felt deserved discussion. I'm not sure, though, that it's pointless, per the rationale I provided; perhaps it also would've been a good idea to've suggested the potential distinction between "Scottish" and "Scotland-related" (i.e. between "Xish" and "X-related")...? Yours, David (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nine Per Cent Growth Party
Hi. This party is no less notable than any other small party that contested the scottish parliament election. There are pages about other equaly small parties that hardly got any votes. Please explain why 9% is significantly less notable than these other parties. This party is mentioned by other referenced sources. It is not an orphaned article. Please explain why you added notability tag, because I think it should be removed. thanks Willy turner 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament election
Do you know what on earth has happened here? The summary says that the deletion was made by User:Conscious, but that Admin has not made a contribution since the 5th May. --Mais oui! 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion log Scottish Parliament election, 2007


 * No. But are you sure that deletions shows up in the contribution list? I deleted a redirect called Little Ships (plural of Little Ship) and it does not show up in my contributuion log --Philip Baird Shearer 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an explanation here User talk:Conscious. Seems that a vandal cracked the admin Conscious's password --Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

British / United Kingdom adjectives
Hi Mais Oui

Glad to see at today' CfD that we agree on using United Kingdom as an adjective instead of the frequently POV and/or inaccurate word British.

What do you think of applying this to the Category:British people hierarchy, which appears to be where it is most widely used? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SPGB Debates
Whoops, sorry, I missed that it was closed. Thanks.--Red Deathy 07:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot
Hi Mais, long time no speak but I'm kind of back from a long wikibreak (hopefully). I see you've had some discussion with Alex about his bot. Please check out this  this thread and add the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. Looks like there will be a daily set of results to check.

There are a lot of false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output (well, those who know regexp can - us mortals will have to just think of suitable terms to search for). Already I can see Isle of Man and Nova Scotia in there !! Anyway, I've added the first results here, please review and update the New articles page if you get a chance. I'll get onto some of them shortly I hope.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)  This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. I'll add notification of this to all WP:SCO participants in due course. Cheers. -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Mais. I note your concern about the subpage but that was only a temporary measure until we can get enough eyes on the results page. Reading the various bot pages (and a bit of reading between the lines because Alex hasn't got back to me yet) I think it works along the lines of:


 * bot does nightly run, adds figures to the log page explaining the calculation of results, and adds the articles found to the results page.


 * It is then expected that Portal and Project participants will manually transfer the results and use them in whatever fashion they see fit. In this case, Alex just transcluded the results page himself to our page, generating the list, warts and all. I merely deleted the transclusion and substed to the new page. When things are running as they should be, the bot will not be transcluding the results, but all our eagle eyed members will pull out only the proper articles and add them manually before the next results overwrite them. Because it looks like a 24 hour turnaround cycle, I'm keen to get this heavily watched ASAP. I hope to get all the notifications done today, then I'll delete the sub page. Hope that makes sense.


 * I did also note the Portal was now featured, you deserve mighty congratulations for your efforts there. I was disappointed to see the DYK section has gone, which is surprising. I think I'm right in saying most, or all, of the other National featured portals have a DYK section, and part of the portal concept is to be similar to the main page. No doubt this was all hammered out in some discussion, but I've not been able to find it. No big deal I suppose, but it would be nice to see it back.


 * The DYK list at WP:SCO is a bit light, more stuff on my returning todo list :) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - Time for a talk page archive perhaps? :) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

English Reformation
I notice that this article has recently been classified B. Having looked at the criteria I am moved to ask what gaps there are, what errors there are and what improvements are specifically thought of as being needed. The article at present draws from a range of high quality sources. I am not sure what improvements are thought necessary; though I am very happy to look at it again.Roger Arguile 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Mcconnell and your comment on my talk page
Your comment, "Never intersect your replies with the points made by other Users. It is extremely rude, as it implies that you have some kind of precedence in the discussion...I strongly advise you to go back and comment in the standard fashion." I've just had a look at Etiquette and it does say "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is 'generally' a bad idea," that and the fact that you seem really upset about it means I'm going to go back and reformat my comments. I was doing it to help everyone to follow the arguments, there isn't any need to be so unpleaseant/aggressive, man. Relax. I look forward to your comments. Tom 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First minister
Sorry for the silly edit war. But as a lawyer-trained I like to get the technicalities right.. I suspect he'll 'kiss hands' sometime in the next 48 hours.--Docg 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert it again
But I would sure like to see what evidence you have other than suspicion. Wikidan829 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to contributions, this IP did 1 edit on Dec 1, 2006, and started again on May 14, 2007. Mallimak hasn't contributed since October 16, 2006. Where is the proof? Wikidan829 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare
Has William Shakespeare really lost GA status? If yes, can you please put more background on the talk page? AndyJones 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet Secretary
Thanks for your message- I will have a look at that article and it certainly needs some work on the Scottish side! Some of the other articles are now partly redundant with the changes and I will be looking at updating the department lists etc. In some cases, such as the old Minister for Justice article, it is a case of simply renaming to Cabinet Secretary of Justice. Others will require new articles (and the old defunct departments and offices updated as necessary). Thunderwing 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk o' Field
Yep, I spotted it on the bot list and thought it was too good to pass over - the system is working. Some nice juicy DYK stuff to pluck out there. I'll apply the thinking cap to try and distil it down to a decent length. Feel free to nominate it yourself if you come up with something nice and concise in the meantime. Thanks also for adding the categories, that's always the bit I mess up on - but that's why we've got Cat-Guru's like you around :) BTW, I take it "Murder in Scotland" is a new one you're going to create - as they say in Taggart, "there's been a murder..." -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Vernon Pirie
You made some changes to the above article, including a personal reference to me in the history reminding me to categorise articles. I would have thought that the "Work in progress" description that I put in the history when I saved what was clearly a far from finished article would have been enough to alert you and others that it was work in progress to which i would return as soon as possible. There's little point painting a house until the walls have been built!--George Burgess 11:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian Stark
You removed the British equestrian Category - Ian Stark didn't compete for Scotland he rode for Britain and the union jack. So put it back. - Culnacréann   20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Burns's
Look at the discussion I started, don't just revert. Burns's official site shows it as Burns's. Wiki definition of Apostrophe states it should be Burns's. Please state your logic for thinking your opinion is more accurate than that of those two sources. Please answer in the discussion section of Burns. I will be putting it back to Burns's in the next day or so. MrMarmite 07:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish eugenicists
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: empty --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been reported
This is a courtesy notice letting you know I've reported you for violating the 3RR rule in the article Thatcher (disambiguation). If you care to defend yourself you may do so here. - Throw 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Caution
You and Throw are both unblocked. You and Throw are both cautioned not to indulge in such editing behaviour again. Nick 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)