User talk:Scotire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cawdor (Roman Fort). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Ben MacDui 20:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute. see photos of the fort. see map of the fort in N.L.S. Scotire (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

re Cawdor (Roman Fort): Revision history, edit summuary - 20:02, 5 August 2013‎ Ben MacDui (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,716 bytes) (-182)‎ . . (Reverted 3 edits by Scotire (talk): Please stop this pernicious behaviour - "Nairnshire" is obsolete. (TW)) (undo)

Perhaps you both should take up your arguments with the Highland Council, who has a road-sign "Welcome to Nairnshire" (wikimedia.commons File:A939 at Dava, Nairnshire.jpg) Scotire (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you both should take up your arguments with CANMORE, and with the Ordnance Survey Department of Scotland who show the fort location in the map at Ordnance Survey of Nairnshire OS Indexes to the County Series maps, Scotland 1854-1886. http://maps.nls.uk/os/view/?sid=74400919#zoom=3&lat=6724&lon=9108&layers=BT Scotire (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can use a map from 100 years ago or a photo as evidence, but I do not intend to get into the content dispute you are having. I am merely here to enforce behavioural norms. There is a consensus that your insistence on advocating for "traditional counties" is disruptive in its current form. If you continue to do it you will continue to be blocked. Your next block, should it be necessary, will be an indefinite one. I strongly counsel you to change your approach and make your arguments in article talk rather than directly editing articles. I am reluctant to block you from editing but I shall definitely do so if required to prevent disruption to our project. Please think about what I have said. Thanks. --John (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Correcting incorrect information in wikipedia articles is not having a dispute. Wester Galantry is in Nairnshire according to the Registers of Scotland. Refer http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/Cawdor.html "data produced by the Registers of Scotland", 30 July 2013. This is not information from 100years ago. The photo is sufficient evidence produced by the Highland Council. Ben Macdui is continually deleting references on Wikipedia when Wikipedia is requesting references for their articles. It is Ben Macdui who should be blocked for his deleterious actions. Scotire (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The photo of "Welcome to Nairnshire" was taken on 24 January 2012 - quite recent proof that "Nairnshire" is not obsolete - according to Ben Macdui. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2786256 Scotire (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
ref statement by Ben Macdui (above) that "Nairnshire" is obsolete. I would refer you to the news release of August 2012 regarding "Nairnshire" http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/2012/August/2012-08-02-01.htm . It is about time that Ben Macdui should be made answerable for his actions. Scotire (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotire, the problem here is not whether or not some of your individual edits have merit - some of them do. Nor is it your interest in traditional counties per se. I used the name of a long-gone (in the sense that it is no longer a correct postal address) Scots "shire" in a recent edit myself. The problem is, in my view, that this is a project that requires collaborative work and an awareness of what an encyclopedia should try to convey to its readers. Your edits seem to suggest that you have a very weak understanding of both. Taken in isolation some of your points above may be valid, but you are going to continue to have problems here unless you learn how to work collaboratively, take care to ensure your edits are properly wikified and above all that they are aimed at properly informing readers without giving undue weight or prominence to any particular issue or point of view. Ben MacDui 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


I am not giving "undue weight or prominence to any particular issue or point of view", but clearly recording a Shire and/or County name. It does not bother me which. I see that you have recorded "County of Nairn" for which I wholly agree, and would prefer that all the Shires of Scotland would be recorded as counties. However, I find that Community Councils prefer to use "Shire" as in West Nairnshire Community Council and East Nairnshire Community Council, etc. Scotire (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penninghame Parish, Wigtownshire concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penninghame Parish, Wigtownshire, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thankyou. The article is now "Penninghame, Wigtownshire". Scotire (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


August 2013[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cullen, Moray, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ben MacDui 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I've blocked your account indefinitely. I am very disappointed that you have apparently not learned from your previous blocks. If you want to contest your block you should post {{unblock|your reason here}} ~~~~ but you should read WP:GAB first. Tell us how you will avoid causing disruption by adding old-style geographical names to articles. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Vain blocks[edit]

Aye, but you're not blocked on Wikishire. Visitor from Wikishire (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penninghame Parish, Wigtownshire concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penninghame Parish, Wigtownshire, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sutherland: Civil Parishes[edit]

I have completely rewritten this as it gave completely false information on the number of parishes in Sutherland, linked to the wrong map on the Old Roads site, and had a mistyped total population of 30,706 instead of 13,706 taken from a source of unknown reliability (british-towns.net) which was apparently NOT based on civil parish data (may have been based on wards and therefore include Edderton, Ross-shire, but even then the figure was apparently a few hundred out).--PeterR (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)