User talk:MacRusgail

I have enjoyed some of my time on this website, but it is not a good use of my time. I am spending the summer creating literature, rather than wasting my time with the hidebound.

Tapadh leibh a chairdean - thank you friends.

As for my non-friends, and the nuisance makers (you know who you are) - "Dy jig Skeab Lome ort hene, er dty hiollagh, er dty hlaynt, er dty chooid as er dty chloan!"

Speedy deletion nomination of Sweere-arse

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sweere-arse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/sweir. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh^Talk 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Good for you, but you are mistaken as usual. The text of the entry is taken from Charles MacKay's A Dictionary of Lowland Scots (1888), which had been out of copyright for a very long time. And listed very clearly in the reference section of the article. Not cut and paste from the DSL website - next time, I recommend taking more time to read each article you propose to get rid of. (I believe that 1888 is roughly a century before the first website was set up.)

For your information -

https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich/dictionaryoflowl00mackrich_djvu.txt

I actually typed the entry up manually from hard copy. Furthermore, MacKay refers to a third work, Jamieson's Dictionary, which pre-dates the invention of the internet by a century and several decades.

Maybe you need to be a little less hasty in your deletionism, but I think we both know your real reason for doing this.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. Don't expect me to reply promptly please, I have a life offline.

Nomination of Sweere-arse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sweere-arse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweere-arse (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bonnie Dodge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bonnie Dodge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Dodge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jbh^Talk 14:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Go away and stop harassing me. You're a bully and a stalker.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen and NeilN: I believe MacRusgail has been warned about personal attacks and he seems insensitive to the concepts of notability. I regret he has not been able to carry on a civil discussion nor has he ever done anything other than bluster about being bullied and harassed when the sourcing and notability of one of his articles is brought up. He does not work to improve them or show how then might be improved. I have offered to work with him but he just throws insults. (See User_talk:Jbhunley#Harassment for some examples) At this point it has gone far enough that I would like to request administrative intervention. I am pinging the two of you because you have previously warned him about personal attacks. I know that by making this request that my edits and actions will be examined as well. While I do not believe I have been out of line I accept it is possible I have been since I have been unwilling to allow these attacks to change the way I edit and assess articles. Thank you for your time looking into this matter. Jbh^Talk 17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks. I told you on 25 May that I would block you if you didn't pull in your horns, and specifically if you didn't stop attacking User:Jbhunley. This was after you had made personal attacks such as this. I was sorry to feel obliged to issue such a warning to an oldtimer with a clean block log, but I hoped it would make some impression on you. Apparently it didn't, since I see you above calling Jbhunley names because he issued the standard AfD template that he's obliged to post when he nominates an articles for deletion. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

MacRusgail (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My apologies for a long post.

User:Jbhunley has nominated a number of my articles for deletion after I called him out for not reading a tag on an article, a matter which took me six hours to deal with, when I should have been dealing with offline matters. He has proceeded a sustained campaign against me for months. Far from being an "attacker", I have been away from Wikipedia for weeks on end, while Hunley continues to pursue some kind of vendetta against me. Thus it is being done to me while I have not even been here!

I believe I have every right to consider this a form of stalking/bullying, and I think it is shameful that certain admin appear to be condoning this kind of behaviour. (Which is one of the reasons females continue to be a minority of editors on this website.) If someone follows me around for a sustained period, that is stalking. If someone continues in deliberate behaviour which is obviously upsetting another, and makes no effort to conduct themselves in a different manner, that is bullying. It seems that Bishonen and Neiln clearly believe that "some users are more equal than others", and have no interest in Wikipedia being a website "anyone can edit". In the case of User:Neiln, he has merely acted as Hunley's yes man, making me wonder if he is in fact some kind of sock puppet.

If Jbhunley has a genuine interest in improving wikipedia, he should tag articles with various notices e.g. for inline citations etc. Instead he seems to nominate thousands of articles by glancing at them. This is destructive and detrimental to Wikipedia, and causes obvious annoyance.

Behaviour like Jbhunley's is not allowed on the majority of websites. It is clear that in many cases the only reason that Hunley is aware of the articles in question is that I have edited them at some stage. The number of my articles he has nominated is now up in double figures. In some cases, he has either not read the article, or ignored information in it - e.g. claiming an article based on an 1880s source is copied off the internet. This is merely because I had some involvement in the article at some stage.

It is also painfully clear that Jbhunley has little or no personal knowledge of vast number of articles he nominates every week. And I am not just speaking of my own. Literature and Scottish culture are just two areas in which he appears to be fairly ignorant. (I doubt he has much time to read, given his constant presence online.) There are others that I'm less familiar with personally, and that should be a source of concern.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My apologies for a long post. User:Jbhunley has nominated a number of my articles for deletion after I called him out for not reading a tag on an article, a matter which took me six hours to deal with, when I should have been dealing with offline matters. He has proceeded a sustained campaign against me for months. Far from being an "attacker", I have been away from Wikipedia for weeks on end, while Hunley continues to pursue some kind of vendetta against me. Thus it is being done ''to me'' while I have not even been here! I believe I have every right to consider this a form of stalking/bullying, and I think it is shameful that certain admin ''appear to be condoning'' this kind of behaviour. (Which is one of the reasons females continue to be a minority of editors on this website.) If someone follows me around for a sustained period, that is stalking. If someone continues in ''deliberate'' behaviour which is obviously upsetting another, and makes no effort to conduct themselves in a different manner, that is bullying. It seems that Bishonen and Neiln clearly believe that "some users are more equal than others", and have no interest in Wikipedia being a website "anyone can edit". In the case of User:Neiln, he has merely acted as Hunley's yes man, making me wonder if he is in fact some kind of sock puppet. If Jbhunley has a genuine interest in improving wikipedia, he should ''tag'' articles with various notices e.g. for inline citations etc. Instead he seems to nominate thousands of articles by glancing at them. This is destructive and detrimental to Wikipedia, and causes obvious annoyance. Behaviour like Jbhunley's is not allowed on the majority of websites. It is clear that in many cases the only reason that Hunley is aware of the articles in question is that I have edited them at some stage. The number of my articles he has nominated is now up in double figures. In some cases, he has either not read the article, or ignored information in it - e.g. claiming an article based on an 1880s source is copied off the internet. This is merely because I had some involvement in the article at some stage. It is also painfully clear that Jbhunley has little or no personal knowledge of vast number of articles he nominates every week. And I am not just speaking of my own. Literature and Scottish culture are just two areas in which he appears to be fairly ignorant. (I doubt he has much time to read, given his constant presence online.) There are others that I'm less familiar with personally, and that should be a source of concern.-[[User:MacRusgail|MacRùsgail]] ([[User talk:MacRusgail#top|talk]]) 14:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My apologies for a long post. User:Jbhunley has nominated a number of my articles for deletion after I called him out for not reading a tag on an article, a matter which took me six hours to deal with, when I should have been dealing with offline matters. He has proceeded a sustained campaign against me for months. Far from being an "attacker", I have been away from Wikipedia for weeks on end, while Hunley continues to pursue some kind of vendetta against me. Thus it is being done ''to me'' while I have not even been here! I believe I have every right to consider this a form of stalking/bullying, and I think it is shameful that certain admin ''appear to be condoning'' this kind of behaviour. (Which is one of the reasons females continue to be a minority of editors on this website.) If someone follows me around for a sustained period, that is stalking. If someone continues in ''deliberate'' behaviour which is obviously upsetting another, and makes no effort to conduct themselves in a different manner, that is bullying. It seems that Bishonen and Neiln clearly believe that "some users are more equal than others", and have no interest in Wikipedia being a website "anyone can edit". In the case of User:Neiln, he has merely acted as Hunley's yes man, making me wonder if he is in fact some kind of sock puppet. If Jbhunley has a genuine interest in improving wikipedia, he should ''tag'' articles with various notices e.g. for inline citations etc. Instead he seems to nominate thousands of articles by glancing at them. This is destructive and detrimental to Wikipedia, and causes obvious annoyance. Behaviour like Jbhunley's is not allowed on the majority of websites. It is clear that in many cases the only reason that Hunley is aware of the articles in question is that I have edited them at some stage. The number of my articles he has nominated is now up in double figures. In some cases, he has either not read the article, or ignored information in it - e.g. claiming an article based on an 1880s source is copied off the internet. This is merely because I had some involvement in the article at some stage. It is also painfully clear that Jbhunley has little or no personal knowledge of vast number of articles he nominates every week. And I am not just speaking of my own. Literature and Scottish culture are just two areas in which he appears to be fairly ignorant. (I doubt he has much time to read, given his constant presence online.) There are others that I'm less familiar with personally, and that should be a source of concern.-[[User:MacRusgail|MacRùsgail]] ([[User talk:MacRusgail#top|talk]]) 14:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My apologies for a long post. User:Jbhunley has nominated a number of my articles for deletion after I called him out for not reading a tag on an article, a matter which took me six hours to deal with, when I should have been dealing with offline matters. He has proceeded a sustained campaign against me for months. Far from being an "attacker", I have been away from Wikipedia for weeks on end, while Hunley continues to pursue some kind of vendetta against me. Thus it is being done ''to me'' while I have not even been here! I believe I have every right to consider this a form of stalking/bullying, and I think it is shameful that certain admin ''appear to be condoning'' this kind of behaviour. (Which is one of the reasons females continue to be a minority of editors on this website.) If someone follows me around for a sustained period, that is stalking. If someone continues in ''deliberate'' behaviour which is obviously upsetting another, and makes no effort to conduct themselves in a different manner, that is bullying. It seems that Bishonen and Neiln clearly believe that "some users are more equal than others", and have no interest in Wikipedia being a website "anyone can edit". In the case of User:Neiln, he has merely acted as Hunley's yes man, making me wonder if he is in fact some kind of sock puppet. If Jbhunley has a genuine interest in improving wikipedia, he should ''tag'' articles with various notices e.g. for inline citations etc. Instead he seems to nominate thousands of articles by glancing at them. This is destructive and detrimental to Wikipedia, and causes obvious annoyance. Behaviour like Jbhunley's is not allowed on the majority of websites. It is clear that in many cases the only reason that Hunley is aware of the articles in question is that I have edited them at some stage. The number of my articles he has nominated is now up in double figures. In some cases, he has either not read the article, or ignored information in it - e.g. claiming an article based on an 1880s source is copied off the internet. This is merely because I had some involvement in the article at some stage. It is also painfully clear that Jbhunley has little or no personal knowledge of vast number of articles he nominates every week. And I am not just speaking of my own. Literature and Scottish culture are just two areas in which he appears to be fairly ignorant. (I doubt he has much time to read, given his constant presence online.) There are others that I'm less familiar with personally, and that should be a source of concern.-[[User:MacRusgail|MacRùsgail]] ([[User talk:MacRusgail#top|talk]]) 14:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}