User:Billreid/Archive/Archive4

Salmond

Hello Bill, As you probably know I am an SNP supporter and Alex Salmond fan. Although I agree with most everything he say's I do not shut my brain off when listening to him. I can also disagree with him at times (though not often). I just feel that if the Irish government think BI is innapropriate then there is no reason to argue with it. ps: I don't normally say DGAF, so if I have caused offence I apologise. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me Bill, it almost stuck in my throat agreeing with Wikipeire, let's just say he's not my favourite editor. As you might imagine I am more concerned with my own country than any other, but when I see other editors being accused of being nationalistic it makes my blood boil! I believe there is a large group of editors who are blatantly British nationalists and do not like articles written from any point of view but their own. I do not expect for example that the term UK should be left out of the Scotland article, but when they want it plastered all over the article I have to laugh. Some of the suggestions for the first couple of paragraphs on Scotland hardly mentioned Scotland at all. Maybe I'm reacting to this on another article(which is the wrong thing to do). Well, that's my point of view! Looking back on this it sounds like a bit of a rant so I'll sign off now and take a chill pill. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of monasteries

I certainly needs a face-lift. List of religious houses in Scotland sounds good to me, but this will depend on how large you want each entry to be ... as there were quite a few of them, even excluding the pre-12th century ones! Mendicant houses, pre-Benedictine houses, and secular colleges should definitely be in separate columns, but if possible keeping them in the same article would be good ... less management problems in future! Hope you are well. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... that'd mean it'd have to be finished soon! Looking at the list in Medieval Religious Houses, we'd both have to work super hard to do that ... very long! You don't mind me editing your page here, do you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan for the moment! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I AM OUTRAGED!

Deliberately funny? Me? You cheeky bugger! There's absolutely no place for humour in Wikipedia, and I'm always perfectly serious. Still, nice to meet a new enthusiast of my contributions and know that I'm appreciated; sometimes I find that the stupid politics of WP grind me down and I wonder what on Earth I'm doing here: I've worked out that making a joke about most things helps me to get my point across, and the confusion that I cause when people can't work out whether I'm being serious or not, and they can't work out how to respond, helps me to get away with some of more dangerous instances of political incorrectness. I'll do my best to continue to live up to your expectations! Best wishes, --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I'm afraid I only have a simple camera, Canon Powershot A80. It's very heavy, but I love it. It has a proper viewfinder :-) . Glad you like the pics. They're only speculative shots really, but sometimes I'm lucky! I'm chuffed today because I've managed not only to upload another piccie onto WP, but also to place it on the page. Have you ever been to Seton Collegiate Church? It's ever so peaceful... Regards, Renata (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

McConnell

You are quite right, my mistake, it was Jack McConnell. As far as what the papers reported the next day, I disagree with you. Scotlands national newspapers have always taken a unionist stance and are never slow to slant their editorial views to show that! The sooner the press actually report the news rather than report their own bias the better, then we might live in a country where the people can vote on the facts rather than taking the word of a pravda like media. I'm all for democracy, but when democracy is a one sided point of view then things have to change!. Jack forbes (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

When Scotland have people in power who constantly have to defer to their political masters in Westminster before making policy in parliament, it is impossible for these policies always to be in Scotlands interest. Salmond can make his own decisions based on what is best for Scotland, without needing to ask pemission first! Sorry, had to throw that in! :) Jack forbes (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aberdeen city council.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Aberdeen city council.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Billreid/Archive/Archive4! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral. What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that Bill. I guess I got a bit stressed out with all the accusations and allowed myself to get involved in a brawl. I'm going to take a break for a while and maybe come back a little more relaxed. Thanks again! Jack forbes (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland reverts

I don't think the ip is going to stop reverting, I left a warning on his talk page and it does'nt seem to be doing much good. Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then discuss it. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Abbeys Scotland

Regarding your revert.

Whilst it is true that it is essentially my own convention, it is because there existed no previous convention and that the vast majority of the work on the lists for England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man has been my own work, and I am attempting to standardise the work.

I would expect anyone who decided to implement a different standard do so for all works which are covered by the current standard, and do so in such a way which does not reduce the amount of relevant data.

I have specifically excluded hospitals from the other lists because such institutions are far more elusive both in historical accounts and extant remains than the foundations included.

It is on this basis I have extended the exclusion to Scotland.

Contrary to your suggestion I did not read any proposals on the matter. It is merely that the lists are intended to be comprehensive - and this would be less achievable if hospitals are included.

It is my intention to do a considerable amount more work on the Scotland list article. And part of this is to bring it in line with the existing articles.

Perhaps you do not agree with any standardisation. Perhaps you consider Scotland to be specialist case and outside such standardisation. Perhaps you would rather I not do any further work on the article and leave it essentially incomplete. In any case such standpoints are contrary to the nature of an encyclopedia. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is talking about what is within one's power? The person who works on an article or set of articles has the 'power' to implement such changes as they consider the work requires - otherwise contributing to wikipedia would be unworkable if one had to seek approval at every stage, and seek approval from an amorphous body of individuals who may or may not be interested either way. I don't know whether you have seen the other articles in the series, but they are somewhat different from the Scotland page, because I had not previously had the opportunity to bring the Scotland page to the same standard.

I have no problem with others contributing - indeed it would make the work less intensive, given the number of establishments.

Nor have I a problem with including hospitals, or collegiate establishments - as long as it is intended that the same inclusions are made to other such articles.

I have not read about the changes you intend to make to the Scotland layout/data, but I take it you intend to implement the same to the Wales, England, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man pages? Or will that be for someone else with an interest either in the subject or the geographical locations to do, as and when such a person sees fit? --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed the football.

Nobody 'owns' articles, but the Wikipedia community should strive for a level of standard presentation befitting of a professional work. Hence pages are watched, and Wikiprojects are instituted.

The benefit of a standard approach is that one can expect to find the same information (where available) in the same place on all articles covering the same field. This is especially so with lists of items of the same nature. Sadly one only has to look at the lists of incumbents to see the wide and irksome variety in format and content. Compare, for instance the list of Popes, now a Featured List, with its appearance prior to my involvement.

As I am exceptionally interested in this field, I am bound to be interested in contributing to what I hope will be the most comprehensive articles of their kind either online or in print. But it is an onerous task, and a lot has been achieved when compared with the articles as they existed prior to my involvement, which may not have been achieved otherwise.

The reason no work has been done on the page is because I had to determine an order in which to do the work. Unfortunately England and Ireland are so large it meant Scotland was not attended to at this point. Plus my recent visits, where I have uploaded photographs to Wikimedia, have not so far included Scotland - which I unfortunately have not had the opportunity to visit since I purchased my digital camera (most of my visits have since been to England, Ireland and Wales).

I have yet to go through my copy of the Ordnance Survey's Monastic Britain for Scotish monastic foundations - but it is sitting waiting for me to do so.

All said, it is not for me to have a problem with other contributors - and I have no doubt that you will do a good job. I am just mindful that if one of the other pages is changed in format or scope, I feel it is me who will have to repeat the format on the other such articles, or to sit back and watch them becoming increasingly diverse. --JohnArmagh (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I don't think we should give the impression we are working in competition - setting up different pages on the same subject matter. If anything, if there are separate lists they should be complimentary.

I have always intended the Knights houses to be included on the lists (as they are on the Irish and English lists).

Naturally, there is a place for lists of establishments including secular foundations - but I don't think it can be as comprehensive as the monastic establishments.

I have always had a thing about works which include all of one thing and a limited number of examples of other things, because the limitation is either subjective or because the information just is not there. Of course this is not to pretend that the information is there for all the monastic houses.

If there are separate lists I would endeavour to mention them in the See Also section of the existing pages.

Whether any of the works stand the test of time is up to future users of Wikipedia. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - well the only remaining question is, apart from the renaming of the existing articles, how much work will be required in a standard format?

Oh, and are we including almshouses and hermitages in the list? --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries - life goes on.

Certainly listing by Order has its place. It may necessitate duplication (or workround) where a single foundation passes from one order to another during its history.

On that basis a geographical list and an Order list both focus on different aspects, so could survive side-by-side.

This opens the way for similar lists ordered by date of foundation etc. - but I don't see the detail in such lists need be anywhere near as intensive as in the lists I (or I perceive you) are working on.

The cathedrals lists are primarily geography-based with denominations as sub-headings, with the geography headings naturally being country rather than county (dioceses not being coterminous with counties).

I am interested in seeing your work in the fullness of time - I think it does have a distinct value which is not catered for by the lists I've worked on. I wouldn't want you to feel my work was intended to undermine yours though.

You are likely to be correct with the smaller houses. You only have to look at a map to see the number of farms/homesteads etc. with the word 'grange' in their name - with little or no information as to whether it historically had any monastic connection, or merely because the word sounds nice or appropriate in the name (much like Grange Farm in The Archers). I have included some granges, but in truth I am ambivalent regarding their status. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your revert at Scotland

There is not consensus to keep that either. Please explain your revert. ----fone4me 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is being developed on the UK talk page. There is no need for a separate one on the Scotland talk. ----fone4me 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The discussion has been centralized onto the UK talk page. ----fone4me 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is reached at the centralized discussion, it can be reached at all of them on a repeat if you insist on consensus being stated on every page. So regardless, whatever the consensus comes out as on the UK page, it will end up reaching Scotland anyway. --fone4me 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Moray

Hi Bill. Thanks for the comment on Loch Spynie. I agree that it's still there (being based in Moray, I know it well), though as you state it's a fragment of its former self. I certainly could have made myself clearer and I've improved the text slightly to reflect the current physical reality of the loch. I think that some work still needs to be done to the article to improve the referencing and I hope to get that done soon. Once it's complete, I'd like to get the article assessed. But since I'm very much a Wiki-novice, I don't know how that's done - could you pass on any tips about how I could get it assessed as I believe that it deserves a better rating than it has now. Thanks for your time. Jaygtee (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)