User talk:Derek Ross/2005

2004 talk archive

Wikipedia and admins (for Derek)

Hi Derek, I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me for any common etiquette errors. The problem I end up with in Wikipedia is really just one. It seems all pages are subserviant to some degree with the Wikipedia page. And the Wikipedia page is run by an Admin. I'm not sure if the 19 year old Admin realizes it, but in a strange way he seems to be a global power.

Here is my reasoning... If many users results come from Google (90% of the search market), and the greatest number on encyclopedia rankings are from Wikipedia (and viewed likely as facts), and article contributers reference the Wikipedia page as whether something belongs in Wikipedia.

Comments on this matter? I tried a little experiment by creating a little passage on the wikipedia page (That's how I learned about Fredrik... the Admin). I mentioned I was not atttempting vandalism and also that all other pages seem subservient to this page.

I have yet to receive a reply from Fredrik but I think this brings up a very deep issue... fundamental to describing to users what Wikipedia (and its' information) represents. I noticed you mentioned the Admin issue so i though you might be able to direct me somewhere that there is a debate about this.

Thanks Potroast

Potroast, I think that I understand what you mean but I also don't think that it's as bad as first appears. Although it may appear that a lot of encyclopedia pages are subservient to Wikipedia, this is just because a lot of people have copied our pages to make their own encyclopedias. Their pages are not really subservient to ours but they don't generally let users edit the entries in the way that we do so the result is that their pages appear to be subservient. This produces the "global power" effect that you have noticed.

But the good news is that anyone can have that "global power", not just 19 year old Admins. All that they need to do is to make good edits to our pages which improve the articles contained in them. The only pages which cannot be edited by ordinary web users are those where we have found that we get a lot of bad edits (sometimes vandalism, sometimes not). These are reserved for editing by Admins only. However they are few and far between. Most pages really are editable by anyone who is polite and wants to improve the article, so please have at it.

On the subject of Admins: firstly Admin is a bad name for the position. These people are really just users who have been editing Wikipedia for long enough to have built up a good reputation. As a result they are trusted (rightly or wrongly) not to make bad edits. To become an Admin all that you need to do is to make mostly good edits to Wikipedia over a few months (and basically behave as if you already were an Admin). However it's not really necessary to become one. I edited Wikipedia for three years without being an Admin and never had a problem editing the pages that I wanted to edit.

My comments on Admins in the Wikipedia discussion page just reflect the fact that I don't believe that Admins are fundamentally necessary to the Wikipedia. With the correct changes to the software, I believe that the separate Admin (and Bureaucrat and Steward) status could be (and should be) done away with. I base this on my first year's experience with Wikipedia where we managed pretty well without a separate Admin status. However I would say that Admins are a necessary evil with the software in its current version, owing to the large numbers of edits which are currently done to the database and the small number of tools for self-policing at the moment.

I hope that this answers your questions. As a new user you will probably find it a good idea to read some of our policy pages so that you know what sort of writing Wikipedia is looking for. There are a lot of policies but the only ones that I would say are essential are the ones on NPOV and on spelling. The rest of the policies are mostly common sense for anyone with good manners.

In summary, I would say that our articles are better than would be produced by 19 year olds only, because there are people of all ages (and a wide variety of expertise) editing and checking our articles. But don't take my word for it, please check for yourself.

Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

By the way, I have just checked your edit to the Wikipedia article. I think that the reason that it was removed is that it was not clear what it meant. Having read it I still don't understand what you were trying to say so I guess that other people found the same thing. Perhaps if you explained in more detail on the Wikipedia discussion page, we might understand what you are trying to say. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Kilts again..

As a lowlander who's not worn a kilt for many years I don't feel well qualified to comment, but in my limited experience everyone wears underpants (or shorts) while feeling vaguely that they're letting down a brave manly tradition. The original seemed a little tongue in cheek, the revision is a wee bit harsh in debunking the "myth". I'd be inclined to rephrase it a little and add references to Napoleonic era saucy pics of seated ladies looking up to braw highland sodgers and to the Scotts porage oats ad where the lassie gets the kilted shopkeeper to fetch something from the top shelf using a stepladder. However the tradition appears be real in some places judging by your comments in kilt talk, so will wait for feedback before having a go. And here we are just coming into the haggis shooting season..dave souza 19:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kilts indeed. Trust me, I do have a life, but the continued imperfect nature of the kilt article with respect to underpants is like a dripping tap to me. Please check the discussion page and give me a shout on how we can resolve this, because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I've not been involved in the resolving of such an issue before.--Gantlord 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gantlord, I've been working on Wikipedia since 2001 and I still think that it's best to change the article to the way that you think it should be and then let others work with that in the first place. We need to describe the actual situation rather than prescribe it and its best to try to put it in sduch a way that its difficult or impossible to argue with what's been written. If you want we can thrash out a few alternatives on the talk page before putting a final paragraph on the article page. For further discussion, see the Talk:Kilt page. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The Portuguese Succession

Dear Derek, i requested protection of the Hilda Toledano article, i'm getting sick of this guy. By the way, the distinction may be subtle but is there. My daughter was not a result of adultery and i'm not oficially married :) Cheers, muriel@pt 20:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's good, Muriel. I think that protection is probably the most straightforward option for the moment although I was quite prepared to go on reverting for as long as necessary. As for the "subtle distinction", I can easily see the difference, and I apologise for my original edit on the matter which was the result of my lack of knowledge of the Portuguese rules of succession. The reason that I later commented on it was that I was favourably impressed that Portuguese law sees the distinction as well. That was why I used the adjective "enlightened". Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:16, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Warning!!!

Derek, you were kind enough to express some mild amusement at my warning to the squeamish in the Scots law article that "This case was particularly gruesome and those of a delicate disposition are advised not to read the following paragraph." It's no great surprise that this has been removed twice, once anonymously and once by User:Lucifer(sc) with the comment] "(Warning removed. This case is quite tame.)" It's hardly worth an edit war, but if you think I should persevere with this frivolity do let me know..dave souza 00:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a great fan of a little frivolity and love it when people lighten an article with a little gentle humour. So I'm sorry to hear that it's been removed, Dave. Some people seem determined to remove any trace of life from Wikipedia's articles and turn it into a po-faced institution. I agree that it's not worth an edit war though. What I suggest is that we do nothing for a week or so, then I'll put the phrase back. In the meantime, there's no policy saying that all fun must be removed from Wikipedia articles and I for one hope that you'll continue to add it where appropriate. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:46, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Ta, will take your advice. When the time comes may add to the talk page the "legalese" under the picture comparing the iPod Shuffle size with a packet of chewing gum ""iPod Shuffle: Smaller than a pack of gum and much more fun.*"....*"Do not eat iPod shuffle."....dave souza 00:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marriage strike

Hi Derek,

Marriage striker entry was updated because it lacked the proper description of the person's cause. It was weak by a lack of focus on the people and issues. The purpose of the through update is to disseminate to a broader audience timely and accurate legal and social information about a new movement.

I may be qualified to re-author this entry as I was a fatherless child and am childless father; had $90k of my money spent on divorce litigation in about 65 court appearances; self-represented litigant for 24 months; have two graduate degrees from Northwestern University and DePaul University and a psychology degree; and am a marriage striker. I would be pleased to hold responsibility of challenges and changes of its development, if appropriate.

Mark Ruffolo

I'm sorry to hear that you've been through that trouble, Mark. I hope that things improve for you in 2005. As for the article, by all means develop it if you wish. I only ask that you provide the normal references and citations that you would for any academic literature research so that people who read the article can be sure that it is based on more than your own personal experience (valuable though that is) and can follow up the Wikipedia article with further reading elsewhere if they wish.

Also be aware that the article as written doesn't quite match the Wikipedia style of writing (which we call the Neutral Point of View or (NPOV for short). As a result people will probably change the way that some of the facts have been written, hopefully without changing the facts themselves. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way that the Wikipedia works and some people find it hard to get used to. So I would recommend that you read the Wikipedia style pages on NPOV and then make appropriate changes yourself. If you have any questions, I would be delighted to answer them for you. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

You say tomato

FWIW, propellent and propellant are both listed in dictionaries as valid spellings...

-Wolfkeeper

I didn't realise. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Requested Moves

When completing the move (or denying it) please remove the discussion from WP:RM. If there is significant discussion, archive it on the destination's talk page. Otherwise just trash it. Also, when removing the discussion, indicate "moved" or "not moved" and "archived" or "not archived" in the edit summary. Thanks! - UtherSRG 23:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

There has been a change in the way that WP:RM works. All votes and comments are now done on the talk page of the item to be moved. I have moved you posting into Talk:Honour. Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, Philip. You misunderstand my reason for putting a comment on WP:RM. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When making edits

Please take the time to cite your sources. Avoid using loose phraseology "some people say".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources

India 14:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the unsupported and questionable statement "Please note however, that the use of the term Celt to refer to people in Ireland and Britain arose in the 18th Century" which you added to the article. I am afraid that it is up to you to cite a source for that statement, since I don't know where you got it from. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

1) My initial point related to the statement "(They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.)". The phrase "They are said" needs a source. Who said it?

2) This is well known amongst historians and indeed is referred to in the same article more than once. Amongst others Simon James book "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People Or Modern Invention?" makes the point that the Romans never used the term 'Celtic' in reference to the peoples of the Atlantic archipelago, the term was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century. In particular, there is no record of the term "Celt" being used in connection with the inhabitants of Ireland and Britain prior to the 18th century. Many people are under the same misapprehension that you have reflected in your reply. It is worth making the point in the header.

India 15:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Okay, let's move this discussion to the relevant talk page. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Re : speedy deletion

Hi Derek,

Thanks for your message. As far as I know I do not blank pages when adding CSD tags. (I was told the only exception is for Copyvios) It could be possibly that someone else has blanked it before me and what I all see is a blank page. I'll do try and check the history of blank pages next time, though. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if I was doing you a disservice. I really do appreciate the fact that you are doing the work! -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, it's "all in a day's work" I guess! ;) - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Many thanks for your message. I know it probably sounds as though I'm protesting too much, but I think that I'd like to wait a bit longer before being proposed; there are reasonably ordinary things on Wikipedia that I still haven't done (and when I try them, as recently with creating my first stub, I almost inevitably put my foot in it in one way or another — not disastrously, perhaps, but embarrassingly), and I'd feel odd being an admin while feeling so ignorant. As I said to dab, though, when I feel more confident, I'd be greateful if I could get back to you on this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I believe that character is more important than knowledge when it comes to adminship -- I've been doing this for 3 years and I still don't know every policy -- but I take your point. And I wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable, so we'll just have to wait. Keep up the good work! Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Scots"

No offence D.R. but why is it okay to call Lallans the Scots (i.e. Scottish) language, but not anything else? -- Anon from MelbourneIT

None taken, Anon. It seems wrong to me. As far as I'm concerned Lallans is just the dialect they used to speak around Edinburgh. You'd be better to ask someone who thinks that it is okay. I'm frae Aiberdeen ma sel. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, are you contrasting Scots and Gaelic ? I thought you were talking about Lallans and Doric. Right. The answer to your question is that Scots is the Scottish language because it is spoken by 1,500,000 or so of the population in the Highlands and in the Lowlands. Gaelic is a Scottish language because it is spoken by about 55,000 of the population in the Highlands and the Western Isles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Gaelic is three languages, as some Irish and Manx will tell you. Lowland Scots is certainly NOT "the Scottish language", that's political relabelling. Both of them are "the Scottish languages", but Lowland Scots is not "the Scottish language", it's "A Scottish language". It is a recent arrival in the Highlands, usually to the fringes and occasionally after or at the same time as English. Calling Lowland Scots the "Scottish language" is like calling Chinese the "world language". As for the 1,500,000 figure, there are no good figures for no. of speakers because there is a huge grey area between English and Lowland Scots, and a lot of folk seem to think they can speak it that cannae. (They put one word in and that's them a "speaker" - you don't get that with Scottish Gaelic much). -- Anon from MelbourneIT

p.s. Check out the book "Aberdeenshire Gaelic" - interesting read like.

I'm not denying any of that except for the political relabelling bit. Personally I don't care that much about the difference between "the Scottish language" and "a Scottish language". As far as I'm concerned both languages are uniquely Scottish and both are under threat, needing my support and yours. If you want to be pedantic about their names, be my guest. But I'd rather you did something more constructive like contributing to the Gaelic Wikipedia (Ah, you already do. Thanks!) or supporting the creation of a Scots Wikipedia. Re Aberdeenshire Gaelic -- sounds interesting. I know it was spoken in Strathdee and Strathdon up until the 19th century but not much more than that. What's the ISBN ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered, just that Gaelic does have official recognition now, after fighting for it for a long time.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that -- and a good thing too. The thing is that being an "officially recognised" language is not the same thing as being an "official" language. Officially recognised languages get support from the government but that doesn't mean that you can use them in court or for dealings with the government as you can with an official language. If you try you might well get charged with contempt of court, depending on the judge. That's why I'm being pedantic here. If the heading was changed to "Officially recognised languages" I wouldn't see a problem with having Gaelic (or Scots) in the list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-icle

I noticed you transwikied and deleted it. What about -phobia an the dozen of the likes? Mikkalai 17:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't tempt me, Mikkalai. "Phobia" is a slightly different case because it is used as a word on its own and refers to an encyclopaedic topic which I could write if I had to. If "icle" refers to an encyclopadic topic, I can't think what it might be. However the current phobia article doesn't say much about phobia in general. It is really just a dictionary list of phobias some of which are real and some of which are not. I have tidied the list up once or twice by deleting the obvious jokes but I must admit that I'd really like to shove the whole thing over to Wiktionary and replace it with a decent article on phobia in general. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

H.J.

I followed the story from far away, never really understood what was going on. Would you shortly summarize for us what it was all about Derek ? Thanks Anthere 05:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to put something together tonight, Anthere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/H.J.saga for my first draft. Please add to it if you were there during the events it describes, or even took part in them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Derek, stopped contributing a long time ago, but keeping an eye on Witkacy vandalism. I happened to come across this and wanted to let you know about the change. Please take a look at your meta discussion and the admin changes. Aphaia took care of it. Thank you 67.. Jul 20, 2005

Thanks, H.J. (if it is indeed you). I apologise for using your full name. I did not realise that you might be having trouble as a result. I don't check Meta very often otherwise I would have changed everything myself but as you say Aphaia has already done it, so that's good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who ? Aphaia has changed it at meta wiki (however infowrangler cannot be changed). Thanks for apologising, not your fault.

Derek, if or when you get tired of the meta Derek/talk feel free to transfer the whole thing to HJsaga/talk.

Hello, sorry to bother you again, there are more slanderous attacks at wikipedia. Witkacy input false info, wrongfully claiming that HJ has any connection to any of the 83.. IP #s. HJ has no connection to any 83.. IPs whatsoever. HJ has not edited at wikipedia and has never taken part in any of the conversations or edits in any connection with Witkacy etc. Derek, please remove wrong info at 1)Witkacy 02:02 11 July, 2)Ttyre 17:04 14 July , where in [8] he wrongfully copies Wikacys false claim again and posted link to meta and 3) by Schwartz und Weiss 00:24 16 July, who wrongfully echoes that same slanderous false information posted by Witkacy. These people on wikipedia, who do not use their real name and who post slanderous false accusations need to stop. They should apologise. Thank you. -- User:67.174.145.59

This is tricky to deal with because you are communicating with me anonymously. I'll look over what Witkacy has been doing and either raise a "Request for Comment" or take it up with the other administrators if necessary, but I can't promise anything. I don't want to edit the material unilaterally since I haven't been following what has been going on but if I think that Witkacy is doing something wrong and others agree, I will act. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked it over this is even trickier than I thought because the page is an archived VfD vote which shouldn't normally be changed. However I agree that the mentions of H. by Witkacy and Schwartz und Weiss are -- at the least -- speculative and unnecessary and could be removed without harming the discussion and voting results in any way. I wouldn't worry about the Ttyre edit so much as it is hidden deep within the edit history and didn't make it to the current revision. I'll follow up on the other references though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek, this is what he is doing, [older version with full name, wrongfully connected to 83..#s:) he wrongfully attached the meta HJ to all the 83.. numbers, see history. 67...emailed JW and rev. all the 83.. #s. He sort of stopped on his Witkacy/notesik, but did wrongfully rev the full HJH name in this [[1] Witkacy 23:33 9 July. Witkacy and others because of him are without permission posting full names and slander on Wikipedia. Personal attacks are supposed to be against wikipedia policy, subject to immediate removal.

Changing this is tricky, because it says, do not change, but perhaps you can put in a banner-like line pointing to this wrongful behavior. (Numerous people have run-ins with him, as can be seen by the discussions).

Understood. Sorry about this. Have you brought it up with JW again ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes JW was notified by email. You will find that Witkacy does not care what JW has to say either, as you can read on this page [2], note #8, the statement by JW as to Witkacy's behavior(which was deleted by W.), submitted by Nohat 08:21 5 August).

Thank you for changing his incorrect postings.

This one still shows full name, wrongfully connected to an 83..#. It is a rather sly inferrence by itself , but ties in with his notesik Notebook and Black Book (illegal?) attacks, very much opposed by a number of current wikipedians, unfortunately supported by many other Polish Users.

Sorry, 67.xxx. Although I am willing to change that for you, I don't have the access rights to do so. You will need the help of someone like Brion Vibber or Jimbo to do that for you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC),[reply]

It is fine the way you took the incorrect assumptions/accusations out. Thank you, your efforts are appreciated. There is now a note on meta stating that HJ is not 83.

Multiple mirror sites, which pick up every bit of discarded Wikipedia garbage, are unfortunately still out there, multiplying unsubstanciated, misleading, false, untrue Wikipedia entries or rants. This is a yet unaddressed problem.

Btw, that the 83...# entries come from a different continent can easily be proven by IP address check. Do you know about this?

Yes, I had already checked on that and noted that the 67.xxx posts are allocated to California whereas the 83.xxx edits are allocated to Israel. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Derek, (I do not have your email, therefore I am writing to you here). The person (24.94.. Tampa, Florida), who recently left this frightening message [3] warrants being checked out, I believe. Fortunately someone removed the message right away. Perhaps you could block HJ and talk HJ page, to keep them from getting vandalized and being used for threats ? Thank you ! 11/11

Transfers to Wiktionary

Per the transwiki process, the articles are being moved to the transwiki psuedo namespace on wiktionary for the wikitionarians to sort out on their end. You can see the log and a description of the approved method at Wikipedia:Transwiki log. For backhander look at Wiktionary:Transwiki:Backhander. So if you have reverted the bot's changes manually, please change them back.

(As an aside, Backhander has been added to the main namespace of Wiktionary now.) Kevin Rector 14:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the Transwikied to Wiktionary template on the talk page to provide a link to article in both the main and transwiki namespace on wiktionary. Kevin Rector 15:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have also modifed the bot's edit summary to include a link to the talk page. Kevin Rector 16:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

You left a message for me a little while ago suggesting that I allow myself to be nominated as an admin. I'm still slightly nervous about it, but I've come to the conclusion that it might be a good idea, especially as I could ease myself in to it very cautiously if my nomination were successful. If you're still willing to support me, I've just contacted Dbachmann and take him up on his offer to nominate me — I'd be very grateful for your support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You are definitely doing the right thing. I don't generally need to use the admin functions but it's nice knowing that they are there, particularly when you have to delete a bunch of pages as the result of a vandal moving articles to silly titles. As you suggest caution is the best policy. I'll give dbachmann a day to nominate you and if he hasn't done so by then, I'll do it myself. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Bad maps

Your help and common sense is needed. User:Kelisi, has been producing some maps and trying to replace the CIA maps for several Caribbean and South American countries. In my opinion these new maps (which have more detail than the CIA maps) are vastly inferior. They use garish colours, terrible decorative fonts, use a horribly large pixel size and are generally ugly and crowded, and look terribly amateurish and like they were produced on a Commodore 64 or something. Here is a list of maps he has produced . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Kelisi&hideminor=0&namespace=6. Perhaps the worst example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilmap.gif . Bizarrly these maps seems to have support from a few people who have been trying to push through their inclusion on several pages. Please see talk:Panama and talk:Honduras. Jooler 09:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rockall

You might have some interest in the debate on talk:Rockall Jooler 15:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Luss view.JPG

Sorry, but here I completely disagree with you. This image could have come from anywhere. There is nothing on the image to indicate that he took it, even a "I took this image". If there was something, I would have tagged at PUI and not PUI and no source. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite

I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I've got a Meetup.com group set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Oh, right. I wondered why that had appeared. Good idea. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk July 1, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

"Virgil" to "Vergil"

Hi Derek. I noticed that you moved Virgil to Vergil, and are changing articles to use that spelling. I've posted a question about this on Talk:Vergil, could you respond there? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Derek. Thanks for joining in the discussion. I appreciated your reasonable remarks and collegial attitude. I think a case can be made for "Vergil" being the "more correct" spelling, but (perhaps unfortunately), "Virgil" seems to be the most common, and Wikipedia has taken the position that it should follow rather than lead. Again thanks. Paul August ☎ 15:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Paul. I've been working on this project for a while now and I know how it works. As one contributor to Talk:Virgil said it is a bit irksome to see the "Virgil" spelling but not enough to be worth fighting over. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheers to you as well"

Hello, as you might have deduced, I crave privacy. However, I will let you know that I was made in the USA of mostly Scottish parts. By necessity a few other Celtic, English, and German gears were included in the manufacture. 'am affiliated with the clans Sinclair and Gunn. (both clans were on the first Scottish expedition to America with Prince Henry) Cheers, User:WehrWolf 14 Aug 2005

Sorry, Wehrwolf. I couldn't resist a little gentle humour when I saw the comment that you had put on your user page. Interesting to hear about your ancestry though. Do we have anything about the Henry Sinclair voyage to America and the controversy surrounding it? I suppose that we must but I haven't seen it yet.-- Derek Ross | Talk 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try the following: Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney Knights Templar Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact Westford Knight Cheers again, User:WehrWolf 15 Aug 2005

Perth

Hi Derek. I remembered our disagreement some time ago about which Perth deserves "pride of place", so to speak, of the "Perth" title. In the last week or so, someone seems to have moved the Australian Perth's article to Perth. I knew you would be opposed to this, so I thought I should let you know it's occurred, so you can take it up on the article's talk page. I don't really have an opinion on what title it should be at, because it's been moved so many times since I've been here that I don't really care any more. - Mark 10:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Mark. I wasn't aware of it. I suppose that I'd better "gird up my loins" and head into battle. But like you I'm not really in the mood. -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Perth at Wikipedia:Requested page moves to point to the Australian city. This seems in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. In particular Boston is analogous to Perth: a namesake town in the UK and a far better known and more populous metropolis over the ocean.

Discussion should be centralized at the neutral location Talk:Perth (disambiguation). -- Curps 01:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnu.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Gnu.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Nothing to do with me. Please delete it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of the United Kingdom

When checking a link to Parliament of Great Britain it redirected me to Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I was horrified to find that the History section gave a long chunk of English history and no mention of the odd union with anyone else. To remedy this that chunk is now in a new Parliament of England page, and summary histories of the component national parliaments added (plus mentions of Scots law where relevant), as well as having a new Parliament of Great Britain page for the pre UK era, also some origins added to the Parliament of Scotland page to show it has as old a pedigree as those folks to the south. This is a bit out of my field and if you can edit these revamps I'll be most grateful...dave souza 20:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy with non-Wiki stuff at the moment, Dave, but I'll do what I can. JTD might be interested in giving it the once over too, if he's not too busy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Derek, no hurry. I've passed a request on to JTD as suggested. Just a bit of insecurity about my edits, but am reasonably sure they'll do for a bit. Also, congrats on the work on sco.wikipedia. Ah'm a a bit feart and up tae ma oxters in ither things, but will try tae mind and jine in when ah can....dave souza 21:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over - guess it's a typical case of irritation leading to improvement....dave souza 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unionists (Scotland)

Wondered whether you might like to express a view on this awful article. --Doc (?) 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you say... it's an awful article. Let's fix it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminning

You want me to go into administration? (excuse the pun) Thanks for the compliment, it's something that I should be able to do, subject to time constraints. As it is I'm neglecting my wife, the washing up and the garden, and in some ways feel my main use to Wikipedia is in sifting and condensing info for articles. However, an excessive bout involving the ramifications of Charles Darwin is nearing completion and I'd better let the library have their book back after renewing it for about nine months. There are several other areas I'm trying to sort out and so my time for wikichores will have to be kept in check, but otherwise I'm still game (reference to very worthy TV sitcom, not exported south of border). Having had a look at the FAQ etc. it'll probably need a lot of learning procedures, but all worthy stuff....dave souza 22:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll take that as a "yes" then. I can sympathise with the neglect since I've been accused of the same (no doubt justifiably) but all I'll say is that the level of work that you undertake as an admin is very much up to you and those of us with a life don't have as much time to spare as others. We all do what we can -- I'm very much concentrating on the Scots Wikipedia at the moment -- but it's important for the Wikipedia to have a reserve of trusty types for when trouble strikes. And even little things like doing the speedy deletes or tidying the VfD/AfD pages are worthwhile. Sadly "Still Game" came out after I moved to Calgary and hasn't been exported so I haven't seen it at all yet but I remember the "Chewin the Fat" sketches. Maybe I'll see it when I make my intended trip to Arbroath in December. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for admin process is certainly interesting - please let me know if you think I've said too much. I'd also appreciate it if you could have a look at [4], since I've breenged intae reviving (someone else's) nomination of Charles Darwin as a FaC. If nothing else, it's demonstrated that there's a lot to learn about formatting. Sorry I've not been taping still game, Thanks, ...dave souza 10:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later. I'm being dragged along to look at fridges this afternoon but should be able to give Charles D. the once over this evening. Don't worry about the negative comments on the admin vote. He's way out of line and your response was very reasonable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, Derek: didn't want to be too harsh on wee May. No rush about Darwin, as Tony1 is doing a good job of refining it and picking out points where I've cropped text to the point of losing clarity. Good luck with the fridges, went through a bout of checking energy ratings and picking one for ourselves not long ago....dave souza 21:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's that. Thanks for nominating me (I think). Evidently there's a lot to learn, so I'll do my best to get to grips with it then devote a reasonable amount of time to the needed tasks. Already it's inspired me to update my user page: hope no-one takes it amiss. Orrabest, ...dave souza 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dave. You'll be taking the wikiholic test next, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiServer

Thanks :). I've been spending too much time here lately... need to work on that more :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public school (UK)

Request for comment regarding Talk:Public school (UK). I am very surprised and disappointed in the bahaviour of an Administrator on that talk page.--Mais oui! 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mais Oui!, I'll take a look. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well I agree with you. I am a little disappointed that Mel is being so dogmatic about this one, given that every Scots contributor so far seems to have backed you up but that's life. I wonder how many Scots it will take to convince him that what you say is true ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's a new vote on a variety of options: you've been included under supporting a move to "Public school (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland)", though your comments suggest you might wish to consider variants on "independent school"....my janny bit may have to relocate....dave souza 19:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Dave. Independent school was more the way I was leaning... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 09:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Which version are we talking about though ? Visual BASIC for DOS ? Visual BASIC 3 for Windows ? Visual BASIC 6 for Windows ? Each might have a claim to be Visual BASIC classic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever you feel like contributing to. The main emphasis is currently VB6, but that is simply because I seem to be the only editor just now and VB6 is what I do all day (must have comitted som dreadful sin in a previous life). Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Kjwhitefoot 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Alberta. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Alberta for instructions.--Rmky87 22:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "without so much as a by-your-leave"? I didn't delete the list until after sending Usercat notices to everybody. By the way, as soon as the expatriates and undetermineds are notified, that entire page will be replaced with a redirect; there is no point in putting yourself back in one of the soon-to-be-former sections.--Rmky87 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I wasn't asked if I wanted to do this by you or by anyone else. In fact my first knowledge of your project was your message above. And it wasn't a request for permission it was an informational message sent out immediately before making a major change without bothering to build a consensus for it. This is not How to Win Friends and Influence People. In fact it could be characterised as a very high-handed way and unWiki way of doing things.

You are of course entitled to replace the page with a redirect, just as I am entitled to revert back to the old version (which I find more useful than the piecemeal offering which you are replacing it with). However I have refrained from reverting and I suggest that you refrain from creating a redirect until you have the courtesy to ask permission from the page's creators and users for what you are doing even at this belated stage. As a first step I suggest that you put a notice on Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board explaining what you want to do and asking if there are any objections. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM#Proposed changes

If you are still interested in the subject please see WP:RM#Proposed changes. Philip Baird Shearer 21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish-Americans

Request for comment. There is a suggestion to delete this cat at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 19. It seems a tad unfair, considering the vast number of similar cats that are not being questioned.--Mais oui! 20:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Wikipedians' notice board

Since joining Wikipedia I have learnt an awful lot, and one of those things is the value of teamwork. It has become increasingly apparent to me that there are absolutely tons of people out there devoted to editing the Scottish articles, but we communicate only haphazardly. To begin to attempt to remedy this, I have initiated a notice board for all Scoto-fans (and who knows, perhaps the occasional Scoto-phobe)!

You can find it using this shortcut: WP:SCOWNB (yes, I know that it ain't very "short", but our nordic neighbours had first call on WP:SWNB).

Please sign up and post notices, or at least Watch the page.--Mais oui! 08:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've been busy! That's a pretty comprehensive page. Okay, I'll sign up for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea - I'm surprised no-one thought of it before. Count me in! - Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!

Derek, little help please. I am in the course of setting up the Portal:Scotland article, following the instructions here: Wikipedia:Wikiportal.

I thought that I had messed up, and requested a speedy delete, but then it just suddenly appeared correctly, as if by magic. Problem is now it is covered in speedy delete notices!

As an Admin, can you sort this out? Ta.--Mais oui! 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panic over. OK now, I hope.--Mais oui! 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, MO. I'm sorry I couldn't be of any help earlier. It's been pretty frantic at work today so I haven't checked in since early in the morning, Calgary time. -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 01:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA guidance

I've become a little more involved in community stuff, and when someone who'd helped with editing was nominated for admin and his RfA went very sour resulting in his vowing to leave the project, found that others were developing a Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and a Mini-Guide to avoid such unpleasantness. They look well worthwhile to me, but a downside is that someone like myself could be deterred. In case you'd not seen this, thought I'd alert you (at the last minute) while the guides are still developing....dave souza 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Braveheart

Somewhat at the last minute, I noticed a trailer today for BBC2 Scotland programme at 9pm on Tuesday 29 November 2005 about the revered chief who reunited the Cherokee nation in the 1830s, John Ross.. any relation?...dave souza 23:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Herald had a bit about him on their website yesterday too. I meant to check if there is a Wikipedia article, but forgot... just checked, there is: John Ross (Cherokee chief).--Mais oui! 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!

No relation that I'm aware of. I once saw a statistic stating that Ross was the ninth commonest name in the US, so it's no surprise to see Rosses throughout its history. My part of the clan was still living in the Brora area until the late 19th century though, and it's only really with my father's generation that we started to spread out around the world. So it's unlikely that there's any more than a very distant connection between myself and John Ross. I'm coming over to Arbroath in mid-December for a couple of weeks but that's a bit late to see the programme. Maybe I'll see it eventually though. These type of shows quite often show up on the History Channel in Canada after a year or two. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I am PaddyC, I am the guy that introduced the quotes for the Jock Stein Article on the wrong place. Thank you for your help, I have also taken your advice and signed up for this website.

Thank you for your help.

Paddy 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, Paddy! I hope that you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia as much as I have. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

This is Shaun Wyche saying hello in the Wiki world, drop me a line on my talk page. --Shaunnol 05:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinema of Scotland

Request for review. Please have a look at:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_14#Category:Cinema_of_England_and_Category:Cinema_of_Scotland

I hope that you will consider voting Keep for both. Thanks.

(While I'm here Derek, I could use your advice regarding how to deal with an unfounded allegation of sockpuppetry made against me by User:Rhollenton.

You can follow the sorry tale thus far, here:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_10 (items 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4)
User_talk:Rhollenton#Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss as to what to do about it, but I feel that his/her lashing out in this way is very counter-productive and disruptive. I know that I used to do things like that when I first joined too, but I have since grown up :))--Mais oui! 10:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just have to take it. I think that you've made your point on the pages that you linked above, in a dignified manner. Anyone who reads those pages will know your feelings on the matter. As you say some people are rather quick to make accusations or to take offence when they first join the Wikipedia editors because they don't understand how we work. They normally calm down after a few months if they're any good. With luck that'll happen for this editor too. Anyone who takes the trouble to look at your hard work and good record over the last few months will be unlikely to take the accusations seriously. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

As an Admin, can I request when you have a spare minute, could you wrap up the Requested move vote, here:

Talk:Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire

Ta.--Mais oui! 19:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the first time in years when I have been without internet access (currently connected through a borrowed phone running up someone else's phone bill!) but I'll do it as soon as I can. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population Genetics regarding Celts

This text is taken from the the "Celt" article discussion page:

It still has not been successfully proven that the Celtic influence was only a cultural one rather than an ethnic one as well. I notice that people in this discussion seem to completely forget that the current genetic evidence, if it can be considered reliable and valid, only refers to the Y-chromosome and paternal heritage only. No evidence has been presented regarding the equally important X-chromosome and maternal line of heritage. Research of the maternal line could possibly alter controversial findings such as genes of the Irish and Welsh being virtually indistinguishable as well as those of the Frisians, southern Danes and Germans of Schleswig-Holstein. Epf 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]