User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 06

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Lockerbie investigation

A message requiring your attention is at Talk:Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Thanks.Phase4 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Secretary for Scotland

I've amended your changes of earlier today to the Secretary for Scotland article, primarily to remove the suggestion in the first line that the post was of Secretary of State rank. That did not happen until 1926, even though the Secretary for Scotland had sat in Cabinet since the late 1800s. I've amended later sentences to make this upgrading of the post clearer--George Burgess 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta George. As usual I defer to your vast knowledge in this area. In my infinite ignorance I had not realised that there was a difference between a Secretary (minister) and a Secretary of State. I had consulted the Secretary (disambiguation) article for guidance, but it hadn't enlightened me: perhaps someone ought to make that explicit on that page, maybe even with a new, wee stub article for the less elevated post?--Mais oui! 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Laws- British Laws

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws

Astrotrain 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:

"British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
"contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.

I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.

By the way, you missed out a third, crucial, category of Scottish law: Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union.

Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved archived material back, shortly after the post above.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Wikipedia article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.

The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Please only make further contributions to this discussion at User talk:Astrotrain.~~

I note now that a new comment has been left under the relevant notice at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. I had hoped that we could keep this discussion in one place. I would therefore like to recommend that we stop discussing this on personal Talk pages: I am going to copy the entire discussion thus far to:

Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Scottish_laws

Please do not leave any new comments on this topic here at User talk:Mais oui!.--Mais oui! 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notice Rod. It certainly seems to be a good article, but I have not the time at present to rigorously test it against all the tough criteria. Excuse me, but I am going to take the lazy option of "wait and see" what compliments/criticisms other Users come up with. All the very best though.--Mais oui! 20:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Welsh Nationalism

Rather than persist with an edit war why don't you at least try to engage with me on a discussion about the content of Welsh Nationalism? Have a look at Talk:Welsh self-government and you'll see I've started that discussion.

Ultimately, I just don't agree with what you've done, which is why I have first discussed and them implemented edits to it. I'd like us to reach consensus on a revised wording, but I can't do that if all you do is revert any and all changes to your work.Normalmouth 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Team GB at Torino

I see you've reverted my edit at Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the 2006 Winter Olympics. As near as I could tell "Great Britain" had been used exclusively by the British team and by the Olympic/Torino people. If you've found some source otherwise, that's great. Nobody else seemed able to find one yet. Could you just let me know where it is? Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Your edit-war re the terminology used for original names of Scottish counties needs to end. Take it to Talk. If you continue to push a version which is not supported by consensus then you will be blocked form editing Wikipedia, which would be bad since I see you are an industrious editor. Please be calm and work to achieve consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am absolutely delighted that you have also put a warning at User talk:Owain, because his behaviour in the area of "traditional" (sic) counties has been truly disgraceful, throughout Wikipedia.

Points of info:

it has nothing to do with "the terminology used for original names of Scottish counties". It is to do with when they were invented (1889, well into the late Modern Period), and when they were abolished (1975). "Former" is the standard adjective to describe something which once was, but no longer is. "Traditional" and "historic" are thoroughly inappropriate (nay, deceitful) adjectives to describe something which was a neologism, invented very, very late in the history of Scottish local government.
"a version which is not supported by consensus" - yes it is (see Talk:Counties of Scotland). It is User:Owain's version which is at odds with consensus.

I have left new comments at:

I urge all Users who care about factual accuracy here at Wikipedia to get over to those articles/templates and monitor them, and contribute to them, to prevent them being hijacked by the Association of British Counties and County Watch.--Mais oui! 16:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just the janitor... Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should have looked to see who spewed, before accusing another janitor of puking all over the lovely polished floor. Please direct sawdust, mop and bucket in the correct direction in future.--Mais oui! 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I looked into it and I see valid points on both sides (without detailed knowledge of course) but I do see you as an experienced and good editor who will probably calm down, whereas Owain is going on my watchlist. Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui!: please don't take this the wrong way, but I have just reported you for violating 3RR on Template:Infobox Scotland place.

I am happy for your version to stand - but I want you to push it through using the correct channels and methods. I want to work together with you, but we are all bound by the same editing rules. If I'd known about this particular problem first I could have tried to help you; but by the time I noticed the problem you'd already violated 3RR only half an hour after getting a warning from User:JzG. It's really not worth it.

You're currently involved in a couple of edit wars simultaneously - it might be best to take a break for a day or two, take a few deep breaths and come back try and win your battles on the talk pages. You're good enough at that as it is without having to resort to multiple reverts.

Just one last thing - unless you've got firm and verifiable evidence that User:Owain is a member of ABC or County Watch, it's skimming on WP:NPA to keep calling him so. I agree with the core principles of liberalism without being a member of the Liberal Democrats, the implication isn't direct.

You're an extremely good editor, I just don't want to see every UK geography and politics article to turn into a battleground - that's what the talkpages are for! Aquilina 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bugger! I didn't spot that I was anywhere near that dreaded 3RR boundary. Owain and Astrotrain have both been driving me to distraction with their edit wars: Astrotrain even made a 3RR pact with another "disruptor" (being kind) User:Normalmouth recently in order for the pair of them to continue abusing Wikipedia without either one breaking 3RR. Oh well, I suppose that Astrotrain's campaign of disruption has finally suceeded and forced me to make an arse of myself. Fortunately, I am not the type to let bullies have the last laugh. I await the executioners sword. Vi ses... --Mais oui! 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I know you're not the type. I'm just off to leave a few suggestions on User:Owain's talk page too, before I go back to the real world for the weekend - I just think as it's becoming a bit of a running thing on these matters we need a firm decision one way or the other written into the official Naming Conventions - an RfC and a vote via the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard is my preferred option, but if you have any better ideas, I'd be glad to hear them. RfC always throws up a few good new ideas to try out wither way.

When I feel like you do now, this page goves me a laugh [1] (although I expect you've seen it before!). Give me a heads-up on the talk page if there's any more conflicts on these subjects and I'll see if I can talk things down...

Speak to you soon Aquilina 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm genuinely sorry about that - I forgot to count the reverts at the time, I should have reminded you that you were close. Bummer :-( Just zis Guy you know? 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another message from someone who patrols WP:AN3: please be more cautious and back off the edit warring. If the reporter hadn't practically begged us not to block you, you would have been blocked by now William M. Connolley 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I acknowledge I made an error here - it's increasingly obvious to me that Owain is the problem. But I echo William's comment: if things get nasty, call for the Cavalry because otherwise you might end up blocked, which doesn't help anyone. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised Mais_oui! has been blocked for 3RR violation. I find this user is always involved in various edit wars with different editors. He is most unpleasant in his editing, and aggressively edits against anything he dislikes (particualry references to the United Kingdom or British). I suggest that when his block period ends that he seeks to communicate with others in a constructive manner, and avoid labelling other editors as vandals. Astrotrain 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, har de har. I was wondering what your reaction would be. That it was smug superiority does not surprise me in the least. You yourself are the most unpleasant, aggressive, edit warring, unconstructive, disruptive editor it has been my misfortune to encounter, by quite a long way. Do not think for one second that Wikipedians will be pushed around by thugs. I have had it up to here with you, and when my block expires I will be unwatching your User Talk and your Contributions watchlist: you are not worth spending a second of my day on. But let me assure you that if you disrupt any of the articles that I do continue watching, because I do care about them, then I will pursue your abuses of Wikipedia within the full extent of Wiki law. Finally I would urge calmer Wikipedians to watch Astrotrain and his edits like a hawk: I have not met another editor (apart from newbies perhaps) who loves the edit war as much as he: he beats me by a running mile. Oh, and another thing, if anyone cares about a true World View here at Wikipedia, just have a look at some of Astrotrain's British Nationalist edits on the Antarctic and other southern hemisphere territories' articles in the last couple of months.

Finally, anyone who is familiar with my work will know that I am a lover and admirer of all things to do with the North Atlantic Islands. I am an an Anglophile, Cambrophile, Hibernophile and Scottophile (are two of those actually words?) to the very, very bottom of my boots. I love to trumpet the achievements and history of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Man in all the work I do. I also love Australia, Austria, the Basque Country, Canada, Flanders, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden and the U.S.; and economics, architecture, fine art, natural history and languages; and of course David Bowie, boating, birdwatching and cycling; but unfortunately I rarely get round to working on those articles because I put so much time and effort into the first four topics. The contempt in which Astrotrain clearly holds me has quite the opposite effect to that which he hopes: it motivates me tremendously to redouble my effort and work at Wikipedia. The lad clearly knows absolutely nothing about how bloody tenacious we Scots can be.--Mais oui! 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24hours for breaking the 3 revert rule on {{Infobox Scotland place}}. This is a fairly minor infraction, but you've also been warring lately on Template:Scotland counties and Falkland Islands and edit warring is always bad, so please stop. Thanks. -Splash^talk 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Style boxes

Please don't remove style boxes. They were adopted after a long debate with an overwhelming consensus behind them (92% support) to stop a bitter edit war that had gone on for months. Both sides endorsed the solution and they were included in the MoS for usage. They are an automatic part of all royal and papal articles. If you remove them they will simply be reinstalled and you will face edit wars against all those who have been involved in their adoption and installation in hundreds of articles, and that includes both sides in the edit wars that preceded their adoption, where before then royal articles usually started with Her Majesty Queen X, His Holiness Pope Y, Her Royal and Imperial Highness Princess Z etc. The style boxes were adopted as an alternative to that form of opening articles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"They were adopted after a long debate with an overwhelming consensus behind them... " I was not aware of that: I just thought that it looked unbelievably infantile and silly, but if you have come to it by consensus then that is that. How many other people are going to look at those daft boxes in the future, and, not knowing the turbulent history, just remove them because they look bonkers? (By the way, they are not even accurate: they are mostly English language translations of titles in other languages - when translating, you must first provide the original and then the Eng lang version, making crystal clear that it is a translation. And some of the translations are inaccurate: for example the English language does have a word for "Catholic" you know: it is "Catholic" - we don't just leave it out cos it looks funny in English versions of the title!! Who does these "translations" anyway? Are they qualified?)--Mais oui! 10:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Inverness-shire geography stubs

There is chaos arising due to the categorisation of stubs for places in the Highland Council Area (such as Lochcarron) with such remarks as This Inverness-shire location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it

I'm not sure whether you are the source of this chaos or not but I thought you ought to be aware of it. So far as I know such places as Lochcarron and Shieldaig have never been in Inverness-shire.--PeterR 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not the cause of this chaos (why did you think I was?). Quite the opposite: I was the primary arguer in opposition to the hairbrained "Inverness-shire" stub, and the whole unbelievable scheme to divide the Scotland-geo-stubs by "lieutenancy areas" (Eh? you may well ask!) instead of by the blindingly obvious method: council areas. This whole debate is about to start afresh I suspect, because other areas of Scotland are crying out for their own geo stub templates and cats (especially Edinburgh I understand). I will keep you informed. (As to your specific point: no I did NOT apply the Invernesshire-geo-stub to Lochcarron or Shieldaig - I am perfectly well aware that they are not in Inverness-shire - in fact, you may find this hard to believe, but I recently had to remove that bl..dy stub from some Harris places. Lord preserve us.) In conclusion: great minds think alike!--Mais oui! 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotland portal link

I added this below the millionth article section of my talk page. I did it this afternoon, but, being at the library, needed to scarper before I could let you know about it. I love the Scottish noticeboard and all the good work done from it, and I'm only too happy to spread the word about it on my talk page. Once all this fuss dies down, I'll do some more, my only major contribution thus far being Rosneath. Nach0king 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medal count pages

Thanks for trying to help, but as you may not realize, you are causing some problems. First, "Great Britain" is the offical name of the NOC (National Olympic Committee), not "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Please stop changing it. Second, our medal counts are supposed to be EXACTLY the same as olympic.org's. The way you changed the distribution of the 1908 medals is not accepted. King nothing 2 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham International Airport

Why the big change to Birmingham International Airport (Alabama) from Birmingham International Airport (US)? This doesn't match the naming conventions discussion which was deciding whether or not the article should be US or U.S. In all fairness, the article should have the country mentioned, not the state. ClarkBHM 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Forgot to thank you for your vigilance, and the announcing of both the NI Portal and notice board on relevent pages. I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia, and I'm not completely clued up as to procedure (both official and unofficial), and I appreciated your help. Cheers. --Mal 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Olympic convention pages

The Wikipedia:Olympic conventions pages have been nominated for deletion. I know you have been an avid contributor to the debates, so I urge you to go to the deletion page and vote KEEP, as the sake of all of the work we have done might go down the drain. Thanks for your support! Respectfully, Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

List of schools in Edinburgh

Could you please explain the reasons behind your recent edit of this page? Is there a policy matter? Samantha of Cardyke 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as "official" policy goes: I don't know, although it would not surprise me because many, many Wikipedians' absolutely hate articles about schools (I am not one of them by the way). But I can assure you that if a single article is created for a local primary school then it will be deleted at Afd. This being the case, it is unecessary to have about fifty red links to local primary schools on a single page.--Mais oui! 07:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - there are so many schools all over the world that the number of articles could become incalculable. Perhaps there should eventually be a separate area of Wikipedia for them, if at all, and article information to be limited to supplying the school website (if it exists). I have read comments about getting too 'crufty' by discussing what goes on in a local place that is of interest to only a few people. On a global scale, writing about what goes on in a particular school is pretty much like writing about what goes on in your own home. Samantha of Cardyke 09:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User 203.206.167.124

Is this guy really my sockpuppet? It makes perfect sense, given how User 203.206.167.124 seems to be South African, and I... don't. That's not to mention the fact that I would never commit the cardinal sin of considering conservatives to be 'right-wing', nor would I be physically capable of editing the article on David Irving without calling a spade, a spade (or a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist, a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist). Considering anyone that agrees with my stand on nationality labels a sockpuppet of mine is incredible. Bastin8 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Duly removed. --Mais oui! 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Bastin8 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

British/Cornish/English overcategorization

I have answered your complaint on my Talk page. Evertype 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish deletions

I really find the repeated attempts to delete Kurdish-everything tiresome. Thanks for pointing out those; I don't usually monitor stub deletions, but this is a many front attack. It's good to see that there are other polyglots on WP -- I have made contributions to the German, French, Slovene, Catalan, Turkish, Greek, French, Italian, and Spanish ones as well. I wish I could speak the Scandinavian languages, but too complicated for me. takk! Carlossuarez46 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Again, those happened during the Squidward attack and the promblem seemed to lie in the IRC RC feed from WikiMedia, it was causing basically everyone to screw up reverts. If you check the bots history now, it's running perfectly in the last little while. The bot may have made a tiny bit of work to clean up but it also fixed a lot of the vandalism all by itself, you can't blame it for the RC feed going wonky. Sorry about that -- Tawker 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

relax, man, I am almost certain it was nothing personal; just look at how much work it does, correctly, it must save about four man-hours a day at least. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui, are you familiar with the ED-209? :-) Alexander 007 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newroz

A rather bitter debate is going on about the articles Norouz and Newroz. It would be great if someone fresh to the problem would weigh in. Bertilvidet 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Help With DAB Needed

Hi Mais Oui. Thanks for editing the CANMORE article. There is a DAB for canmore that I've tried to link to in the CANMORE article but am havinf trouble. Can u help? Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Infobox

Apologies, I reverted to the version after seeing the second infobox using "diff" on retros contrib page, and did not see that it had been reverted back - my latest post to the swnb clearly implies that.

With all due respect Mais, this entire situation could have been avoided if my advice had been headed at the time the infobox changes were made by yourself without any discussion on the issue. I said then:

"Wouldn't it make 100% more sense to reach consensus on the issues discussed here before you go around the place changing articles?" in reference to Calgacus who was then changing articles based on your infobox change. I then posted in reply to him

"Places where a gaelic/scots name doesn't exist come to mind. Can the field be suppressed if it isn't needed? At least gaelic is a defined language, scots is a hodgepodge amalgam which often contradicts itself or a suitable word doesn't exist. It is going to look unsightly to have a load of {((placeS}}} littered about where things don't quite fit the template. Also what occurs for modern names which don't have gaelic origins?"

and now look at the mess that has been created? With all of these exact points being made subsequently by other users. This all should have been discussed before any change was made to the infobox template. SFC9394 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind being bold when the issue is non-contentious, but given the history on this subject area (the whole western isles situation for starters) I would always prefer for discussion before implementation - otherwise "being bold" can lead to edit wars and all sorts of non-constructive work. SFC9394 13:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)