User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 14

Thanks

Thanks ;-) And thanks for all your help. Globaltraveller 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-))

Yes, my consensual skills are probably on a par with yours! Very lucky living in the sticks, nobody hears the angst ridden screams. :) Brendandh 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns

Cities must be list for countries, not for states. Bye and good work. --Attilios 10:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue, I'll mention you as disruptor of three revert rule'. Bye. --Attilios 10:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three revert rule, and I've mentioned it. So, the only one abusing are you. Bye. --Attilios 11:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have provided something more than a restore in the edit summary, also when restoring something 4 or 5-edits far. IMHO, most people involved in voting there for showing Scottish flag were clearly Scottish. If you called in some Italian or Burkina Faso, maybe the poll would go differently. But that's all. Personally, I agree that we should show the independent state flag, otherwise here we would get lost in a innumerable confusion. But I think it's hard to let this understand to a Scottish or a Welsh. Bye. --Attilios 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received notes that you've a fame of edit warmonger... so maybe I should reconsider your stance and if you're truly right in the twin towns format matter. In fact, that you didn't reply immediately when I posted on your Talk was not a good move accord to Wikiquette. Bye.

I repeat. I've nothing against you, but your lack of reply and your frenzy restoring rage after I firstly inquired you on your talk still looks suspect. --Attilios 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had had the courtesy of replying to my very first edit in your talk, everything would be settled. But I'm starting to see, from your talk and your deeds otherwhere, that you're not so much into such behaviours... but in different others. It's full of 3RR and warmonging accuses against you here: what do you reply? --Attilios 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the pop-up because you looked clearly as a vandal. Maybe you aren't. But you're still unable to tell me why you didn't reply my first inquiring in your talk, and avoid that all. From what I see (also the deleting of messages from anonymous user, even if sockpuppets, is also not such a good practice), and from your language, you look the one needing some more calm. --Attilios 15:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of England

Hiya, I notice you removed the geological map from the Geology of England article. I've added it back in for the time being, because I think it's quite an important change, and ought to be discussed. But I've started a thread about it on the talk page, if you want to explain why you think it shouldn't be on there then please do feel free to come and talk about it. Cheers, Eve 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal wars

I didn't care too much about what unnamed IPs write me. But please don't fight your wars on my talk page. Did you address him on the apposite page? Bye and good work (PS... next Sunday they'll play Scotland-Italy!!! Who will won?) --Attilios 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv WP:FLAGS

I noticed that you placed a number of edits today with the above editsummary. I don't know if you actually read the essay in question, but it does specifically mention this kind of editwaring currently happening due to the use of flags where there really is no need. Agathoclea 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about flag wars but I do not see the point in demonstrating flags of non-sovereign states over the sovereign state. I do though have a fair idea as to why this has been done in the case of the United Kingdom, and that is because it furthers a nationalist agenda to seprate the four home nations. That is quite sad. It is sad because, in the pushing of this agenda, a double-standard is blatantly revealed. If the United Kingdom is not to be represented in the details of the British cities that are twinned with cities in other countries, why are nations like the United States or Spain represented? Why would the user Mais Oui! revert flags to England and Wales, but leave Barcelona under the flag of Spain and not Catalonia? Catalonia has a far larger movement towards independence than Scotland, England and Wales combined. Yes, I have a 'unionist agenda', but I also like to see balance, and the logic in this case is towards the nation state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enzedbrit (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't know why you'd tell me to stop Flag Warring and then go and undo the changes that I had made which is, to my view, inciting a 'flag war'. It appears that you are forcing a separatist agenda by reverting flags to those of non-sovereign states in selective areas but leaving others untouched. Why is this? I think that you owe the contributors and visitors to Wikipedia an explanation. Enzedbrit 05:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Chriscf has NOT broken 3RR at this point, and I don't believe he will. Both have you have been running on the edge of incivility, but neither have broken into fully blown personal attacks that I can see. However slapping a prefromed warning template on an established editors talk page can be seen as very rude. I suggest you both calm down, keep out of others way for a while or step away from the computer for an hour or so to calm down - there is no point in getting angry over wikipedia. When you do return to the computer/that article, please discuss the relevant changes ON THE TALK PAGE, and try and gain consensus one way or the other. Similar comments are being posted on the other editors talk page. Viridae ^Talk 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

What are you doing? I am in the process of changing the stupid and crap article "Population genetics of the British Isles" into an article about settlement of the British Isles prior to 1066. The reason for this is because there is dire need of an article that gives an outline of the various theories regarding the settlement of the British Isles, specifically the evidence for cultural transimssion versus mass migration. It is incorrect to state that 1066 is not a relevant date for other countries in the British Isles besides England. The Norman Conquest did not stop with England, the Normans went on to invade Wales and Ireland. Besides which, if your sole problem is with the fact that the article mentioned the UK, this was simply because it still needed some work. If you think this is a problem, then you should use the same criteria for the article Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922), the vast majority of which time the United Kingdom did not exist. This was one of the main motivating factors for removing information from this article to the Settlement article, because the UK didn't exist. But apparently the second article is fine by you, which displays a certain bias IMHO. Anyway I'm fed up with nationalists who see everything through a myopic and xenophobic lense. Alun 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about "Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles" or "Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland"? This article cannot be about population genetics and then make the claim that people form the British Isles are mainly descended from Iberia. This would constitute a POV-fork, that is, an article that is created in order to give only a single point of view. It must include evidence about cultural diffusion and migration. I am more than happy to discuss alternative titles if you do not like the current title. Getting into a strop is not constructive, why don't you do something constructive and actually suggest a title of your own? Alun 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas - uriel8 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Since you're being hit repeatedly by anons, you might want to request temporary semi-protection for your talk page to see if it blows over. SP of user talk pages is usually considered the prerogative of the user concerned, so I have not requested it on your behalf. Chris cheese whine 11:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I am not actually being repeatedly attacked by "anons". The User who has been repeatedly attacking me for many months now is very far from being anonymous:

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak

Thanks for the heads up though. I was not aware of that possibility, and it is worth considering. --Mais oui! 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "anons" read "not-logged-in users". :-) Though I second what was said on AN/I - get your backside over to WP:RFCU and see if you can get the "suspected" sockpuppets confirmed while you still can (logged-in user IPs are discarded permanently after 6 months IIRC). Chris cheese whine 12:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I waste my time? It very, very clearly falls under "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" - "Block. No checkuser is necessary". Unfortunately, the Admins know all about this, but because I am such a deeply unpopular User in certain quarters, including with many Admins, they have chosen to just allow Mallimak to continue baiting me unhindered. It is time for the impartial Admins to act. I have done all that I can reasonably be expected to do. --Mais oui! 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, what action do you propose they take? Blocking ceases to be effective when people start moving around different IP ranges. Chris cheese whine 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only action that I can see that will actually work is that Mallimak, and all his identified sockpuppets, is indefinitely banned. Then, whenever he starts using a new IP, we can report this to a designated Admin, who immediately blocks him.

If Mallimak ever decides that he genuinely would like to contribute positively to Wikipedia, he can request removal of the indef block. This should only be granted if he owns up to his past actions, and apologises, something which I just cannot see happening, because his contributions really have been cringe-inducing, and ít would take a great deal of courage to own up to that pattern of behaviour. Such courage is extremely rare, but I do believe in the concept of Redemption. --Mais oui! 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of category of BBC Sports Awards

I'm sorry if I came across as NN-ing the whole of Scotland in my post - certainly not my intention! By way of apology, may I draw your attention to ~~Charles Foster (Celticist)~~John Fraser (Celticist)? Just a little something I created earlier today, based on the little information I had, but I thought it might warrant some TLC from Project Scotland. Best wishes. Bencherlite 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think I would have got the name right, having written the page, wouldn't you...?1 Bencherlite 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in England

I just took the existing Sport in the United Kingdom article and removed the non-English bits and changed 'British' to 'English' where appropriate. I think it is fairly easy to extend the article just using existing wikipedia articles. The only real problem is how to cover the sports which are structured along British lines such as athletics.GordyB 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen assessment

Ding it doun! Blood red sandman is usually hot on the trail of these things, although I am not sure what the assessments achieve. That aside, a kindly person recently left me a note about a new article I wrote. "I...suggest that you propose it as a future 'selected article' on Scotland portal too. Or, since Scotland is leading the way on renewables in the UK, perhaps on the UK portal?" I will ask he/she what they mean, because I have no idea. Could you give me some sage advice? (Perhaps here in case it precipitates a diplomatic incident)? Ta, Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK place infobox

You have my support with regards to Owain's edits, the conventions and consensus is clear - that infomation is not suitable for that particular section. However, I think it should be included, but not within the same (main) geographic system section. Your thoughts? Jhamez84 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IR-stub

Hello! You're more of a stub expert, so can you take a look at Template:IR-stub. Seems to be a bit screwed up. There's no category to go with it, so I'm guessing that the stub-sorting wallahs didn't create this one. Delete? Fixup? Ignore? I'll leave the hard decisions to you! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map

Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Pit-yacker 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCOWNB WP:SCO etc.

G'day. I trust the tandem is holding up. I am finally beginning to get my head around the various WP:SCOWNB WP:SCO P:SCO etc pages and I notice lots of duplication e.g. lists of GAs, FAs members on WP:SCOWNB & WP:SCO. Is there a reason for this, or have things just grown and nobody got round to tidying them up? I am resisting the urge to do some re-organising, but is there any useful history or discussion anywhere to be aware of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a few thoughts soon. There was a similar reaction to the idea of pursuing FA status for the Scotland page a while ago. However now that I am older and wiser I can see that just keeping it in one piece is a huge task. Apart from some arcane purist view, can you think of any practical advantages in not having the Scotland article permanantly semi-protected? There have been hundreds of edits in the last few months, most of them Anon IPs making edits which are then reverted. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I just did some pruning. I'll have another go later. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Hi Mais oui!, I like your suggested edit to this article. Also, would you mind giving me a breif <giggle> synopsis of the "flag issue" for this article? Thanks, --Tom 13:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England-novelist-stub

Hello, I've started looking for the indefinite article a followed by words beginning with vowels, making a number of edits in the last few hours. I noticed a followed by the word English in the England-novelist-stub template, a template which I think you created. I've added a note to the template's discussion page. Any objection to my changing a to an? LewPot 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Law of the United Kingdom

"I know that you take an automatic dislike to most of my edits". Please learn to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I also know what I am talking about, and your hatchet job on this article was totally unacceptable. Tim! 11:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is being derisory? WP:KETTLE. Tim! 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert explaination

hi, could you explain why you reverted my edit to the scottish topic template here? I added it because Ecosse is an orphan. Is there any other place better to put this? — Jack · talk · 17:51, Sunday, 11 March 2007

An Announcement

In my trawl around the WP:SCOWNB members I was surprised to come across this: [1]. Perhaps worth an announcement? I am not sure of the protocols. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC) PS A sad by-product of the list merger is that your deservedly pre-eminent position at the top of the list will no longer be obvious, which I regret, although this may save you from being badgered by the likes of myself in future.[reply]

Copyright issue with Office of the Accountant of Court

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Office of the Accountant of Court, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/accountant.asp. As a copyright violation, Office of the Accountant of Court appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Office of the Accountant of Court has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Office of the Accountant of Court and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Office of the Accountant of Court with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Office of the Accountant of Court.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Accountant of Court

That's funny -- while you were leaving the message on my talk page, I was removing the copyvio and hangon tags and commenting on the article's talk page. Good timing! --Butseriouslyfolks 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen

I wondered if you could look at the Aberdeen article for reassessment under the WikiProject Scotland criteria? I have done quite a bit of work to it and (hope)/am certain that it can be upgraded. thanks Bobbacon 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My French is OK... I have been living in France for 6 months because my other half has a job here. I did school French for 4 years but was never very good. I get by but am nowhere near fluent. If you have some French articles you'd like me to look at I can give them a try for translation as it'd be good practice for me... my gf is fluent and can mark my spelling for me before I put it up! Bobbacon 09:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Infobox

I see that you have reverted some edits on this article. I agree, as I wasn't aware of any consensus either, although that was what I was informed of today when I looked for help on Project Infobox to fix a problem I have with the template.

I refer you to what I was told here Template talk:Infobox UK place. My problem is I think the spacing between the information is too big and makes the infobox look unnecessarily long. Bobbacon 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish court in the Netherlands

You recently moved this from Scottish Court in the Netherlands. However most sources use the capitalised version (such as the Scottish Court Service- [2] or Dumfries Police [3]) Astrotrain 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Not sure about this really. What was the official name, used by the court itself and other govt sources? And how do we know that "most" sources used the capitalisation? I'm not really that bothered either way: feel free to move it back if you like. -- Mais oui! 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

Thanks for your comment re Fauna of Scotland. I was intending to ask you how you kept up-to-date with the WP:SCOWNB 'Categories for discussion', wondering if there was clever automatic system, but never got round to doing so. Shortly after your edit to the above various horrid bots started decorating my watch list with ("Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8":Fauna of Scotland -> Fauna of Europe). I don't have an issue with the change and being surprised is clearly my own fault for not watching the category. Do you simply watch lots of Scottish related cats? Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox consensus

Hello! I was wondering if you could pass comment at Template talk:Infobox UK place? Your involvement, in whatever form it may be, would be much appreciated. Jhamez84 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

What was this all about? Chris cheese whine 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-AA/ST

Hi Mais oui, you have your opinions a bit biased in my opinion about this. It is not so black-and-white; if you want to debate it sometime.. regards, Taalo 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox place vote: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18

Surprised not to see you there. There is a call to delete the Scottish (Welsh, and London) infoboxes and replace them with a UK Great Britain template currently in use for English places. The vote is taking place at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landesparlament

You created this Double redirect (that still needs to be fixed) and listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article requests. Please elaborate what article you are requesting. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the message! I've not really been on that long but am enjoying contributing to the Scottish articles! Thunderwing 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency medical services in the UK

Thanks for fixing the St John Wikilink, however, i am under the impression tha St Andrews First Aid no longer provide ambulance services, and hence are not really appropriate here (more appropriate on the First Aid page). In the absence of info to the contrary, i'll remove the link in a day or two. Thanks for your input. Owain.davies 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McConnell article

Hi Mais oui!- I am still trying to expand the JMcC article- especially his terms as Minister, and the first term as FM. One issue I was am aware of is the relative lack of sources for these periods- the only exceptions being BBC News and Scotsman websites. But do you think its ok to rely so much on these sources, or do you think a better variety of sources would be appropiate? Thunderwing 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I have found some sources in Public Finance that are of use in the early years as a bit of variety. Thunderwing 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland or United Kingdom

I've been trying to find out the policy or guidelines that apply here, or where a consensus was reached. Please could you refer me to where to find this out? Thanks, Notinasnaid 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enzedbrit

If I offended you then I am sorry. Most of my post did not directly refer to you. I assumed that I had offended you by my inclusion of the 1066 date in the title of the article I was discussing. I also assumed you were offended due to nationalistic sensibilities, after all it was you who specifically stated that this was too Anglocentric, thus introducing a "nationalistic" slant to the discussion. I think my assumption was reasonable under the circumstances. If this was not the case, then I apologise for jumping to conclusions. As for the pov-pushing claim, I have no idea if you push a specific POV or not, I am far too unfamiliar with your edits to make such coments. I will, however, point out that what I said was that it is typical that POV-pushers do not attempt to engage in consensus building. I was very frustrated by your edit waring on the Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland article, and your lack of any attempt to offer compromise or alternatives, it would not have required much for us to reach an agreement, as I demonstrated with my offers of alternatives. I could argue equally that you had failed to assume good faith with your attitude to this episode. Does it matter? The important thing was to reach a compromise so we could get on. Maybe you should remember what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a battleground. The vast majority of my post to Enzedbrit was to urge him to engage with you in forming a consensus. I find it sad that you have accused a Wikipedian of a "personal attack" when all that Wikipedian was doing was urging another Wikipedian to try to seek consensus and to make compromises. There was nothing personal about my post, and it was certainly no attack, I was not using a political epithet against you, I was saying that I thought my actions had offended you, how is this an attack? Nor did I use any of your affiliations as a means to discredit you because I made no attepmt to discredit you whatsoever. I don't even know what your affiliations are!!! It is disingeneous to leave spurious warnings about personal attacks on other users pages when it is clear that they have done no such thing. As for your comments about British nationalism, I couldn't agree more. I detest all forms of nationalism, I am a self confessed Anarchist, so any form of state is anathema to my personal philosophy. I really couldn't care less if you have a Scottich flag or a Union flag on these articles, it's all the same to me. But I do feel a bit peeved that you have accused me of bad faith when I was encouraging another user to enage with you and to try to form a consensus rather than just disagreeing. I urge you to do the same. Have a proper argument about the issues with Enzedbrit rather than just contradicting and reverting each other. I was listening to Wikipedia weekly the other day and they were talking to an Indian and Pakistani wikipedian. These guys had worked together on the Muhammad Ali Jinnah article. They were discussing how they had come to the consensus to use the phrase Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Urdu: محمد على جناح)listen (help·info) (25 December 1876 – 11 September 1948) was an Indian Muslim politician and leader (highlighted text mine). Working together can be difficult, but communication is the key. I'm not perfect, I can be as stuborn and stupid as the next man, but I am certainly not taking sides here. Again I appologise if I offended you, it was not my intent, and my post was not entirely related to you. I don't want to get into a big fight about this, this is something I have little interest in, so I urge you to seek mediation if you cannot fix it yourselves, but at least try. All the best. Alun 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]