Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 28 September 2007

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Template:Politics of Scotland

Problems over the image to be used - this seems to be "festering" into an ongoing debate. I think it is quite clear in the WP:FAIRUSE policy that we cannot use the Royal Standard, the Coat of Arms or indeed anything else which specifically is the property of the Crown in a Template - it may be used on the relevant page. Thanks for your support on this one, hopefully it can be resolved to people's satisfaction. Davidkinnen 08:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-confessional

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Non-confessional, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Lilac Soul 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gordon S Brown

Hi,

You have just reverted my Gordon Brown disambiguation entry, before I'd even posted the article about this person! As well as having been on Horsham council for some years, he has published several books on railways and railway preservation and, i believe other subjects besides. What were your grounds for deciding he is a non-notable person? Thank you. regards, Lynbarn 09:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I'm not in an edit war. I moved GB above Scotland twice, which it should be, and other people have removed references etc. You anyway seem to have caused it, I move GB to the top and a perfectly good reason is given on the talk page and you moved it back citing no edit summary as the reason. Common sense should surely be used here, ad your edit was needless. And please don't move Scotland back to the top or it will be you getting edit waring, as this has been discussed on the talk page and as nobody has given me a good reason why GB should be under Scotland. So if you keep moving it back without reason surley it is you who should be warned. JimmyMac82 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian Souter

It's like talking to a spin doctor. I could use some help reasoning, and I may RfC as ludicrous as it seems that I'd need to for such a blatantly POV article. - superβεεcat  17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Private Investigations

Hi - inspired by recent awesome activity (more than 2 active users!) on the Scottish island front, I have taken a brief break from editing to create the draft of a WikiProject to cover this. The number of editors is small, but the scope is large and I think it might be useful to have a bit more focus to help potential new editors get involved. There is a draft of the project page here and of the navigation template at the top of this page, (both shamelessly plagiarised from the assumed parent Wikiproject). I notice the glad announcement on your User page re WP:SCO that the "consultation period was successful". However I can't see anything in the gudielines that requires this. Nonetheless, I'd like to be polite. Should it be raised at WP:SCO for example, or can it just be announced? It would ideally have a shortcut e.g. WP:ISLE, and I'm assuming that can just be created without further ado too. Any advice gratefully received. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you are busy winding up the Guillemots - I'm off to make the above 'live' asap, but any further comments or input when you have time is welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Portal

Hi Mais, I mentioned some time ago that I was disappointed that the DYK section had been dropped from the portal. I've been thinking about this for a while and I think adding it back in would be a big improvement. All the other featured national portals carry a DYK section in a prominent location. There's some other improvements that I think would be useful too.

The colour scheme is very weak. The header bars really should be bolder. Again, almost all the other featured national portals use some colour from the national flag for this element. I'd suggest reverting back to the blue from the saltire as it used to be. The quotation and category sections are very loosely formatted, taking up too much space and could be tightened a bit.

Rather than being bold and steaming ahead with the changes, I thought I'd seek your opinion first as one of the chief architects of the page. I've worked up a draft layout showing suggested changes here. I couldn't get the enclosing light blue enclosing border to format properly in my sub pages, but it would remain in the real portal. I've mocked it up here.

Your thoughts would be welcome. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail off-wiki. Can you please confirm that you got it? Phil Sandifer 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - it let me send the e-mail, which it shouldn't do if you didn't give it an e-mail address. Ah well. Here's what I sent:

Re: Royal Scottish Geographic Society

I just got a request to look at this situation. Usually, in situations like this, I look at it, I see that the IP is a nutter, and I go about my business. But this time, I have to say, I think you're kind of in the wrong.

In the course of introducing the change of "British" to "Scottish", the IP doubled the length of the article, adding a huge amount of material. You subsequently changed the nationality with the unclear edit summary "link" and provided no explanation beyond that. When asked by the IP, you refused to answer, and have continued to refuse to answer.

I understand that you think the IP is edit warring, but look at his contributions - he's added a tremendous amount to the article, and has been a useful, helpful contributor. And your attitude towars him has had the effect of nearly driving him off of the project.

I would ask you, please, to go back to the discussion, explain to the editor why you reverted that change, and enter a discussion with him. While it seems like he can get a bit hot under the collar when provoked, I honestly think such discussion would prove fruitful. And as annoyed as you may be at anonymous IPs, we do, as a matter of Foundation policy, allow them to edit. That means they can validly ask for clarifications, explanations, etc. And for experienced users such as yourself to simply refuse to give any guidance to them is unacceptable.

-Phil Phil Sandifer 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Article - Official Languages

Hi.

Your colleague, Ben Mac', appears to agree that Scotland's Offical Languages include Gaelic and Scots. However, nowhere can I find evidence to support either of you on this. Your last revision today cited an "International Treaty", (I'm assuming the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is the treaty to which you refer), and "Domestic Legislation", (again I assume the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005).

I am not taking the micky here, (and I genuinely mean that), but have you actually read these documents? Either of them? Guess what - I have, and what is more, nowhere in either of these documents is the status of Offical Language conferred upon either Gaelic or Scots. There is no disputing they are languages in their own right and are recognised as such in both the domestic legislation and international treaties to which you refer. These are facts not open to any misinterpretation. However, the European Charter states under Article 1 that for the purposes of the Charter:

a. "regional or minority languages" means languages that are:

i. traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and

ii. different from the official language(s) of that State;

it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants;

b. "territory in which the regional or minority language is used" means the geographical area in which the said language is the mode of expression of a number of people justifying the adoption of the various protective and promotional measures provided for in this Charter;

c. "non-territorial languages" means languages used by nationals of the State which differ from the language or languages used by the rest of the State's population but which, although traditionally used within the territory of the State, cannot be identified with a particular area thereof.

Article 2 – Undertakings

1. Each Party undertakes to apply the provisions of Part II to all the regional or minority languages spoken within its territory and which comply with the definition in Article 1.

2. In respect of each language specified at the time of ratification, acceptance or approval, in accordance with Article 3, each Party undertakes to apply a minimum of thirty-five paragraphs or sub-paragraphs chosen from among the provisions of Part III of the Charter, including at least three chosen from each of the Articles 8 and 12 and one from each of the Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13.

Nowhere in the 23 Articles of the Charter does it mention that the Charter itself confers Offical Status to any language specified by the 8 States, (Including the UK), who ratified the treaty with regard to those languages as defined in Article 1. As for the UK:

a) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter that it will apply the following provisions for the purposes of Part III of the Charter to Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic and Irish.

Scottish-Gaelic – 39 paragraphs Article 8: Education Paragraphs 1a (i) 1b (i) 1c (i) 1d(iv) 1e (iii) 1f (iii) 1g 1h 1i 2 Total: 10

b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter’s definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter. Period covered: 01/07/01 - The preceding statement concerns Article(s): 2, 3

None of the above paragraphs and sub-paragraphs relating to Scots or Gaelic to which the UK Govt. gave an undertaking to apply affords "Official Status" to either language - FACT. May I therefore refer you to the Wiki page for Official Languages and the Section Officially recognised minority languages.

With regard to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, it starts:

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.

This provides for the establishing of Bòrd na Gàidhlig which will have "functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland". Therefore the Act states both the intention and the means but does not itself confer the status of Official Language upon Gaelic. It will be for BnG to exercise its functions in order to secure Official Language status for Gaelic - FACT.

To insist therefore that both Scots and Gaelic are Official Languages is both erroneous and misleading. To do so repeatedly without apparently checking the facts is, well, you figure which adjective I should insert.

The case of Taylor v Haughney (1982) is also relevant. For links to that and the above, Google is your friend.80.41.226.135 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sporting siblings

Hi, I notice you added some people to this category, thanks. Just wondered if you would like to create pages for the brothers/sisters of Pascal Simon and Javier Otxoa if you have time so we can see who they are. Thanks. Joe p15 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi Mais

I've had a quick look at your situation. It certainly looks like a determined campaign of stalking which is, of course, completely unacceptable. You say these users are all sockpuppets of User:Mallimak. How many of them have been positively confirmed by checkuser? I note that User:Mallimak is not currently blocked, but also that he's not edited with that account since October 2006. Looking through the list on the suspected sockpuppet page, the majority of IP addresses (including the last post you highlighted) resolve to BT Broadband, assigned in the ranges:

81.129.0.0 - 81.129.255.255 - 65,536 addresses
81.153.0.0 - 81.158.255.255 - 393,216 addresses
86.142.0.0 - 86.147.255.255 - 393,216 addresses
217.42.0.0 - 217.44.255.255 - 196,608 addresses

Whoever this character is, he's likely on a dynamic IP, so individual IP blocks will be ineffective. Range blocks may be an option, but given the possible number of potential users involved, is highly risky. It's not an area I have any expertise in, so I won't be performing any range blocks, sorry. You need to track down a range block guru :) Perhaps a message to WP:AN and / or the checkuser talk page looking for an experienced range block admin might help.

In the meantime, I'd suggest not rising to the bait. I know it's difficult to ignore, but just revert personal comments where necessary, remove your own talk page trolling etc (without expansive edit summaries, just "rv" if need be). Extensive and exasperated edit summaries are what these people feed on; In a similar vein to WP:DENY, this will deprive them the high of their own game by ignoring it. I had a minor episode of semi-stalking myself when I first started here, nothing along these lines though, so I understand how difficult it can be to ignore. In the short term though, it's the best policy - they will likely get bored and go away.

You can try reporting to BT abuse, but I suspect you'd be pissing into the wind, and your complaints will disappear into the black hole of teh internets aether :) Sorry I can't be of more help right now. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the slow reply, haven't been quite as active of late. I'd agree with Cactus.man entirely, and second his advice throughout. Blocking large ranges of BT dynamic IPs doesn't look feasible to me, either (though perhaps if we started, their 'abuse' people might wake up and smell the decaff Earl Grey?). Feel free to contact me with specific IPs if they continue to be a problem, or else post to ANI, and refer to this discussion (or wherever else best concisely describes the problem). Alai 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vrable manse

I think it is already categorised. It has {{struct-stub}}. MurphiaMan 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal review

Hi Mais oui! Knowing that you have an interest in an unconnected featured portal, I wondered if you might like to comment on the one I've been working on - energy portal - which is now under consideration for featured status. Compared to other candidates it has had relatively few people contributing to the debate, despite being up for discussion for 2 months. If you have time perhaps you would like to take a look? The candidate page can be found here. Gralo 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orcadian/Mallimak IPs

The account Mallimak hasn't been used in ten months, so blocking that wouldn't seem to serve much point. I can't practically do that much about the IPs, short of banning every anon editor using BT as an ISP (not necessarily a bad plan in my view, but not quite in line with blocking policy). I would be prepared to short-term block in the middle of a sustained spree of meaningless reverts as disruption, but the pattern seems to be a couple to a dozen of such, with an incivil comment thrown in as seasoning, and all over by the time anyone looks like doing anything about it. Blocking those after the effect will either have no effect at all, or catch some other BT customer who ends up wiht that IP address. To be frank, the per-instance substance of this doesn't seem significantly "worse" than many a routine editing dispute (sad though that may be to say), though it does look the persistence of it indicates that the main purpose of it at this stage is just to "wind you up". The best long term strategy is probably, then, not to be wound up by it (annoyingly trite and unsatisfactory as that may seem as advice). Alai 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 81.129.16.82 for 24 hours, as it was recent enough to be justifiable on preventative grounds. The above comment essentially stands, though... Alai 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Scots+BSL

Whether the latter is regional or not is a pretty trivial matter and certainly not justification for its total exclusion from the section while Scots sneaks in with no great justification. Both are recognised and i dont see how you can maintain one without also finding a place for the other. Neither should be in the section in the first place as neither are considered Official Languages. siarach 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol location

Now that South Tyrol has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, if you care, please add your opinion on the future of South Tyrol here: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Whither_South_Tyrol.3F. — AjaxSmack 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message, Mais oui! It's appreciated. I hope you'll continue your great work and remain as strong a personality as you always have been. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray's nationality

Hi Mais oui,

I could use your help on Andy Murray's wikipedia page. There is a moderator named "Dewarw" trying to push his own agenda. I have been threatened with a ban for reverting Murray's description to "Scottish". This man is attempting to abuse his power by making threats to push his own agenda.

Murray, as I am sure you know, has stated several times that he is Scottish and it is generally accepted that he considers himself Scottish first and foremost. I do not think moderators should be allowed to settle edit disputes with threats of a ban, particularly if facts do not support their own view. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards, 82.40.19.192 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

hello there Mais oui!, you once voted and showed interest on the topic of South Tyrol. Certain Italian users just can't seem to give the topic a rest and had the article moved with a sham vote to the Italian name. I am calling for that vote to be annulled or at least extended so that more can vote and the result be representative. Drop by the talk page or drop me a message if you would like to share your thoughts, I am interested in hearing from you. sincerely Gryffindor 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Darkieboy263

I notice you had a run in with Darkieboy236 - highly likely this is another sockpuppet of Lofty who is a traditional counties nutter. Similar edit patterns and user page.

I am definitely NOT a TORY and I am certainly NOT a Christian, however, I do live in Lincoln. Darkieboy236 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Scotland

Thanks for the reply & notification - Tharky has now agreed to remove the post-1707 monarchs (once we create the planned article List of British monarchs). GoodDay 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IP troll

It seems out troll friend has now joined Darkieboy in his quest of having the Union flag in every singe infobox --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality on motorsport articles

Please do not use regional flags in motorsport articles. Neither Scotland nor England have independent motorsport governing bodies and acccording to International Federation guidelines racing licenses are issued with the nationality as exhibited in a passport. This has already been discussed in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Motorsport, with a consensus for use of the British flag. The use of the Scottish flag in motorsport tables for drivers such as Jackie Stewart, Colin McRae or David Coulthard is as inappropriate as the use of the Asturian flag for Fernando Alonso or the Pennsylvania flag for Michael Andretti. --Pc13 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

English-Scottish border

Anglo is offensive word, this is reason please help me change to english-scottish border name please. thank you. YESYESandmanygoals 10:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae

RE: your edit summary rm focus of disgraceful flag-waving; please have respect for the man's family; unbelievable that British nationalists are using this man's death to promote a flag he never used. I'm not a British Nationalist, and frankly I find your idea that I would be rather insulting. But the Colin McRae infobox is a WRC driver infobox, and since the WRC is run by the FIA, who do not recognise Scotland as a country, his flag shoudl remain as British. It is noted that he is Scottish in the first line of the article - in fact it's the first sentence. THAT is where it should be noted that he was Scottish, not the infobox. Also, deleting the info is NOT helpful. mattbuck 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BT IPs winding you up.

I thought I answered that question on one of the previous "umpteen times" you posed it. Alai 03:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{User en-sc}}

{{User en-sc}} is an outdated template, replaced by {{User en-gb-sct}}. In order to mark Category:User en-sc for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#C3, I had to empty the category by replacing the old teplate with the new one on each user's user page. This wasn't difficult, since there were only three of you.

This practice is not uncommon. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deaf recently did the same with all Wikipedians who were using {{User ASL}} by editing their userpages and replacing them with {{User ase}}. Since the category is still marked for speedy deletion, I will replace the outdated template again. If you prefer, you may also use {{User en-gb-sct-N}} if you are a native speaker of Scottish English. Cheers! Taric25 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Scots LD Metacolour

Hi Mais. Discussion was a while ago on the project page. I thought you had taken part in it at the time? Do you think I should start a new discussion on the template page? Galloglass 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule block

This is longer than a normal block because of your previous blocks for edit-warring, and because some of your comments to Taric25 are aggressive. Sam Blacketer 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If I happen to slip some cash in the direction of the Misplaced Pages Foundation would you consider making it permanent... oh, go on! --Breadandcheese 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When you're unblocked

Hello Mais oui, I've created the article List of British monarchs; the post-1707 monarchs (images) can be moved there (from List of English monarchs). GoodDay 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Native speaker, right?

Since you claim you created the en-sc userboxes, then you should be aware that your userpage claimed you were a native speaker of Scottish English. I have changed your userpage to reflect that you are a native speaker. In other words, I have changed {{User en-sc}}, which redirects to {{User en-gb-sct}}, on your userpage to {{User en-gb-sct-N}} to show you are a native speaker. Cheers! Taric25 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of Scottish-related categories

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Speedy deletions of Scottish-related categories. Anthony Appleyard 08:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)