User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 04

This page 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.

I think you have misunderstood firstly the reason for the amended content to this text and secondly the linguistic history of Lowland Scots. I've opened a discussion [here]. Thanks. - Calgacus 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote in the election for the Arbitration Committee. If I give the impression of being partisan in my user page, then it is something I fear I will have to live with, and I just want quickly to explain why. I decided early on to put my party membership on my user page not to campaign (which even if it was permitted, I thought would be a wasted effort) but because my main interest is British politics and it's only fair to let other users know where I'm coming from. There is no requirement to do so and I know other users who are members of parties and don't declare it on their user pages (no names, no packdrill, it is their decision).

What I hope I don't show is partisanship in editing articles. I don't write articles only about my own party, and I've written long articles about Liberal and Conservative politicians which I hope treat them fairly. There's a quote from Jimbo on my user page which refers to U.S. politics but which is equally applicable anywhere else and which I endorse.

Incidentally in my experience it's a non sequitur that those who are members of political parties are the most partisan. I find it's the committed supporters who have never been members who claim this honour in general. Those involved in active politics who often meet members of other parties tend to build up friendships with them and are able respectfully to disagree about issues, while often finding common ground. Anyhow, you are of course entitled to your vote. David | Talk 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. But I still oppose your nomination. What particularly concerns me is your refusal to accept consensus decisions, for example in the use of Swing statistics in UK by-election articles (as outlined in the Wikipedia article about you: David Boothroyd). There is a very clear consensus, for example at the Talk:Livingston by-election, 2005, that the swing shown should be between the first two parties, not always Lab-Con (which becomes absolutely silly when the Labs or Cons are in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th place, or lower, or even totally absent, as is often the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland). I note with dismay that you deleted all mentions of swing in a wee, surepticious edit around Christmas, without even the courtesy of an Edit summary. You have also been very unreasonable and disruptive at the Bermondsey article, and others. I do admire people who dig in and refuse to budge (I am that way inclined myself), but it makes for absolutely useless arbitrators.--Mais oui! 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

G'day Mais oui!, I just wanted to commend you on your great work on Scotland at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and especially Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland. There is certainly a lack of information on the Commonwealth Games compared to the Olympics and any information added, especially information on sporting organisations and associations, is welcomed with open arms. Well done and keep up the fantansic work!! Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of the conflict regard the category "Historically Inaccurate Films." I wasn't quite comfortable casting a vote, but I did want to throw my two cents into the discussion. Nice photo of you on your user page, by the way ;) -- Runnerupnj 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was just in the middle of discussing with someone else; I was planning to refine once I had them in one place; but that was before. If it changes any opinions, I did read the terminology article before I started, and I stopped after a few waiting for feedback which I apparently received. (A couple of days prior I had posted in the Talk page, but nobody responded.)

Currently it was put in a subcategory system, and I'm awaiting further comment. Crystallina 17:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider making changes vandalism. I don't see the point in keeping useless inaccurate facts when I have ensured that my facts are backed up with sources of some substance such as census reports. I love how you don't attack other users for contributions with no sources and basing them solely on silly estimates. Let us keep some sort of professionlism here and states facts from verified sources i.e. Census reports. They are deemed the most accurate as they were filled out by citizens of each respective country i.e. United States70.30.71.252 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your vote:[1] Camillus (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh... thanks (I think) for that Camillus. I duly voted Delete, as it complies with the "offensive" criterion,... unless, of course, there is some mention in the young lady's article regarding a notable penchant for that particular variant of sexual fulfillment (I didn't bother checking: maybe I should have before voting!) :) --Mais oui! 23:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:70.30.71.252 for violating the three-revert rule. From the talk page he seems to be open to discussion. Now might be a good time to vist his talk page and see if he has a reasoned position. Maybe there's some possibility for a meeting of the minds. Best, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Interesting example of how POV pushing and careless breaking of formatting go together. Morwen - Talk 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Scottish inventions page, must engage brain next time. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. That is a damn fine example of a good stub article.--Mais oui! 17:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, your maintenance of the NoticeBoard is very useful, and also much appreciated. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in French, there are spaces before :;!?

Pabix 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I urge you to interact on the talk page here? Morwen - Talk 10:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have, but the User just seems to think that if he/she repeats themselves often enough then we will suddenly agree with them. Perhaps I should re-intervene on the Talk page, but sometimes life is just too short. To make the topic of the article crystal clear, I have clarified the article title.--Mais oui! 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that requesting the other user participate in talk discussion (which he is), and then standing aloof from it yourself isn't going to win the argument either. Much as I agree about repetition. Morwen - Talk 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, I predict that all that move will do is cause the move to be reverted. Morwen - Talk 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. Sorry: I am a baad Wikipedian. But I haven't had my second coffee yet, and peace and goodwill to all men usually doesn't kick in till at least no 3, or, more usually, aperitif time.--Mais oui! 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - I've restored the original page - List of monarchs of England - please feel free to delete or blank all the other duplicates with slightly different titles that you created. I've also expanded it greatly. As I said somewhere else, listing the historical rulers of a country has got little or nothing to do with "states". If it had, the Scandinavian entries, for example, would have to be split up into loads of different pages, which they aren't, because that would be stupid. England is a geogrphical entity, and that's how I've listed its various rulers. TharkunColl 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit here? Morwen - Talk 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please use {{GBR2}} for olympic team usage (cf. {{GBR}}'s talk page for the compromise). Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the first time that we've disagreed on the matter of nationality designation, but, when a four-member band has three 'English' members and one 'Scottish', it does somewhat make a mockery of any description as a 'Scottish band'. As I wrote in the talk page, it's either 'British' or 'Anglo-Scottish/Bavarian-Greek'. Should I be kind and let you choose which one is used? Bastin8 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not apply any more vandalism warnings to my edits of the Plaid Cymru page, which as any user will be able to see from the edit history are nothing of the sort. You clearly have a track record of refusing edits to your work and abusing the system by identifying other editors with whom you disagree as vandals. I strongly urge you not to continue this practice in my case. I have attempted to work with your edits, but you are insisting on reverting them. This is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.201.122 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 22:15:18

Mais oui, anonymous users are entitled to edit articles, and they don't need to explain those edits first either. Please play nice and encourange the editor. I cannot see anything wrong with those recent edits you reverted - yes commit messages would be nice, but... Thanks/wangi 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whay you trying to say bunging {{sockpuppet|Normalmouth}} on my talk page? Most confused... And it's not constructive either. Try and work with the "misguided" editors rather WP:BITEing them. Thanks/wangi 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no grudge... All I saw was new editors being jumped on and told they cannot make edits because they are anonymous and the edits were not discussed first... That shouldn't be the way things are done. Nobody had even bothered to add a welcome note to their talk pages in an effort to teach them the wikiway. Likewise there are no warnings on their pages etc? Thanks/wangi 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "... there are no warnings on their pages..."? Administrator User:Morwen has given the User several warnings. Stop encouraging what is clearly a malicious account by a Labour Party activist, out purely to denigrate Plaid Cymru. I initially did assume good faith: but they have long since proven that they do not deserve any.--Mais oui! 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, two warnings... But if things are so bad just pile on the additional warnings up to {{test4}} on each NPOV edit and then list on vandalism in progress and get the guy banned for a few hours... Still stand by what I said - nobody's tried welcoming the person. And hang off the "Administrator Xxx" bit - it's not that big a deal. Thanks/wangi 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I only just found out today that she was one, so it is obviously at the back of my mind.--Mais oui! 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, remember to sign when you add the warnings... and best to subst them too. wangi 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the back-up. I will humbly withdraw my hissy-fit from your Talk page.--Mais oui! 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem... If they're still at it after test4 then list on WP:AIV. Thanks/wangi 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Welsh nationalism and respond to my comments. Thanks. Gareth 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my last edit before lunch anyway ^_^ Kurando 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Eat heartily.--Mais oui! 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

By what criterion does Lasham Airfield merit inclusion in the Transport in England category? It is not used for transport. People come and go but you could say the same about any other sports venue. The category seems to be aimed at transport infrastructure eg Heathrow, the M1 and Tilbury Docks, so including Lasham is stretching things a bit. If you still decide to include it, you should also add Wembley Stadium and Aintree Racecourse to your category. JMcC 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Lasham Airfield is in :Category:Gliding in the United Kingdom, which is a subcat of :Category:Transport in the United Kingdom. In the absence of :Category:Gliding in England, I was in the process of putting articles directly into :Category:Transport in England. But is you think that direct entry is inappropriate, I will go ahead and create the necessary subcat.--Mais oui! 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem arises from putting Aviation under Transport. Civil aviation in the United Kingdom is not solely a means of transport. There are the aerial sports: paragliding, hang-gliding, gliding, ballooning, parachuting, microlights and conventional powered private aviation. There is also the Army, Royal Navy, RAF and the US Air Force in our airspace. Some of them are engaged in transport, or even rendition, but the combat aircraft could not be described as means of transport. I think Aviation exists separately under Technology. JMcC 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed some reverts on Scottish beer and ale. It seems that sources for my informaation is the main reason for deleting the text.

My two main sources are Michael Jackson's The World Guide To Beer and Martyn Cornell's Beer:The Story of The Pint. Though I have used various other sources, such as various histories of Scottish breweries, and of John Martin.

Is it possible for you to approach me first before deleting my work?

SilkTork 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)