User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Help I'm Confused 2 Flat Earth Society 3 Call for consensus on fan site list on Andy Murray page 4 Categories (Scottish Tennis Players 5 Re: Huh? 6 "rvv" 7 Welsh nationalism fork 8 Bizarre nationalism 9 The test templates 10 Duffus 11 Scotland article 12 rv 13 Grantown-on-Spey article and Freuchie 14 Template:Football in Scotland 15 Comment blasted away... 16 Re:Talossa 17 Uniltateral subdivision of British/United Kingdom/Scottish constituencies 18 CFM for subcats of Scottish MPs 19 Clans 20 Republicanism in Sweden 21 Template:British legislation lists 22 Mmmmm..... 23 Scotland and ...by country categories 24 Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies 25 Blanket reverting 26 Rep. in Sweden (2) 27 Stramash

Help I'm Confused

Hi! Would you be so kind as to tell me the difference between these two categories:-

• Category:Natives of Orkney
• Category:Orkney people

Richard Harvey 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmm.........! Well, to cut a short story even shorter, this is as a result of a newbie trying to make a WP:POINT, a task which he is pursuing with some admirable relish. Oh well, we shouldn't bite the newbies (too much).

I can see what he has done, and although it has not been executed in line with our standards and naming conventions, I actually support the general approach.

• The new Category:Orkney people, which should probably be renamed to (something like) Category:People associated with Orkney (eg see Category:People connected with Plymouth), is for people with a strong link to the archipelago (eg. spent a key part of their career there).

• The long-standing Category:Natives of Orkney is exactly what it says on the tin: people born in the archipelago. (Unfortunately he has been busy adding biogs to that cat for historical people whose place of birth is unknown, and probably unknowable.)

If you look up several items on this Talk page, you will see that this issue has already been raised for East Lothian, so we will probably have to do it for all of them. --Mais oui! 09:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

Just writing to let you know I voted for a strong delete at Advocates of Traditional Counties User Category for deletion debate. I felt that this user category/network is just not editing within the spirit of Wikipedia, and causing progressive contributors uninvited stress and reduced oppotunities to further the encyclopedic content!

Due to the nature of the users involved, I'm keeping a close eye on this, and the activity surrounding it. So far the majority of votes are ones of deletion.

Rules permitting, it may be an idea to inform some other users that this debate is open and active, to gain much broader level of input!...

Glad to see you're keeping up the good work in the meantime! Take care, Jhamez84 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--You may be interested in developments on the Bolton article - see Edit history.

Additionally, I think I've made a very valid point on the Traditional counties of England talk page - it would be great to have some input from yourself! Thanks, Jhamez84 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for consensus on fan site list on Andy Murray page

Hello Mais Oui!,

You've probably noticed my (probably foolhardy) attempt to resolve the edit war on the Andy Murray page regarding fansites. The protagonists do not look about to resolve it among themselves, so I'd appreciate it if you and other regular editors could express your views on this part of the page, so that we can stop the war going forward, or at least block a protagonist who persists in it. Please come to the talk page here

The questions I've put are:

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Thanks RobbieC 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories (Scottish Tennis Players

Hi Mais Oui!, and thanks for not reverting this.

I quite understand the hierarchy thing, and my inherant desire for tidiness thinks it's a great idea. However, in the case of Scottish Tennis players, I think it's confusing to our readers, and so a bad thing.

I've seen your ongoing efforts to help Wikipedia sort out some of these conflicts/complexities - especially your work on keeping things sane when it comes to British places, counties etc....hats off - that's a fight that I doubt I'd have the stomach for. So I hope you'll understand my point of view: don't confuse the reader, but make sure the facts are accurate (e.g place X is defined as being in Cleveland, because that's the administrative region, and that's what the reader would expect to see, so that he can find it on the map, but it's fine to have a paragraph in the article explaining that the locals still think of themseves as Yorkshiremen, and have the right to play for Yorkshire at cricket)

When it comes to tennis players, it's a personal experience that shaped my opinion (and started me off as a Wikipedian). I was trying to find a website that could tell me when Murray would be playing next, and was browsing Wikipedia to try to find it. I came to the "British Tennis Players" category, and couldnt find Murray. I got quite annpyed, because Alex Bogdanovic was there, as was Danny Sapsford (for heaven's sake!), but the leasding BRit of the moment wasn't. After a few minutes, I realised that there was a link to "Scottish Tennis Players" in the corner of the screen, and there was Andy, and Elena all by themselves.

So it seemed that rather than celebrating their Scottishness, we were creating a small Scottish Ghetto for them, and implying to the reader that they weren't "proper" Brits. It's possible, of course, to say "Well then, we should put all the English players under a category 'English Tennis Players', and 'British Tennis Players' should only be a master category. But that's not how tennis works - they play for the British Davis cup team, the fans support the Brits, and not the English, and Murray follows on from Henman (English), Rusedski(Canadian), John Lloyd (English) etc in a continuum in the fan's perception. Andy's Scottishness is more about his character, roots and personal heritage than about who he plays tennis for. I note that someone has started an "English Tennis Players" category, but given up after ten or so players....

This argument would be, obviously, totally inappropriate for football players, and indeed Rugby players, where a "British" category itself would be a bit spurious, although a "member of the British Lions team" category would make sense.

As for track & field athletes, it becomes a total minefield.

I think its a product of our wonderfully confused history that all these categories are there and sometimes help and sometimes just cause confusion (try explaining to an American the difference between being "British" and "from Great Britain"...)

So hopefully I'll be able to hold my little corner of exceptionalism here (I did seem to get a consensus on the Murray talk page before I moved)

Best, and thanks for taking the time to read this essay - If only I could write so fluently for the articles themselves! RobbieC 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Huh?

Oops! I think I accidentally clicked on the wrong link when looking through a contribs list; I certainly didn't mean to revert that. My most profound apologies. Kirill Lokshin 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"rvv"

Mallimak's "vandalism warning" may have been spurious, but it's hardly "vandalism" in itself. I'm asking you both to refrain from needless escalation of the existing dispute with such loose use of terminology. Alai 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend his edits on their merits, nor am I even going to argue that none of them were vandalism; it's just that if there's any possibility whatsoever that an edit was well-intended, labelling it as vandalism would be against the spirit of WP:AGF, and is likely to lead to further annoyance on the other side, tit-for-tat responses, etc. Alai 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Welsh nationalism fork

User:Normalmouth has created a fork of Welsh self-government by changing Welsh nationalism from a redirect into a POV fork. I reverted once and pointed him to Wikipedia:Content forking but be reverted back. Rhion 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre nationalism

I'm not personally attacking you, but I don't think you should be going around deciding that everyone has to be English or Scottish or Welsh or whatever. It seems an awfully silly and pointless task, and does seem to imply some kind of nationalistic agenda. The simplest thing would be to leave them as they are, and leave the original author to decide. — Dunc|☺ 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I have no doubt that Mais oui! has a nationalistic agenda. He has an ownership problem with any article he perceives to be "Scottish". His constant editing and re-editing of my articles to suit his agenda has put me off writing further articles for Wikipedia. 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The test templates

Please don't use {{test1}} on a user who you are in dispute with but is not engaging in vandalism edits. I'm giving the same advice to User:Duncharris. David | Talk 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Duffus

I just stumbled across article Duffus. Not sure what to do, rewrite it, tag it, or what, so I thought I'd let you know about it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland article

Hello, one of my main interests here is editing articles regarding Scotland. I have created a few and am working on many more. I seem to notice your name everywhere I go so I thought I'd run something by you here. I think the Scotland article is looking pretty good and would be a good candidate for Featured Article Status. It needs some work (especially in the citation of references) but maybe we could get a couple others to collaborate to imporve it and then send it to Peer Review and then nominate it for FAC. What do you think? I have recently worked on the Myanmar article, collaborating with the main contributor there, and it is in the process of FAC right now. I noticed the link on your user page to the Scottish Wikipedians Notice Board...I didn't know there was one! I'm going to check that out right now.--WilliamThweatt 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

rv

Hello. I noticed that you reverted my changes in the sentence The Inverness cape, a garment worn by pipers in the rain, is actually made in Glasgow. In the article Inverness. I was the author of that sentence in the first place, but I wrote it years ago when I had little understanding of wikipedia. There is acctually nothing about an inverness cape that means it has to be made in inverness or glasgow, its a very simple garment. If you are actually knowledgeable about the bagpipes or pipe bands I would appreciate some help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pipe Bands which I am heavily involved in. Either way, please don't revert my changes to that sentence again.

Grantown-on-Spey article and Freuchie

I have removed the brackets which you added round "Freuchie" on 12 Apr 2006 (there are two different locations which are widely seperated); I have also added a warning/explanatory sentence on "Freuchie" which refers to Grantown in case someone actually is looking for the Morayshire version.

Template:Football in Scotland

It works like this…

Football in Scotland v • d • e
National association National team List of venues List of clubs League system Seasons Champions History
Competitions in Scottish football
Premier League First Division Second Division Third Division Scottish Cup League Cup Challenge Cup Junior Cup
National football teams of Europe (UEFA) v • d • e
Albania | Andorra | Armenia | Austria | Azerbaijan | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Denmark | England | Estonia | Faroe Islands | Finland | France | Georgia | Germany | Gibraltar† | Greece | Hungary | Iceland | Republic of Ireland | Israel | Italy | Kazakhstan | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | FYR Macedonia | Malta | Moldova | Montenegro† | Netherlands | Northern Ireland | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | Russia | San Marino | Scotland | Serbia | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Turkey | Ukraine | Wales  † Provisional membership
International football v • d • e
FIFA | World Cup | Confederations Cup | U-20 World Cup | U-17 World Cup | Olympics | Asian Games | African Games | PASO | Lusophony Games | Mediterranean Games | Jeux de la Francophonie | World Rankings | Player of the Year | Teams
Asia: AFC – Asian Cup      Africa: CAF – African Cup of Nations      North America: CONCACAF – Gold Cup      South America: CONMEBOL – Copa América      Oceania: OFC – Nations Cup      Europe: UEFA – European Championship      Non-members of FIFA: NFB – VIVA World Cup

I’ll let you decide whether or not to include:

• Template:Football in the United Kingdom

Kanaye 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment blasted away...

You're last edit to Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians blasted away my comment, can you revert/restore it please? Thanks/wangi 13:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries - best get to bed :) /wangi 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Talossa

Mais oui, I saw you redirected the Kingdom of Talossa back to Micronation and said, very politely, "this is not notable by a long long way". The main Micronation page lists this on its content, (and not many micronatons are) so it is very notable. While I dit create a stub, I told a whole lot more than on the main wikipedia article. The only micronation more notable than than the Kingdom is Sealand, and their are pages on much less notable ones. --Kitia 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uniltateral subdivision of British/United Kingdom/Scottish constituencies

Thank you for your comment on my talk page: I have replied there.

Howerver, I note that you are engaged in a massive restucturing of the Category:British MPs, introducing several layers of sub-categories and removing the articles from the category "British MPs".

These issue has been disccussed at some length in Category talk:British MPs, without any consensus being reached. I am surprised to see that you appear to have made no contribution to that discussion.

Until a consensus has been reached, please desist from any further subdivision of this category, and do not revert the restoration of the Category:British MPs.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl 08:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment restored above. As noted above, my substantive reply is on my talk page, but please do not remove my note from your talk page. (see WP:TPG "Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others.")

My comment here relates not solely to our discussion, but your wider failure to seek consensus for a massive and contoversial restucturing of a large category. --BrownHairedGirl 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CFM for subcats of Scottish MPs

I have nominated the sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies for merging into their parent category: see the CFM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and said to myself "Must tell Mais oui!" then completely forgot about it. It's going to be an awfully big cat. If we guesstimate an average 50 constits times (300 years divided by say 10 as the average MP's career) 30 is 1500 articles in the cat eventually. That's 7 pages after the first one, making the cat pretty useless. Or am I missing something ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing something!  :)

Consider, for example, if you are looking for an article on an MP whose name who you can't quite remember. Wazon? Wasson? hhmm, can't recall ... so look at the categ list, and here you'll find Cathcart Wason. If the list is subdivided into ten subcategs, you'll have to burrow in ten places, which takes a lot more time than following the alpahabetical index to the categ to take you to W. For an illustration of how useful this, see the Irish equiavalent at: Category:Former Teachtaí Dála and as an exercise try to find a TD whose name sounds like Patterson. Only about 400 entries so far, but will be about 700 when complete, so it's within the same order of magnitude.

This is one of the issues which has been discussed in Category talk:British MPs, which is why I regret that the sub-sub-categorisation has not been underatken without Mais oui! joining in those discussions. As you'll see from the Irish pages, TDs there are categorised both under Category:Former Teachtaí Dála and by session (see the list in Category:Teachtaí Dála). This inclusion by sub-categ and by parent or related categ is entirely legitimate in Wkipedia: see WP:SUBCAT. If Mais oui! was not so firmly set against dual-clasification, it might not be necessary to delete the sub-categs. --BrownHairedGirl 18:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Clans

Do you know of any experienced editors who take an interest in clans ? I've come across several now which are pretty blatant copyvios. CSD for copyvio is only valid (a) if caught within 48 hours of creation and (b) from a "commercial" (whatever that is) source. Bloody useless really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism in Sweden

Hi! You put an internal comment into this article, which reads "NOT THE CASE: in Sweden republicans are definitely in the majority, but they have a long-standing agreement with monarchists to maintain the status quo". That does, indeed, fit in with the article from the Monarchist Alliance I've found, but would you happen to have any sources regarding your statements (1. majority of republicans, 2. agreement to maintain status quo)? I'd be very interested in this. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I probably could find a source, but it would be in Swedish. Is that allowed? (I suspect not.) Anyway, if a Swedish language source would be useable, give me a shout. (I don't have much spare time at mo.) --Mais oui! 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better than nothing, aye. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:British legislation lists

Hi. I noticed that you have edited the above template and removed some of the links to the list pages. Unfortunately, the link to List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament, 1601 to 1706 doesn't work, as that page is currently a redirect to the "1601 to 1640" list. Can you please let me know if the link removal was intentional, as I don't want to revert you if you are working on something. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm.....

Okaaayyy. You are displeased. I have an excuse for my "aggression", as you put it, but like all excuses it is pretty lame, so I won't rehearse it on you. I do try my best, but sometimes some folk would try the patience of an angel, and I am very, very, very far from one of those. Believe it or not, I am actually an awful lot less aggressive than I used to be! Frightening. --Mais oui! 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! No offense intended, friend. I wouldn't (and didn't) say "displeased". Everybody has their own sytle. I don't see anything wrong with "aggressive" editing, in and of itself. And I also said, I tend to agree with most of your more "controversial" edits. However, personally, I have found that making unilateral changes while others are still trying to reach a consensus is usually counterproductive. It backs the others into a corner, and they're forced to argue their position defensively which, (whether because of pride or other reasons) makes it more difficult or, indeed, sometimes impossible, to find common ground. So, in order to avoid the inevitable edit wars, wiki-enemies, and wiki-stalking that occurs in these situations, I like to encourage everybody to reach consensus first on contentious edits. Now, as for the current situation, I think your sub-categorizing by constituency could be useful and sould remain, however, I also think it is important to keep them dually listed in the upper-level category to maintain a list of all UK MPs representing Scotland. This is not only permitted, but I believe encouraged by WP:SUBCAT. I think it is a logical compromise and it seems BrownHairedGirl is willing to go along with it.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion about how to organise the British MPs cat, at the cat Talk page, then I think you will find the good Scottish verb "faffing" highly appropriate. I am not a faffer: I either do,... or I don't. In other words: I am not a Liberal Democrat! (Although I most certainly do describe myself as a liberal, bordering on the libertarian).

My diplomacy skills are next to negligible. Yes, it is a serious weakness. But I just ignore it and play to my strengths.

"edit wars, wiki-enemies, and wiki-stalking" Oh yes, how right you are! Indeed, I do actually have my very own pet troll! I am so proud, he is almost like my own wee bairn, so I make sure to nurture him by chucking him the odd tasty morsel: he usually bites. In the fullness of time I'm sure you'll spot him stalking in my mighty shadow.

To tell you the truth, I have never in my life seen that WP:SUBCAT page before (still haven't been a...d to read it, but I'm sure I've been supplied the highlights of the scintillating document). I disagree with it, but as soon as you start campaigning to change Wiki-policy then all is lost: I am a sad Wikiholic, but I am not that sad. In short: dual categorisation is idiotic - if people want a list, they should start a list article - categories are not "lists".

In my opinion, for what it is worth, the people talking about the British MP categorisation are probably horrified by the looming, gigantarian task of categorising by English and Welsh city/county, therefore they are pissed-off that the Scottish sub-categorisation is up and running, because it means they will have to get the finger out and organise the hilarious mess which is Category:British MPs. --Mais oui! 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, Here! I always enjoy a good shot at the Lib Dems!--WilliamThweatt 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at that CfD, problem I see with the current Scottish subcats is that they're patchy - do you think expanding them out to cover the old regional boundaries (S'cylde, Lothians, Fife, Central, Tayside, Gramps, H'land) would be better? And current and old subcats? /wangi 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, we ought to look at the best way of doing this. I tried to pick the most obvious candidates to start with, ie. the 4 main cities, plus Fife, are dead obvious and logical ways to start. But of course we ought to have a 100% comprehensive system. It is hard though, because if you look at the old Burgh constituencies of the 18th century, they cover some quite bizarre, disparate areas (Caithness plus Bute for example). Same for the University constituencies. Old regions: I'm not super keen, but worth a ponder. This is how The Parliament of the United Kingdom subcategorises its own MPs: by constituent country, then, in the case of Scotland, by council area: [1]. --Mais oui! 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A few quick points:

• CFM withdrawn as agreed
• I think it's a real pity that you should dismiss [[WP:SUBCAT] as "idiotic" without reading it. It is very relevant to this discussion, and has been applied successfully to other parliaments (in several different ways).

As to being "horrified by the looming, gigantarian task of categorising by English and Welsh city/county", I don't see anyone interested in doing it, not because of its size (it could be done over time), but simply because other editors don't seem to find it useful. For myself, I am interested in parliaments and how they function: you obviously have diffferent interests, which is why you have devised a different classification system. In the nature of things, editors will tend to put their work into a classification system which suits their interests: why would editors find city/county classification superfluous want to implement it?

• Category:British MPs is indeed a "hilarious mess" ... but that's largely because a major process of sub-division was initiated without prior discussion, and as a result there has (unsurprisingly) been no consensus to keep it on track. I have no doubt that your changes were in pursuit of logical and honourable objectives, but please can you work with the other editors active on these articles to develop a durable consensus? I really do believe that it is possible.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well subcat'ing it the same way as the Parliament itself does it obviously has a lot going for it - just a shame the areas are so bloody small / so many of them. Is there any equiv to the Scottish Parliament list areas (yeah, I know that's not required) - any sort of bigger areas used for grouping constituencies? /wangi 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not: the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions do not quite perfectly correspond, at the moment, to the council areas (although they do so in the majority of cases). I understand that at the next boundary review they will be forced to correspond exactly with the local authority boundaries. --Mais oui! 09:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I see with any such approach is that local authority boundaries change relatively frequently (every few decades), sometimes quite markedly. Any regionalistation scheme will be applied to at least the period since 1800, so it seems to me to be important to find a way of doing this that makes sense over two centuries. Obviously the cities have grown a lot in area during that period, so there are grave limitations to their use (compare Glasgow's boundaries in 1800 with those in 2000), but does it really make any more sense to impose a short-lived 20th century administrative region on, say, the 19th century electoral map?

I don't claim to have an answer to that question, but I can see some serious problems in devising a regionlaisation system which both a) makes historical sense and b) covers all of Scotland (an incomplete scheme of regionalisation seems to me to be inelegant). --BrownHairedGirl 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland and ...by country categories

As you seem to be particularly active on the Scotland categories I thought I'd explain my standpoint. I have removed the "...by country" categories from the Scotland categories for a number of reasons, Scotland isnt on the ISO or UN list of countries nor is it the case that any of the categories are not in their respective UK categories. As I see it there is an issue in that there are hundreds of other potential countries which could be placed into the by country categories creating the potential for substantial difficulties, and also the issue of the potential for confusion for those who are not aware of the arrangements within the UK is significant.

I think there is a line that needs to be respected in that the use of these categories in practice is based on the inclusion of Independent Sovereign Countries, which whether these are right or wrong is the base that wikipedia is working from. I dont see that including a Scotish subcat in a category such as Category:European politics is a problem, but Category:Politics by country raises the kind of difficulties outlined. Understand that I have no particular agenda in this issue, my concern is just to make sure the encyclopedia works effectively. I'd be interested to hear your take on this, lets try to find a solution. Ian3055 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies

FYI: as discussed, I have just used AWB to add Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies to all articles on MPs who are classified under the sub-categories of that category. --BrownHairedGirl 09:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

and as an aside, I wanted to thank you (Mais Oui) for agreeing to it. I know its hard sometimes to give ground. :) (just an admin who hates to see CFD get all confusing) Syrthiss 12:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanket reverting

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

never [blanket revert] like that, when there are numerous different sorts of small edits: you must be explicit. Further such behaviour will be brought to the attention of WP:GA. Please read WP:OWN. --Mais oui! 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was explicit. See the talk page, where I detailed each of the complaints. This is not about a matter of WP:OWN, but more WP:CON; your proposal failed, so you decided to make as many silly edits as possible to make a point. Grow up. Bastin 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Mais oui! 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider this to be a personal attack; accusing an established editor of such a breach of protocol, when there is none (read the first criterion), is insulting in the extreme. Perhaps I flatter myself that you pick me out for a petty squabble (I know that you'd like to think of it that way), but this isn't the first time that we've disagreed, nor will it be the last. Your edits on the article at hand were crude, and it was purely chance that I was the first person to see them. If you think it's because I wrote most of the article, think again; articles don't become Good Articles by being completely POV. Bastin 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rep. in Sweden (2)

Just checking in to remind you that you said you should be able to find some source regarding this...? No problem if it takes some time, I was just wondering whether you might have been so busy you simply forgot about it. :) Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Stramash

Hi. I've been following your struggle over the use of the word "annexation" in the Orkney article. I wish there was some way I could help you. What did you mean by the sockpuppets comment? If that's true it's a very serious allegation. --Guinnog 13:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Mais oui! is trying to prove with all this "sock puppet" nonsense. In a few cases I simply forgot to log in, others I had nothing to do with at all. One thing I do see from checking up on my contributions, however, is that he is regularly combing my contibutions list and reversing anything I contribute. What kind of behaviour is that? Mallimak 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the two of you should just shake on this one and move on. I can see both your points. Now, let's get on with improving the encyclopedia. Please. --Guinnog 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, can you talk directly to him and not fight on my talk page? Remember he is new here. All right, he has made mistakes, as I did early on. Maybe you did too when you were new here? If you can bring yourself to forgive him his rudeness (which I have warned him about, and I don't think he will repeat), I think you can work well with him. He seems to have a decent knowledge of the subject, and this is a team effort and all that. Please just shake and make up. --Guinnog 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)