User talk:Laurel Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removal of Greens template

Part of the Politics series on Green politics

Topics
Schools
Organizations
Principles

Politics Portal ·  v • d • e 

You recently removed the Greens template from several articles, adding the edit summary "looks like a highjack." I agree with you that concepts such as Respect diversity. Social justice, and Non-violence should not be linked with green politics, as they are much larger in scope. No doubt green politicos espouse these doctrines (some? many? all?) but you are right to observe that they should not be allowed to highjack these principles as other political movements equally espose them. However, as I noted on the talk page of the Sustainability article, that subject is directly related to green politics. I believe that the same holds true for Ecological wisdom. Thes concepts are the main raison d' etre for green parties and are generally not held by most other political parties in North America or Europe AFAIK. Sunray 18:57, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] The answer to your question

See [1]: Drug abuse is the consumption of a drug apart from medical need or in unnecessary quantities. Its nature and significance may be considered from two points of view: one relates to the interaction between the drug and the individual, the other to the interaction between drug abuse and society. The first viewpoint is concerned with drug dependence and the interplay between the pharmacodynamic actions of the drug and the physiological and psychological status of the individual. The second - the interaction between drug abuse and society - is concerned with the interplay of a wide range of conditions, environmental, sociological, and economic. 24.54.208.177 04:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Please clarify: is the above an official WHO definition? Laurel Bush 10:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC).

[edit] LCA Seats

I see you changed the number of seats up to 21; I was just checking that you were aware that they were standing in one seat in Scotland, and so was listed seperately within that list. --Neo 11:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Single Convention, redux

My impression of the Single Convention is that it represnts three natural herb or plant species as if they might pose, almost, a smallpox-like risk to human health. Laurel Bush 10:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

I agree; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances is a lot tamer. In fact, the European Parliament has proposed removing substances from the Single Convention and adding them to the Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances, so that regulation will be more uniform. So what do you think, is the Single Convention article Featured Article-worthy? SonicSynergy 21:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking at present perhaps the article takes too much at face value the convention's perspective on what is or is not drug abuse. Laurel Bush 10:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the treaty does not really taken a firm stand on what is or isn't drug abuse, since it is more focused on the supply side than the demand side of the equation.
The U.S. and other organic illicit drug importers did not really want the treaty to focus directly on drug possession and use. They wanted the drugs to be kept from entering their borders illicitly to begin with, which could happen if any nation had loose controls. So, the treaty does not focus on defining the difference between use and abuse (that's left for the medical professionals to decide). Instead, the treaty is all about setting up systems of quotas, estimates, reports, prescriptions, etc. to keep any large quantities of drugs from slipping out of the sole control of doctors and pharmacists, who presumably could be trusted to dispense them for good, and not for evil.
The bottom line is, the Single Convention was focused on minimizing drug addiction by limiting production and distribution to medical uses (legitimate medical uses being determined by medical professionals, who have the power to write prescriptions, subject to whatever additional limitations the state sets in place). If you could get a prescription, then it counted as a legitimate use. For instance, if a person can get a prescription for smoking weed because his doctor says it helps him relax, makes him happy, and thus benefits him medically, then the treaty has no problem with that.
There is only one safety valve included, in which the doctors' authority to dispense these drugs at will could be overrided. That is when (1) the World Health Organization, based on scientific and medical criteria, finds that a drug meets the Schedule IV criteria of high potential for abuse and no redeeming medical use, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs places it in Schedule IV; and (2) The doctors are prescribing these Schedule IV drugs in such an out-of-control way that it threatens the public health. In that case, the state is allowed to prohibit all use except for very limited scientific and medical research.
I have re-worded the article slightly. Please let me know if you have some more specific advice as to how to improve it. Thanks,

SonicSynergy 04:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grid references

Hey! It's great that you add grid references to articles. I do believe that it adds to their usefulness. If you could also take a tiny bit more time to fit them into the existing text, it would be perfect! If you think it's better the way you tend to phrase it, so be it. :)

Examples:

You had: Lairg is a small town around Grid reference: NC582064 in the highlands of Scotland.
I changed it to: Lairg is a small town in the highlands of Scotland. It is located at approximately Grid reference: NC582064.
You had: The town's relatively large size is partly due to it being provided with a railway station, at Grid reference: NC582039...
I changed it to: The town's relatively large size is partly due to it being provided with a railway station (Grid reference: NC582039)...

Unless you're aiming at a very limited audience (like people who know quite a lot about OSGB grid references) then mixing references as if they were nouns with other nouns in sentences is a little distracting, and tends to break up the flow of the text. (Admittedly often the flow is already less than perfect, but every little helps!!) Since it's largely supplemental (yet still very useful) information, possibly consider either:

  1. Sticking them in brackets
  2. Making a whole new sentence which just talks about the grid ref.

My point is that grid references themselves don't actually make much sense to use in sentences, so should possibly be tucked away just a little. Again, I'm all for putting them in the articles, but believe that this doesn't have to be at the expense of readability.

Cheers!

— PMcM 18:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am finding tricky the grammar of grid ref use, and especially so when the ref itself is also a link to an externally generated map. The ref is not to a map but to a point or small area in the map. Is Lairg approx at the ref point? Or is it in an area around the ref point? Laurel Bush 09:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Since things like Lairg are relatively big, and tend to fit within the 100m square of a six-figure reference, I'd guess you can probably just go with whichever you think fits best in the sentence or context. When it's something much smaller, like a road junction, it's probably more important to have a precise reference, but since the link pops up a map, it should be fairly clear (hopefully!) which junction is being referred to. One of the things that I don't like about the otherwise great Get-A-Map thing is that it doesn't draw a little arrow over the map at exactly the point you're searching for, like Multimap does. I think this makes it a little less useful for identifying things which aren't either quite big (like a town), well isolated from other similar things (like a building in the middle of nowhere), or otherwise quite visually obvious (like a road junction). Cheers, — PMcM 11:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am meaning also that if we are not careful with grammar then the precise meaning of 'grid ref' can be obscured, that usage will tend to imply that the ref means the generated map rather than a point on the map. I would like a cross-hair 'gun-sight' on the maps (differentiated from permanent grid lines by colour, perhaps). The Multimap arrow is quite good, but the maps themselves strike me has very crude and, probably, somewhat inaccurate. Laurel Bush 11:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Yeah, some sort of cross or arrow would be handy. — PMcM 12:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just taken the arounds out of Dunnet - they are simply not needed. People who understand grid refs know that a ref defines an 100 m square but the area under discussion may be larger than that. People who don't understand maps will click on each link and see a map which exactly matches the text of the article.

I was a wee bit hesitant about the use of gbmappingsmall but since you have used gbmapping for the first one, I think you have properly established that an otherwise cryptic (to some people) ND196678 is a grid ref.

-- RHaworth 07:17, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

[edit] Personal sandbox

I saw how you had been using Talk:Wick River. It is probably better to create a personal sandbox eg. User:Laurel Bush/sandbox. Less likely to attract Recent Changes patrollers attention and leaves the Talk page as a red link until someone actually says something.

And gosh - you've got more Grid Refs than in my article Woodside and South Croydon Railway!

-- RHaworth 13:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

[edit] Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Hello, I noticed you'd made some edits to the Legal issues of cannabis page. As you may know, the international war on drugs is mandated by international treaties. I've created an article about the first anti-cannabis treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and put it for featured article candidacy. I encourage you to vote on it at here. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 22:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't create articles which are simply a grid reference

Please don't create articles which are simply a grid reference: instead, please add grid references to articles about the entity in question. I'll create a template, Template:OSGB36 for this, so you can just write {{OSGB36|ND370488}} within an article, and (when someone gets around to writing the software) all of the indexes can be auto-generated. -- Karada 09:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Template:OSGB36 really doesnt serve my somewhat experimental purpose, which of course I have yet to explain. Laurel Bush 11:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Grid references , longitude and latitude

Apologies if this is at the wrong end of your page but the two leading messages are mutually exclusive ! Grid Reference is picked up at British national grid reference system but I guess a redirect of Grid reference would be really useful. Geographic coordinate system picks up re-directs from Latitude and Longitude. Are these what you had in mind, or have I missed the point ?
Velela 21:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure now I really had much of a point to make, but I am finding the above useful. Thanks. Laurel Bush 12:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Hemp etc

I put disambig stuff like "This article has a focus on the health aspect of cannabis. For other aspects, see cannabis." on a half dozen sites cause they needed it.

You changed one to go to Hemp (disambiguation) and filled it in with data I find has potential but mostly puzzles me. Please ADD TO Hemp (disambiguation) or merge it with cannabis or do SOMETHING to fullfill your original intention. Thanks. 4.250.198.147 09:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS - I'd do it myself, but .. well .. I'm not qualified...

Which one did I change to go to Hemp (disambiguation)?


[edit] UK general election, 2005/06

Hi there - do you really think it's necessary to privilege such a minor party as the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, which only got 0.033% of the vote at the last election, and has never won a council seat or regional assembly seat, let alone a Westminster one, in the introduction to that article? All the other parties in that list have won representation at some level of government, as well as other parties which aren't included. As it stands the list is biased to the LCA. If you want to be fair then you'd have to include every other party contending with a similar share of the vote, which would only clutter the introduction unnecessarily. See Talk:UK general election, 2005/06 for my further thoughts (reply there if you would, thanks). Qwghlm 17:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

As Im seeing it the relevant paragraph of 2005 UK general election is a product of LCA interventions. Prior to those interventions other parties were treated as if non-existant. Paragraph looks more or less OK at present. Laurel Bush 16:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Rivers of Great Britain - Boundaries

You will have seen that I agree with the need to include precise boundaries for the stretches of coastline. I would, however, prefer that the boundaries were placed on the line after the Header. This avoids the long line of text being included in the index box whilst still allowing readers and editors to be well informed about where the rivers are or where they should be listed. I have done one example (the first entry) on the list. What do you think ?
Velela 14:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But Lizard Point seems to need some disambiguation. Laurel Bush 10:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC).
Lizard Point has now been disambiguated! Grutness|hello? 00:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate articles

Please do not create duplicate articles. It creates a lot of work for administrators to clean up, and it's very bad for the cohesiveness of the encyclopedia. If you'd like to rename a page, please use the "move" function at the top of your screen. If the destination exists, please propose the move on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I tend to lean towards "Legal issues of cannabis" over "Legal issues of cannabis as a drug". The latter is a little wordy, and the article should cover non-drug issues such as the prohibition on hemp cultivation in the U.S. Rhobite 16:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Move looks very useful. Wish I'd been aware of it sooner. Cheers. Laurel Bush 14:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC).

[edit] January

Hallo, Laurel Bush. I'm sorry that I had to revert your edit to January. What you wrote was good: I was simply eloborated it and helped it conform to the style guide. Your most recent edit of that page has been mostly a reordering of the material. To me, your reordering looks like it promotes paganism. While it is considered acceptable to inform and discuss the beliefs of any religion, spirituality or philosophy, it would be inappropriate to include the promotion of any one view. It is my opinion that a neutral view on January places its Roman origins above its connexion with a similar period in other calendars, whether the cylce of the Zodiac or pagan observances. Please have a look at Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Rather than reverting the article a second time, I'm going to post to its talk page, and I ask you to discuss your point of view there. I do apologise if there has been any misunderstanding, and I hope your experience as a Wikipedia contributor will be fruitful. Gareth Hughes 13:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about neutrality. Is the Gregorian calendar not open to definition in terms of other calendars? Laurel Bush 11:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC).

No, I think it would be good to list periods (months) in other calendars that fall partly in January. There has also been a suggestion that we have the name of the month in different languages (but a lot of these would look boringly like 'January'). I think it's fair to say that January originated as a winter month in the Roman calendar, and thus the name was carried over into the Julian and Gregorian calendars. That describes what January is, and I just feel it should be followed by information from other calendars, rather than preceded by it. Gareth Hughes 11:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although the Gregorian calendar is a fully solar form of Roman calendar 'first month' does not of itself give seasonal or zodiacal position to January. I would agree the pagan Imbolc is considered better as an event than as a division of the year. Laurel Bush 13:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Laurel Bush, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 18:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. In my current opinion Wikiworld should come with the warning "Can be nicely addictive". Laurel Bush 10:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).
I seem to have Symantic Web Security bouncers between myself and the village pump. Laurel Bush 13:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Hi again. Yes, you're very right about the addictivity of WP. Perhaps I should get to work on a Wikipedia:Recovery template... Alai 15:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User talk:LaurelBush

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Example (talk · contribs) 15:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis talk

Hey. Just wondering why you decided to alter the history of the Talk:Cannabis article. Please see here for what I mean. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 4 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont recognise the edits here, nor can I suggest any explanation for attribution to myself. I do recognise earlier and later edits. Laurel Bush 5 July 2005 10:57 (UTC).

[edit] Highland Council wards

Do you think a stub article on each ward in Highland Council is really encyclopaedic? They don't seem to me to contain much useful information. David | Talk 09:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

They are just stubs at present, but I expect at least the names of some will survive the next round of elections, and will be used in articles about those elections. Also I might have a bit more to add about a few before then. Laurel Bush 10:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] LCA

The LCA may not just want to legalise cannabis as a drug but they do want to do so. Your taking out this very important internal link is unjustifiable POVing. Please do not repeat, SqueakBox 15:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for accidentally editing your user page. It was entirely unintentional, SqueakBox 15:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B roads

A number of your B road articles (B870 road, B874 road) have recently been deleted after discussion in WP:VFD. I don't like to see this happening and, if you can spare the time from your efforts elsewhere, I'd like to work out a strategy for retaining information of this kind on Wikipedia. Please reply on your own talk page if you're interested. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I can do much about this one just now but I'll give it some thought. What sort of strategy do you have in mind? Laurel Bush 09:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC).
The SABRE website has a number of lists of descriptions of roads, perhaps you could use the information there? --jmb 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers jmb. Laurel Bush 10:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Parliamentary constituencies

[edit] Lists of constituencies I

Hi: Thanks for your work on constituencies. I do not really understand your comment on Talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom. Do you mean that I should not put 'to do' lists on the talk pages of works in progress? --Theo (Talk) 19:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Ive done a bit of recent work on constituency and constituency-related articles. And Im feeling now this has been hijacked by others, others imposing a style or confusing mix of styles, without attempting to ask myself for reasoning behind my own practice. I began with creation of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and became aware, about the same time, of very confusing or ambiguous references to consituncies in various articles about politics. In Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross I aimed to create an initial sentence adaptable for use in any article about any consitutency in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). I was consious also of Caithness and Sutherland as a now historic constituency. Laurel Bush 15:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC).

OK, I have no wish to cause distress. I created the article including the list of constituencies because I could not find one. When I created the list I did not have time to finish the job so I left a 'to do' list on the talk page—so that other editors would understand my approach. I do not understand how creating a new page can hijack anyone else's process but since you feel that this is yours I will back off. I have other areas where I am happy to work, so it is no problem. --Theo (Talk) 18:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. Dont back off. Im just looking for some sense of cooperation. Laurel Bush 10:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Alright ... backing off withdrawn. I still do not understand why you were annoyed by something that predated your work. And I do not understand why you were so hostile to the idea that every constituency might need an article; hence my note that we should add "(constituency)" to every name. I will watch the changes that you make and join in once I understand your plan. --Theo (Talk) 14:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I misread your own intentions. I was more annoyed with the appearance of the article when I first saw it myself. It seemed to have been thrown together in a rather careless fashion, with numerous links to articles about towns, counties etc as if these were about constituencies. I am in favour of articles for all of the constituencies: I am just not convinced about "(constituency)" in the title of every such article. Many constituency names are quite unambiguous, and if "constituency" is to be in every title then "(" and ")" are redundant. Also, there is the question of "and" or "&" ..... Laurel Bush 13:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Fast, yes; careless, no! That is why I added the 'to do' list. Is it true that "many constituency names are quite unambiguous"? 'Some', possibly. Using the word constituency in the title ensures unambiguity without relying on an editor to know the names of other related entities. You are right about the parentheses being redundant. Should we change them before they get too widespread? And, personally, I favour 'and' over '&'. --Theo (Talk) 14:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think 'Yes' to the question about parentheses. "&" is now very widespread: I prefer "and" in most contexts and especially so in article titles. Laurel Bush 16:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Please do not remove the parentheses as they indicate that the article is about a constituency but the name of a constituency does not actually have the word "constituency" in it so it would be wrong to do so. --Vamp:Willow 15:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


(1) a quick list of constituency names that seem unlikely to need disambiguation:
Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Halesowen and Rowley Regis, Haltemprice and Howden, Hamilton North and Bellshill, Hamilton South,Hammersmith and Fulham, Hampstead & Highgate, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Harrow East, Harrow West.
(2) if constituency with c (not C) is to be in the title of every constituency article then I still dont quite see the need for parentheses.
(3) I can see & as very useful in some contexts, eg A & B and C & D, but even this could be A-and-B and C-and-D.
Laurel Bush 18:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Hampstead & Highgate

Hi. I've just reverted the changes you made on this constituency's naming as - if you look at [[2]] you'll see it has pretty much been a de facto standard to use an ampersand and '(constituency)' in the article naming. --Vamp:Willow 13:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was been no attempt to establish any standard until I myself got to work on creating the constituencies categories. Many many articles refer to constituecnies in a vast variety of different ways and often so as to create confusing amibguity. Laurel Bush 13:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I'll agree that the lists (created as lists) were in a mess, but if you looked at where the category tag was actually used (as I did before creating a numbe of constituencies) it was clear that the "standard" I noted above was being used in practice (ie actual articles). It is also clearer to use "(constituency)" for all, uh, constituencies (!) as it clarifies the differences, especially as there will be a lot of renaming after the forthcoming GE. btw. using your 'user contributions' page to check which pages I needed to revert I noticed a lot of edits on one page in quick succession. If you use the show preview button you can check your edits before putting them live rather than risk an edit conflict if someone else goes in to correct your typo (for example) before you correct it on a new edit. --Vamp:Willow 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I think I dont need 'preview' so much as 'precognition' (of how others will react to an edit)! Also I suspect that use of "(constituency)" originates in misdirection, ie correction of articles refering to constituencies but giving links to towns, villages, settlement centres etc. Personally I would prefer "constituency" in the title of every article, rather than "(constituency)". Also, I feel creators of constituency articles should try also to create or amend disambiguation articles where these are relevant. Laurel Bush 16:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).
As the one who originated this when I created the earliest articles, my reasoning was as follows:
A lot of constituencies share names with other geographic units (e.g. Hartlepool has co-terminous boundaries for the constituency and borough) and there is a clear need to disambiguate if separate pages are used (which makes sense given that many other countries' electioral units have pages in their own right).
(Additionally several constituencies use the name of the borough they are centred on but also have a history of incorporating bits and pieces around the edge {e.g. North Down and Epsom & Ewell, both of which completely changed the non-borough sections at the last boundary changes}. This enhances the need for the constituency to have a page to itself.)
I used for all pages as it makes it clear what is being referred to - e.g. South Down (constituency) is about the constituency, not a page about the southern part of County Down.
The formal title does not include "constituency" - e.g. Oona King is the MP for "Bethnal Green & Bow" not "Bethnal Green & Bow constituency". Leaving out the brackets would be contrary to the standard way of using disambiguators/markers.
Hope this at least explains it all. Timrollpickering 14:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


OK. Go for it. But:
(1) a quick list of constituency names that seem unlikely to need disambiguation:
Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Halesowen and Rowley Regis, Haltemprice and Howden, Hamilton North and Bellshill, Hamilton South,Hammersmith and Fulham, Hampstead & Highgate, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Harrow East, Harrow West.
(2) if constituency with c (not C) is to be in the title of every constituency article then I still dont quite see the need for parentheses.
(3) I can see & as very useful in some contexts, eg A & B and C & D, but even this could be A-and-B and C-and-D.
Laurel Bush 18:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC).
(1) is a question of using it for everything or only some. (2) is standard Wikipedia practic - to not use brackets would imply that "constituency" is a part of the formal title when it is not. ("Division" would be a more accurate word to use without brackets, but is rarely used these days.) (3) Both are used a lot. Epsom & Ewell (constituency), where I grew up, is one where "&" is more common than and, not least because of the borough council's use of "&" a lot (see their website). I'm not sure there's a clear answer on this beyond precedent.
I suspect we may need a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies as a way of regularising the pages and resolving a number of the present uncertainties. Timrollpickering 18:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above Wikiproject idea looks like a good one, but I dont myself have any experience of working with this procedure. Laurel Bush 14:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Lists of constituencies II

Your edit to Edinburghshire (UK Parliament constituency) added protolinks to Midlothian and Peebles Northern and Peebles and Southern. I had in fact already created constituency articles for these, so have added redirects. A while back I created a page Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies from 1918, and there should now be pages for each of the constituencies that existed from 1918 (except for those that were subsequently created and have disappeared again). If you're doing pages for historic Scottish constituencies, it might be worthwhile checking there to see if I've already created a constituency page.--George Burgess 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. In fact I found Edinburghshire (UK Parliament constituency) because I am trying to compile some sort of index to all UK Parliament constituency names, as used in Wikipedia articles listed in various categories. I was pretty sure when creating those protolinks that they should become redirects, but at that time that job was a bit of a distraction. Laurel Bush 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Historic constituencies

Hi! I was just wondering what your thoughts were about the inclusion of historic constituencies in constituency wikiproject. I noticed that you copied your workshop page to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Historic constituency names. I didn't discover your workshop page until after I had created the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Historic constituencies otherwise I would have just asked to use your page. I had hoped that the list I created would turn into a progress page similar to the one that already exists for the current constituencies but I haven't quite decided what format that should take. So I was wondering whether to merge the information at Historic constituency names with that at Historic constituencies, although I think that your page would actually make a great page in the main encyclopedia—I particularly like the way that the formatting shows how the larger constituencies have been broken into smaller ones: I had this strange idea of trying to create constituency family trees. Anyway, I don't want to step on your toes so let me know what you think. Thanks, JeremyA (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have been wondering myself about how Historic constituency names and Historic constituencies might be merged: I cant quite see how to fit into Historic constituencies detail now in Historic constituency names. Also I am beginning to think of names as more of a review of articles about historic constituencies, enabling some sort of overview and comparison of different approaches to the subject. I dont know about 'family trees': the subject looks to me like a rather complex multidimensional jigsaw. Laurel Bush 09:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Pigeonholing Oneself

Thought you may be interested in the Category:Neopagan Wikipedians and Category:Wiccan Wikipedians Alex Law 06:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about that one. Laurel Bush 09:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC). Perhaps I am too much of a hippie. Or a cynic. Laurel Bush 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Highland ward redirects

Can you please do something with them? Blanking them serves no purpose as they are not speedy candidates and I've just had to go through and revert all your edits. Listing them on redirects for deletion might help if you feel they have to be deleted. -- Francs2000 19:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Laurel Bush 10:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election

Laurel,

I understand the edit regarding "timetabled", but the move of my article - without consulting me - has been moved to "inthe" (sic), not "in the".

Why did you move the page without checking first, and why change it without checking the spelling of the article name?

Regards

doktorb 20:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I seem to have blundered. I remember thinking about a move, but not actually completing one. And the article did not go where I might have intended to put it. Thinking the title should have the next in it. Laurel Bush 10:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Constituencies in United Kingdom election... AGAIN!!!

Laurel - you've made another re-direct for this page without consultation, and the chosen title is really not accurate. I take it you understand that the Boundary Commissions do their work on a cycle of between 8 and 10/12 years; since the last round of changes there has been 3 General Elections - 1997, 2001 and 2005. It's likely the next round of boundary reviews won't even begin before 2012. The word "next" becomes meaningless in this context.

I understand the meaning behind the change but I just think you're doing it for the wrong reasons. It's a long enough title as it is; can't you change it back please?

doktorb 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Central Scotland (Scottish Parliament region)

Your comment is fine, but why not do the leg work yourself? --Bob 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have done the leg work on two other articles about Scottish Parliament regions. (Highlands and Islands is one. The other might be Glasgow). Might get round to the others. Dont know when and, meanwhile, I am hoping others might get to it ahead of me. Laurel Bush 11:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Parish

Hi Laurel. I have just noticed the talk page on the above.please see my additional comments Peter Shearan 19:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dounreay toponymy

Hiya. With reference to the etymological information on the Dounreay entry - I've been researching it extensively over the last few weeks. The information that's given in the entry is something of a local urban legend, and actually has no historical merit. I keep meaning to update it accordingly, with the true toponomy, but haven't got around to it yet. In fact, I haven't even updated the section I created on the discussion page for a while. Lianachan 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Seems to me Down is probably a post office invention, and a local spelling/pronounciation of doun/dun. Dont think it is down meaning upland making Dounreay = Up from Reay. Laurel Bush 17:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cannabis cultivation

Please read the talk page for Cannabis cultivation, and consider un-doing your recent edit. I would suggest that the page remain as it was, with either a {{main|Hemp}} in a section, or a disambig at the top like:

This article is about the cultivation of Cannabis, focusing on drug production. For other uses of Cannabis cultivation see Hemp.

Note that Triddle said this is something of an ongoing problem. I agree with the point, and think that it should be the way it was. I wish you'd asked the rest of the editors of the page what they thought, or read the rest of the discussion on the talk page. Avriette 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did read the talk page before moving and, all things considered, what I did looks very reasonable and logical. Sorry. Laurel Bush 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Despite the mentioned disputes? Despite the fact that people had discussed the move and no decision had been made? It's a rather drastic change. Additionally, because the article was not moved, we lose all the history in the resultant article. I'd really prefer it if it went back to where it was. Avriette 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please weigh in on request for semi-protection for Cannabis

The request is meeting resistance, and I am arguing special circumstances. -SM 13:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I am thinking about that one. Laurel Bush 13:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Old district boundaries

For the 1975-1996 districts, you may be able to work backwards from [3]. Since North Ayrshire has exactly the same boundaries as Cunninghame before, it, Arran was included in the Cunninghame district. Morwen - Talk 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. You tend to confirm a conjecture I left on the talk page of an article about one of the Ayrshire 'districts'. Arran was included in a 1930-1975 district? Or do you mean the modern council area, North Ayrshire, is composed of Arran and a 30-75 distirct of Ayrshire? Or of Arran and a 75-96 district of Strathclyde? (I am not sure yet which 75-96 district Arran belonged to. Argyll and Bute?) Laurel Bush 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

OK. I am now seeing Arran in the map of Cunninghame (1975 to 1996) in the article District of Cunninghame, Ayrshire. I guess now the inclusion of Arran in a district of Cunninghame dates from 1975. Laurel Bush 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] List of drugs

I just saw your comment on the talk page now. The list of drugs is, like all pages in wikipedia, a work in progress. If you notice drugs missing from the list, feel free to add them. They currently contain a lot of U.S. drugs because the sources used came from the U.S. because they were PD. Note too that there are drugs such as ecstacy, LSD, heroin on the list, so it's not limited to medicines. If you notice any drugs missing from the list, feel free to add them. Thanks. Matt 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I believe, by the way, that heroin, under the name diamorphine, is licensed as a medicine in the UK. Laurel Bush 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re:Edit block

Hm... That would be most unintentional. Are you using a shared IP? If that is so, I can try unblocking it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you are having trouble answering, I can try contacting you by e-mail, but you need to set an e-mail address in "my preferences". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am (usually) on one of several public library computers on a Highland network in Scotland. Laurel Bush 10:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

I see. Such library IPs are frequently blocked because many schoolchildren use them to add nonsense, profanity and other things like that. When you are blocked you should still be able to edit your own talkpage. You can add an {{unblock}} template on your talkpage, and explain that you are using a library computer which has been blocked. This will put you in Category:Requests for unblock. Remember to add the IP you are currently using, or the admin will not know which IP to unblock.
Something like this:
{{unblock}} I am using library IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX which has been blocked. Need help.
You might want to use an eyecatching edit summary when doing this, such as "HELP!!! MY SHARED IP IS BLOCKED, I NEED ASSISTANCE!". An RC-patroller will hopefully catch it then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 12:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sulla in the List of drugs

Hi, in fact, I didn't put the Sulla into the list, but fixed a link. It formerly went to the page of the Roman dictator Sulla, which was obviously wrong. Then I found out that "sulla" is also a common name of the herb Hedysarum coronarium, so I changed it. Actually it would be better to remove it from the list, as it is no drug, but a herb. Kaarel 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 12:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Redirects

Hi there. I noticed you amend a couple of wikilinks in order to bypass redirects. While this is fine if you're making an edit anyway, it's recommended that edits not be made specifically to do this. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Cheers. —Whouk (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Cant see any harm whatsoever in those changes to avoid those particular redirects. (I created more than a few of the original links myself.) The changes do anticipate however what looks like a probable move, Highlands and Islands area to Highlands and Islands. Laurel Bush 12:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Constituencies in the next UK general election...

Laurel, thanks for the new column idea in the Constituencies article, but I just don't think it's going to be that easy to manage.

For Scotland, it's very easy to write "None" because they are the same as 2005. But, for one example, Wyre and Preston North can only be something like "Southern elements of Lancaster and Wyre and Fulwood elements of Preston from Ribble Valley". Consider Kenilworth and Southam, or Sefton Central, where other large scale moves will be hard to describe with consise and clear descriptions to keep the table easy to view.

There are already descriptions of these moves in the original Boundary Commission reports, and the ElectoralCalculus (sp?) website has ward-by-ward movement details. I am not sure the extra column can be fitted here.

One possible extra column that could be added is a "Notional Hold" type, where the holding party colour is added to give an indication of the state of the parties at the time of the election?

Thanks for your continued help on this article.. doktorb | words 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Having slept on it....

Hey Laurel. Having slept and thought about this change, I am going to give it a go and expand your column of details of the changes, but if we're going to work on this we will have to ask for help from people who know the changes in parts of the country where we don't have a clue. This is one of the problems I still have with the idea - it's fine to put "None" or "minor changes" but in parts of the country where it's a mystery I think it's going to be hard to put something in the box.

But, for the time being, I'll give it a go and see how it works. doktorb | words 09:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I do think there should be at least some indication of whether constituencies are 'new', 'altered' or 'unaltered'. And I am seeing a lot more work needing to be done in articles about individual constituencies, where of course information should agree with information in Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. Laurel Bush 09:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbuthnott Commission

Thanks for your note. I have replied on my talk page. Ground Zero | t 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conference disambiguation

Hi! In the article Manifesto for a Sustainable Society you linked to conference, which is a disambiguation page. I changed it to link to the definition instead, if this isn't satisfactory please choose something beides the disambiguation page to link to, or just get rid of the link entirely. Thanks! Dreadlocke 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Wasnt seeing it as a disambig page. Also, however, your choice of link is probably more 'seriously misleading' than 'ambiguous'. Seems to me, sometimes, it's better to leave a link going to a disambig page, until such time as the disambig page shows a better option. Laurel Bush 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Thinking about it.
Laurel Bush 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Your 'project' looks to me like a nice idea, but somewhat too late to have any real or beneficial effect. Scotland-related articles are already too large and numerous for that sort of approach to creation of consistency/uniformity and mutual intelligibility. Might be a different story if establishment of the project had been possible about the time of writing of the first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, which seems now to inform (or misinform, via later editions) many of Wikipedia's Scotland-related articles.
Laurel Bush 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

PS. Thanks for the edit in "Highland Council wards to be created in 2007". A great improvement. Laurel Bush 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Shucks... but I'm just doing what we Wikignomes do! No probs re. WikiProject, but heavens, you are a bit of a pessimist: the glass is half full not half empty! Wikipedia is in its infancy: EB in its dotage. --Mais oui! 23:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me, re your 'project', there are now just too many people with work and emotion vested in too many Scotland-related articles for it to have much chance of success
What do make of recent talk in Talk:Aberdeen?
I am thinking a Scottish cities project might be useful (because there are not a lot of them, and the number of related articles looks just about manageable)
Laurel Bush 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen City infobox

I liked your home-made infobox for the that article so I've "borrowed" it for Moray and modified it for its needs. Great stuff! --Billreid 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] George Galloway and Dundee

Please see Talk:Dundee. George Galloway never served on Dundee City Council; the Herald got it wrong on this occasion. David | Talk 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] UK geography COTM

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)

[edit] Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland

Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I' ll have a look at and think about that one. Laurel Bush 14:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Welsh Assembly articles

hey very local Penarth and cardiff. I live in Barry, Wales in Highlight Park Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I guess you have seen some of my Welsh Assembly articles. Have you seen "Talk:National Assembly for Wales constituencies and electoral regions"? I am finding it rather difficult to source reliable info about the Assembly. I note, however that elections seem to produce a much lower degree of proportionality than for the Scottish Parliament. Laurel Bush 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Hi Laurel, I see that your Assembly constituency articles are not correct: Specifically the Mid & West Wales region also contains Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Llanelli. The constituency map is here. I think that the constituencies for the 2007 will be the new ones, for which each region and constituency boundaries match with the preserved counties. Gareth 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I have been relying on info in "National Assembly for Wales constituencies and electoral regions" and "Members of the National Assembly for Wales". I guess both of these need correcting. As for boundary changes, I am pretty sure these will be either 2007 or 2011, but I have yet to see anything saying which. Laurel Bush 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Glasgow electoral region

See Braehead for more info, the boundary change was just to move this facility into Renfrewshire. Catchpole 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Looks to me (reading 5th Review 'before and after' maps) like any change circa 2002 was very minor, and the constituency included part of Renfrewshire in 1999, and still does so now. Laurel Bush 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bonar Bridge, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Cheers. Bit busy elsewhere just now, but I'll try to find time for it. Laurel Bush 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Community Councils

In Berwickshire all the CC's boundaries are the parish boundaries. Roxburghshire also. On what basis do you make your assertion that this is not overwhelmingly the case? David Lauder 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about Berwickshire and Roxburghshire. Boundaries are not those of parishes in Caithness, where boundaries of two look like those of burghs abolished in 1975, and boundaries of others look like those of wards which disappeared in 1999 as a result a Local Government Boundary Commission review.
Each local government district created its own community council scheme. Therefore there is no uniformity across Scotland as regards boundaries and other aspects of community council constitutions.
Laurel Bush 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

My understanding is that most small towns are also themselves a parish (such as Duns, or Dollar). When their CC's were created the boundaries of the parish became the CC boundaries. Have you looked at parish boundaries in Scotland (you can buy booklets showing them) and compared them with Community Council borders? If CC's did not generally take over parish boundaries are you suggesting that entirely new boundaries were drawn up for them? Can you provide a source which confirms your last sentence? David Lauder 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers.
I believe now there may be an error in my earlier info. Community council area boundaries in Caithness, outside of burghs (which were indeed effectively separate parishes for local government purposes), may be those of wards abolished in 1975. As regards supporting references for my info I suggest immediately a visit to the Highland Council website and its info on community councils (where the list of community councils for Caithness does not tally with any list of parishes I have come across). In the longer term, I will be searching for more precise references, especially as regards the last sentence to which you refer.
Laurel Bush 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Also, the Scottish Exectutive website may be useful, but I get the impression that various pages about a review of the communtiy council system seem to have been pulled off the website during the last week or so. This might be a good starting point. I do hold paper copy of one of the seemingly pulled pages pages. Laurel Bush 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Parliaments of England

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Parliaments of England, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia'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. Nebulousity 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Legalise Cannabis Alliance 2.gif

Hello, Laurel Bush. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Legalise Cannabis Alliance 2.gif) was found at the following location: User:Laurel Bush/Workshop VI. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Ayrshire

Hi Laurel

I discovered that the article on the Central Ayrshire constituency had been split, with a separate Central Ayrshire 1950 to 1983 article created, so I merged them back together again, because the consensus at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies is that we should keep constituencies of the same name should be kept in one article. In some cases this may sound perverse, because there may be significant boundary changes, but after a lot of discussion it was agreed that since most constituencies undergo boundary changes even when there is no break in the constituency's existence, it is best to keep the articles together and (if suitable sources are available) explain the boundary changes. Also, it can be very difficult to keep track of links if there are two or more articles on constituencies with the same name.

I'm afraid that it was only after merging the two articles that I noticed that the split had been done recently, by you. I'm sorry for my rudeness; if I had noticed beforehand (and I should have checked), I would have discussed it first ... but I hope you will accept this explanation now.

Checking around after that merge, I also saw that you have done great work splitting up some of the articles on multiple constituencies. That's a long overdue task, and although I have done a few msyelf, there are lots more to do. Keep up the good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I had seen what was happening with the Central Ayrshire article. I had been thinking of reversing the split myself. Cheers again. Laurel Bush 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] North Monmouthshire etc

Hi Laurel, I just spotted that you had moved North Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) to Northern Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency), and likewise for South and West.

You are quite right that those would have been the official names of the constituencies ("Northern Division of Monmouthshire", etc), but the convention at WP:UKPC is to use names of the format "North Xshire" both for the modern constituencies where that is the official name, and for the 19th century county divisions -- in many cases, it avoids splitting articles, and consistency makes things clearer.

So I am moving the articles back again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Laurel Bush 09:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Eastwood and East Renfrewshire

Hi Laurel, I have just slit out Eastwood (UK Parliament constituency) from the East Renfrewshire (UK Parliament constituency) article. I saw that you had merged a previous rather poor quality Eastwood article into East Renfrewshire, but the convention is to keep one name per article: it makes it much easier to keep rack of links, and clearer for the reader (it's confusing to follow a linbk to X constituency and find oneself at an article on Y constituency!).

I hope that the text of the two articles explains the history clearly -- you had done a good job with East Renfrewshire, so I have recycled a lot of that text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you do the same with Na h-Eileanan an Iar (UK Parliament constituency)? Na h-Eileanan an Iar is now the official name, in English, for a constituency previously known as Western Isles. There was a name change without any change to boundaries, as was the case, at the same time, with Eastwood (previouslyEast Renfrewshire). Laurel Bush 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Template:Scottish Westminster constituencies

Hi Laurel. Just like to say nice work so far with the new constituencies template. Quite a big job you've taken on there but will be very useful when finished. Was just wondering really, is it possible to sort them by region within the box or is that not possible? Thanks Galloglass 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible by council area/areas, as in Scottish Westminster constituencies from 2005. Not sure it is a good idea in that box. Laurel Bush 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

Its just as a non Scot I'm having problems finding my way around among the seats within the box. Galloglass 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would lists by council areas help? (There is a regional system for Holyrood constituencies, but not for Westminster constituencies.) Current constituencies (2005 to present), as used in the box, does link to an article with a map. Laurel Bush 12:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No sure to be honest as I and I assume others from south of the border are not that familiar with the smaller councils. Are there many seats that fall into two seperate Holyrood regions? Galloglass 13:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I've not done the sums on that one. There is no official regional system for Scottish Westminster constituencies, and I dont think we should get into trying to invent one for ourselves. (I believe there is an official regional system for England and that, for Scottish constituencies, Scotland is virtually a region in itself, comparable with each of the English regions and with Wales and Northern Ireland)
You have caught me trying to disentangle knots (ambiguities) in namespace use re Scottish Westminster constituencies and to establish a pattern which will be indefinitely sustainable, while wishing I had the resources to attempt something similar for the UK as a whole and for each of its "constituent countries". Laurel Bush 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lanark Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lanark Burghs (UK Parliament constituency), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.jgames.co.uk/title/Lanark_(UK_Parliament_constituency). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like copying is going the other way! Laurel Bush 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Laurel Bush is right. The other site is a wikipedia mirror. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunfermline Burghs

Any comments on Talk:Dunfermline Burghs (UK_Parliament constituency)#Name_confusion.2C_and_date_of_abolition? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constituency list boxes for Scottish seats

Hi Laurel, do you recall that I suggested creating separate constituency list boxes for the period bbetwen each boundary review, so that each constituency had a box (or boxes) for the period(s) when it existed?

I have now done a draft of three such boxes, and I'd welcome your thoughts. See Template talk:Scottish_Westminster_constituencies_(style_1)#Draft_of_separate_constituency_boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll have a look. Laurel Bush 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the Scottish constituencies

The Original Barnstar
For all the careful and detailed work which you have done in creating a very impressive series of well-referenced articles on Scottish Parliamentary constituencies since 1708: 1708–1832, 1885–1918, 1918–1950, 1950–1955, 1955–1974, and 1974–1983. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Laurel Bush 09:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Midlothian - Edinburghshire

Hi Laurel. Could I suggest that you start a new discussion about this topic on the project page as I think we would get more input from people there as I think not many people have actually noticed the discussion at its present location. Cheers - Galloglass 14:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Galloglass. Will do. Laurel Bush (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The pawning of Orkney and Shetland

I have more information (translations of documents, etc.) on this subject if you are interested. -- Nidator T / C 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
Here is one ([4]). I see you started the Treaty of Perth article though, so you probably have this already. -- Nidator T / C 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Swanson

That's a good point! I assumed Thurso was a town in the area/county of Wick. All the sources say 'Thurso, Wick'. I'm confused. Jack1956 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he was born in Thurso and, at the time, Wick was the postal town covering Thurso. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes, perhaps that was it. I found a source that said 'Thurso in Scotland', so have amended the article. Thanks for your input. I see that you are from that part of the world. Jack1956 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Moving pages

Laurel, whilst I appreciate you are trying to help with these articles, you need to read WP:MOVE. Moving pages by cutting and pasting them, rather than moving them, leaves the edit history in the wrong place, and they then have to fixed like this. Also, moving articles via cut and paste leaves all the incoming links heading for the wrong place. Again, making readers click on a dab page when in the vast majority of cases they are either looking for Inverness or Nairn, or have arrived there via a Wikilink, is a bad thing. Message me if you need any more help. Black Kite 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

moving articles via cut and paste: please provide an example of where I have actually done this. Also (1) my work re Nairn follows on what seemed like sensible suggestion and action by another editor and (2) Because of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 Scottish place names are now generally very ambiguous. With respect to Inverness there is also the vagueness etc still seems very valid. Laurel Bush (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Laurel - I reverted the changes you made to Scotland there. The nation/country thing is highly contentious, with an active discussion going on on the talk page about a previous consensus (which was for nation). I have no opinion one way or the other, but given the comment on your edit I felt that change may have been you accidentally stepping on a landmine. Re '1/3'. The numbers are right there in the infoboxes - Scotland's area is 78,772 sq.km while that of Great Britain is 209,331 sq. km - ie Scotland is just over 1/3 of the island of Great Britain, as claimed. I don't think this needs an additional ref. --Bazzargh (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! How many toes have I lost? I seem to have ten left, but maybe they are all right. Laurel Bush (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

☺ --Bazzargh (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)