User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Alfred John Monson

Yep, interesting enough but is in serious need of cleaning up first. I'll have a look over it in the next day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Scottish democrats logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish democrats logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland footy FAC

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure whether or not the article will get through the process but I think it's at least worthy of an attempt. We'll see... Kanaye 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD discusion

I have commented as requested. Seems like your way of doing things is what's going to happen. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunvegan Cup

Great find, fascinating read too. Working on this as well now. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Service in the United Kingdom

Hello, did you read the lengthy discussion about the naming of this article before you took the decision to move it again - without entering that discussion? Please see the article talk pages. This article, started by myself is about the concept of the fire service in the UK, not solely about fire services, or a collection of fire services. It includes legislation, funding and many other areas hencde the consensus reached on name. Escaper2007 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzedbrit

I saw that you'd put a 3RR warning on Enzedbrit's page which he took off himself. The man's a troll that's been hovering about the internet for a number of years - it seems it's wikipedia's turn now. Anyway, it may be worth watching this guy for further forms of abuse... if he does so, then he can be banned etc. --MacRusgail 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_of_CfD_by_Mais_Oui. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monson again

Hi again Mais. I'm pretty much through a substantial reworking of the Monson article. Some bits and pieces to check at the library tomorrow hopefully, and that's probably it. I'd welcome your input though on 2 issues:

  • The DYK nom needs to be concise. There's so much interesting stuff in there that I'm having trouble devising a suitable wording for the entry. It seems to me that the key elements for this DYK are:
- Not proven - a uniquely Scottish verdict.
- This is a significant unresolved Scottish murder case - another murder mystery.
- The Tussaud's libel case - highly significant in establishing defamation precedent in English law and in shaping future legislative thinking in other jurisdictions.
- The paltry one farthing damages awarded in the Tussauds case - this reflects back to the original not proven verdict in the murder trial. (Monson was, after all, a Cad and a bounder :-)
Hmm, please reduce that to a 200 character (or thereby) wording suggestion. The reworked article will be no different in substance to what's already there, just expanded, reworded and fully referenced. Your suggestions are eagerly awaited :)
  • This should probably be a redirect to Ardlamont mystery. It's not really a biography of Monson, there's not that much info out there about him. It's really an article about the murder and the trial, of which there is a reasonable amount of information. My feeling at present is to leave it be until the article is a bit more stable, then move for a redirect. Thoughts?

Now, the Dunvegan Cup is a different beast altogether - some thoughts to follow. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mais, bit of a problem, my PC blew up this morning. I suspect a fried motherboard, so it'll likely be a few days before I can get things sorted out. Can you go ahead and stick these on DYK if you get a chance. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your speedy deletion tags on Categories:British MPs

You have added those speedy tags inappropriately. That CfD did not debate all Categories of MPs by Parliament. I am removing the inappropriate tags. Sam Blacketer 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And even if the CfD had included those categories, they should not be speedy deleted, but rather deleted as part of the CfD process; and since you were under the impression that they were to be listified, you should have known that they had not actually been listified. In view of your unsuccessful canvassing/votestacking of the CfD concerned, this looks to me like blatant vandalism, so I am imposing a 48-hour block for vandalism. You have been involved in enough CfDs that I am sure you know the processes involved very well, so if this was not vandalism or disruption, I hope you have a very good explanation for this.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for apparent vandalism/disruption after a CfD which you had attempted to votestack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mais Oui, I have just spotted another edit of yours, which confirms the edits above were vandalism: these edits to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, which would have had the effect of causing the bots to merge Category:Current British MPs to Category:British MPs. Quite apart from the fact that this was not an outcome discussed at the CfD for Category:Current British MPs, nor how it was closed, you have been involved in enough previous discussions on these categories to know that MPs of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are categorised under Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, and that Category:British MPs is a container category for MPs from various parliaments.
This is such blatant vandalism that I have extended your block to 7 days as a prelude to taking the case to WP:ANI. If you had succeeded in these actions, you would have caused the bots to depopulated no less than 54 valid categories of British Members of Parliament, and miscategorised hundreds of current MPs. (For records of Mais Oui's previous involvement in discussions on this subject, start at Category talk:British MPs, and see the numerous previous CfDs listed there.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for blatant vandalism/disruption of the category system after a CfD which you had attempted to votestack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "User:BrownHairedGirl has, over a long period, embarked on a campaign to have nearly every single category for English, Irish (1801-1922), Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs (created and largely populated by my good self) deleted. The reasons for her actions have never been cogently stated (and every single one of her arguments applies just as well to the countless daft categories she has created - which actually failed a CFD, but miraculously still exist ?!?); and she had been entirely unsuccessful in her endeavours... until yesterday... when contrary to the views of every contributor to the debate User:Radiant closed the CFD in User:BrownHairedGirl's favour (a phenomenon I have never before witnessed at CFD). I urge the reviewing Admin to have a very close look at this case. One thing however must be crystal clear: User:BrownHairedGirl is extraordinarily heavily involved, in a highly dubious manner, in this entire case. It is simply inappropriate for an Admin who has embarked on a long campaign to destroy my hours of hard work then takes it upon herself to block me when User:Radiant's conclusion of the CFD made unpleasant reading for her. "Listify" means exactly what it says: "listify" - and that includes ALL the CFD'd cats. Please note that this is actually the second occasion that User_talk:BrownHairedGirl has tried to block me for preposterously long periods due to her having a freaky over her failed CFD campaign. The last one was not only reduced from a week, but simply overturned by another Admin (see block log). In my opinion User:BrownHairedGirl should receive a formal warning that it is totally unacceptable for an Admin to use their sysop powers to try to bully opponents whom they have failed to overcome in CFD discussions. It is not "Vote-stacking" to use Template:Cfdnotice (which was what lead to BHG's WP:CANVASS ANI), nor to stick a notice up at the Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, nor to notify editors heavily involved in working on articles related to Scottish politics (I neither know nor care which parties they vote for). My use of the db template was because all those cats had already failed at CFD once, in January, and User_Radiant had specified that all such cats should be listified (I linked to User:Radiant's closure in the Edit summaries, but I probably ought to have also linked to the January CFD decision too). What template do you suggest should have been used instead? I have never closed a CFD before, so am totally unaware of the nitty-gritty, I just looked at User:Radiant's contributions for a clue."

Decline reason: "Try again without personal attacks on the blocking admin, please. Concentrate on why what you did was within policy and did not merit blocking, and not what she did wrong, which is irrelevant here. And try to keep it short. — Sandstein 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

  • Replies to Mais Oui's comment:
I have not "embarked on a campaign to have nearly every single category for English, Irish (1801-1922), Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs (created and largely populated by my good self) deleted", and have helped to populate them. I have, however, objected to many of the sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies, etc which are triple intersections and IMO cause category clutter. We disagree on that, but such disagreement is legitimate.

PS In case it wasn't clear from the above, I have no disagreement at all with Radiant's closurethe May 22 CfD for Category:Current British MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there more than one Mais Oui?

Mais Oui professes great fury and indignation about the "countless daft categories she has created - which actually failed a CFD, but miraculously still exist", referring to the sub-categories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. In the CfD discussion, here's what Mais Oui had to say in this edit about these categories: "Keep -well thought out set of categories. I have never been terribly convinced by this "category clutter" argument. If a person is notable for a lot of different things then they are going to be in a lot of categories. So what?"

Is the Mais Oui who described these as "countless daft categories" the same Mais Oui who 20 days earlier described the same categories as a "well thought out set of categories"????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD/W protected

To prevent any further abuse of the CFD process, WP:CFD/W is now protected: see WT:CFD/W#Time_to_protect_this_page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "User:Radiant's conclusion of the CFD: "Listify" means exactly what it says: "listify" - and that includes ALL the CFD'd cats. It is not "Vote-stacking" to use Template:Cfdnotice (which was what lead to BHG's WP:CANVASS ANI), nor to stick a notice up at the Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, nor to notify editors heavily involved in working on articles related to Scottish politics (I neither know nor care which parties they vote for). (I can give a more detailed explanation with supporting dates, times and diffs, if required, but the reviewing Admin told me to keep this short, which I find extremely hard.) My use of the db template was because all those cats had already failed at CFD once, in January, and User_Radiant had specified that all such cats should be listified (I linked to User:Radiant's closure in the Edit summaries, but I probably ought to have also linked to the which actually failed a CFD January CFD decision too). What template do you suggest should have been used instead? I have never closed a CFD before, so am totally unaware of the nitty-gritty, I just looked at User:Radiant's contributions for a clue. (I have now removed all mentions of the blocking Admin, as requested by the reviewing Admin, as I do not know what bits the reviewing Admin considers to be "personal attacks"; in my opinion her actions have been a serious of quite breathtaking personal attacks on myself, including a malicious WP:CANVASS complaint against me at WP:ANI, which was so blatantly bogus that neither I nor any Admin even wasted our time commenting on. And it was that bogus WP:CANVASS ANI which clearly led to the mass category deletions, contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the CFD discussion. How else do we explain that? It seems to be the open season in terms of defaming me, but I am not allowed to say a peep about the behaviour of others. Plus ça change... I know that I am within my rights to raise a complaint against BHG, but from past experience no-one around here gives a toss about Admin's behaviour or abilities, so I won't waste my time. As a final comment before I face the court of appeal, I would like it to be noted that a CFD "merge" decision is exactly the same thing as "delete". If you want the proof, please consider this redlink: Category:Current Liberal Democrat MPs (UK). Until recently that was a bluelink, now it is a redlink. Now, if that ain't a deletion, what is it? I could provide a detailed rebuttal to every single other BHG point, but how I am meant to do that while "keeping it short" heaven alone knows..."

Decline reason: "The May 22 deletion debate which you purported to be enacting covered a specific section of categories covering current Members of Parliament and not covering the historical lists of Parliaments. There was no indication within this CfD, neither by the nominator nor by any other editor giving their opinions, that the historical categories were under debate; the closing admin clearly did not think they were included. When Radiant! closed the CfD he used WP:CFDW to indicate all the categories were to be merged and deleted. As this was perfectly clear, to tag categories which had not been included as though they had and been decided for deletion, especially when the categories had been subject to a recent deletion debate which resulted in a keep vote, was an act of bad faith and disruptive. The block is therefore reasonable. Sam Blacketer 08:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

  • Comments on unblock request:
    1. On the canvassing, read WP:CANVASS. The links you posted to the CfD went far beyond the requirement that they be neutral in tone, and they were targetted at a specific audience.
    2. The January CfD did not close with a result of listify or delete or rename; that CfD was an unsuccessful proposal to rename. The same categories were discussed again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:MPs_of_the_United_Kingdom_House_of_Commons.2C_by_Parliament with a proposal tpo delete, and clear result of "keep" which you supported, describing them as a "well thought out set of categories".
    3. See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions: "Non-administrators generally should not close "delete" decisions, even if they are unanimous, as they lack the technical ability to delete pages". You are not an administrator, and the CfDs concerned had already been closed.
    4. The categories to which you added the {{db}} tags were not part of the May 22 CfD. Your question of "What template do you suggest should have been used instead?" misses the crucial point: no tag as needed.
    5. Your edit to WP:CFD/W (see diff) should not have been made because you are not an admin, and because that CfD had also been closed. However, even if you were an admin, the conclusion of the debate to listify did not require a merge of Category:Current British MPs to Category:British MPs. As above, Category:British MPs is a grandparent category, used a container category for MPs of several different parliaments, and is not populated with individual MPs. You obviously knew that, because your own !vote in the CfD (see diff) recommended "merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution

Thanks for your comment re [1], there is a serious amount of England=UK that needs to be untangled in many articles which have failed to take account of legislation which does not apply consistently across the UK.--MBRZ48 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:DickVet.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DickVet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewLabour-newScotland.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NewLabour-newScotland.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:ScottishTories.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ScottishTories.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Hume of Berwick

Are you an administrator? If so, please could you lock this article on my last reversion (presently in place) and consider the arguments on the Talk Page please. The matter was previously raised with User:BrownHairedGirl, an admin, who is now away and suggests it be looked at by another admin. Please could you see her comments on her Talk Page. If you are not an admin but know of a good academic admin please could you pass on this request. David Lauder 08:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I wondered if you would consider reviewing my remarks here [2] . Many thanks. David Lauder 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, just look at this Talk Page [3] (I had previously removed a nuisance Not Notable template from the article). Regards, David Lauder 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! I despair.--Vintagekits 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help - English/British

As someone who previously supported using English on the Daniel Craig page, I would very much like your help. I am having great problems at the Bernard Manning talk page, with one user who states Manning cannot be English, mainly because he has Irish and Jewish ancestry. He fails to see that it is a unwritten consensus that we use English/Scottish/Welsh, and to be honest I feel that he and I arguing each other is getting no where. He also fails to accept the comprimse a third user suggested. Anyway, I would be very grateful if you could help out, I could do with some support! --UpDown 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)