User talk:Breadandcheese

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Breadandcheese, 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:Where to ask a question, 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!

Please add new talk comments at the bottom of the page, rather than the top (Talk:Scottish national identity).

You are correct that that article needs a lot of work, but actually it was not written by a "rabid nationalist", but rather by an editor strongly opposed to Scottish independence who wanted to try to initiate a more balanced presentation of the topic than then existed at article Unionist (Scotland).

Oh yes, please always remember to sign your comments. I did it for you at that Talk page.

Have you visited Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board yet?--Mais oui! 11:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dundee Arms.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dundee Arms.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dundee arms2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dundee arms2.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. BetacommandBot 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unionism in Scotland

Sorry about that. I misunderstood it as refering to the people standing at the side not the marchers. Munci 09:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject

I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. The project proposal above has been successful, so I would like to invite you to add your name to the new project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hi. I reverted your removal of the Scottish flag from Edinburgh and Glasgow. While I sympathise with your point about which flag we use in articles like these being a choice, I think it is a choice that has already been made, to use the Scottish flag rather than the UK or EU ones. There's nothing at all wrong in being bold like this, but I suggest a little more care with the use of the minor edit flag. Next steps; either take it to article talk, the Scotland project, or else you may be interested in contributing to WP:FLAGCRUFT. Best wishes, --John 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I was just stumbled upon your talk page as part of a little research into the use of the UK over the constituent countries in various situations.

I must say that you were actually right to remove the flag as mentioned above - there is a massive consensus within the editting community not to use flags in infoboxes (see the results here for yourself).

I'm interested in working out a few rules about the use of the UK and England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. I don't believe I have especially strong views (I think I take a rather balanced and mainstream approach to this issue), but was wondering if in the near future you'd be interested in contributing to a small discussion about this topic? Let me know if you're interested, please. Jhamez84 01:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! And I think I share your concerns about this issue. I'm just gathering names at the moment, but I will be proposing some codification as to the use of the UK and its parts as part of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Once I've got some names, I'll put forward some of my ideas, and hopefully with the aid of others we can work out a body of knowledge and a template that will improve the organisation, contextuality and consistency of UK realted articles. Any problems in the meantime, do feel free to get in touch! Jhamez84 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui-iana

Accusation of "IP Sock puppetry"

Mais oui! posted an accusation of being an “IP Sockpuppet” against me on several occasions. While normally personal insults and unsubstantiated slurs are removed on sight, I feel it fair to highlight that this accusation was made and affirm that it is totally without foundation and I have never (at least not deliberately or to my memory) edited Wikipedia without signing in on this account. The details are available in history if you really must view them.

Mais Oui! engaged in an edit war on the University of Dundee page. I pointed out he had made three edits, mistakenly skimming over the 3RR policy – and referred him to this without his making a fourth edit. Instead of pointing this mistake in interpretation out, he accused me of personally insulting him: a charge I refuted having obviously believed him to be in violation of this policy. The page was subsequently protected.

Evidently another user has edited the said page, and I have been accused absolutely without substantiation. Checking the logs, I can also reveal I have not instantly developed an interest in UK newreader Jane Hill, the destinations of Emirates Airways flights, the Baroness Tweedsmuir, Concorde or the Muslim Council of Britain! I reacted to this accusation by refuting it and telling Mais Oui! to “bugger off” – which he seems to believe is “beyond the pale” in terms of insults, I cannot say I agree.

Yet another edit war now looms despite. As one may care to witness, my tireless attempts at dispute resolution between parties of both sides – as evidenced at the User_talk:84.9.228.106 and the Talk:University of Dundee pages (Mais Oui! has chosen to remove all of the cordial invitations to negotiate that I left on his talk page) - have been without fruit as of yet.

I was bored of this dispute when it ended the first time, however to be dragged into it again and again is tiresome in the extreme. As such, this is the last statement I will make on the matter. Again, I affirm my good faith and commitment to factual accuracy before all else; Floreat Wikipedia etc. --Breadandcheese 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mais Oui! has started the edit wars again over at University of Dundee. What this uses problem is I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.253 (talk • contribs)

Mais Oui! bullying

Everytime you add anything with a British/UK context to a Scottish article this user seems to jump at you an accuse you of being a vandal or a sockpuppet. There must be a sensible way of stopping this bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.253 (talk • contribs)

Without wishing to get bogged down in personal commentary on one user, I rather agree with that position and it does irk me that there is nothing to prevent such pointless POV editing, particularly when done in an underhand manner. At the end of the day, it's not my problem as such and if I see something factually inaccurate or unrepresentative of a true position, I'll simply edit it on a case by case basis. As for personal attacks, they're always going to happen on Wikipedia as it is so open to abuse by the sort of people who, in real life, would never be listened to on any matter of consequence - Wiki policy is clear enough however, ignore and remove them. --Breadandcheese 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the comment you made in User talk:Mais oui!#Three revert rule block! Not that I consider it seriously, but just because it was humerous. Taric25 06:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you; glad someone took it as a simple bit of fun. As is of course typical on here, a complete over-reaction ensued. How very boring and unfortunately predictable. --Breadandcheese 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I strongly advise you to desist with the petty edit warring. --Mais oui! 13:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit war at all. I made an alteration to something that I believe to be wrong with full justification, which is the point of Wikipedia - and I certainly reserve the right to do that. If you have a dispute, I direct you towards WP:DR which is Wikipedia's official policy on seeking resolution. I shall, for my part, fully participate in good faith with anyone who enters into such a process - as I have always done in the past. --Breadandcheese 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Um, I didn't do three (or indeed, four, as we established...) edits on anything, and have already said that I will listen to any good justifications put forward for anything and engage in any dispute resolution on any matters. Hence, I believe posting the above note on my talk page is entirely unnecessary. --Breadandcheese 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're here, I very much resent being told I am 'vandalising' something when I made a reasonable edit summary pointing out that I believed a quotation to be unusual, out of an appropriate context and subject to confusion. It should be noted that the quotation refers to the present purposes (ie, conflict of laws) which was not being discussed, yet the placing of the quotation where it was not relevant implied it had wider application. No part of the British Isles is foreign to any other part. --Breadandcheese 14:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breadandcheese, you've breached WP:3RR. If someone reported you, you would be blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

I see you've realised and reverted yourself. Probably a very good idea. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, accidental. --Breadandcheese 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it starts again... Glasgow Airport (disambiguation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.253 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: University of St Andrews revert

From WP:V,

“

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

”

Emphasis my own. There are no reliable sources, and such a contentious claim, namely defrauding a survey to artificially boost the university's ratings, is of a level that it requires one. Posts in a forum sit on the same level of reliability as conversations in a pub - the only difference is that forum posts are recorded for all time. I presume the university has a student newspaper - did they pick up on it and run a story? That would fit far more with requirements of fact-checking and editorial oversight. SFC9394 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know...

Hello, White British is up for deletion - I sense WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being used here... more for the British part rather than the white.

Also, you have my full support on a great number of issues you've been contributing to, and I believe better organisation is going to be needed to overthrow (for want of a better word - perhaps "convince"!) some of the projects louder and longer established editors. Jza84 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups don't hugely interest me, but I'll certainly have a look and comment as I see it. --Breadandcheese 13:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keep me in the loop - I wish I'd seen the proposed (and rejected) UK naming convention talk page when it was active. I completely concur with yourself. Shame it wasn't posted to the relevant notice boards to generate interest and a more inclusive debate. Jza84 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unionist (Scotland)

Please do not perform cut and past moves on pages as you did with Unionist (Scotland), if you want it moved make a request thanks --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to Unionism in Scotland, as it is that topic which the article discusses, as opposed to Scottish unionists as a people. Jza84 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you did the same thing with North Briton and North Britain I have reverted this as it messed up the edit history. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I have looked through the relevant Wikipedia documents and see how this creates a problem. I shall use the proper channels in future. --Breadandcheese 23:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That ok I have made a request for the Unionist (Scotland) to be moved im not sure about the North Briton one though. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'll probably put in for a discussion on the North Britain one then.

Goading other users

Edits like this - [1] = are not acceptable. Do not do it again. If you cannot deal with a fellow user civilly, do not deal with them at all. Neil ム 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Admin action had been taken, and Breadandcheese's comment was just goading, which never helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

Sorry to contact you again (your edits always appear on my watch list!) - I just thought I could share a couple of ideas with you as a possible interested party...

Firstly, I'm wondering if the Britishness article should/could be renamed/redirected/merged or otherwise work alongside a British national identity article? There is a Scottish national identity (albeit a slightly unreferenced entry), and wondered how that would go down being named Scottishness, or having other titles like Englishness, Welshness (which redirects to culture of Wales) or even more horribly, Northern Irishness!! I'm not quite sure how encyclopedic the term Britishness is.

Another point is I'm a little concerned that the British nationalism article is a little confused and a little compromised. It seems to deal with the far right and white nationalism, and nothing of the dynamics of Unionism, or the patriotism seen by the war effort, the Northern Ireland issue, contemporary British political views etc etc which I don't think is right at all. Any thoughts?

Finally, I've raised a point on the British people talk page, and wondered if you had any suggestions? Hope all is well, Jza84 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point, I think. It does rather substitute a great deal of information which is relevant and could be merged into an article on British national identity. In fact, I'd favour a one-stop article incorporated within British people - which I feel is rather lacking.

British nationalism really is a tough one, it was rather inevitably going to be a discussion of the so-called "far right" (I'm one of those sorts who dislikes the linear political spectrum) but there should be some editing of it to reflect somewhat more mainstream versions of the concept. Another issue which is bothering me of late is that Scottish nationalism redirects to Scottish independence - to me, nationalism does not have to equal the outright demand for a completely sovereign state, much as the page on English nationalism demonstrates. --Breadandcheese 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time in replying. If I can be of assistance in moving these ideas forwards do please let me know. I'm still keen on producing a photomontage for the Britons article infobox, but as of yet, nobody has replied - shame. Jza84 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient universities

SPCM=Saint Patrick's College Maynooth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.93.50 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country

If you seek balance, you must first establish verifiable notability for a derogation from what is normal. Verify a decent and proper source (see WP:V) that shows three constituent countries to be common enough to be notable, and then we can consider inclusion.

As it stands, the weight of evidence is exclusively on the side of four. --Breadandcheese 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - describing NI as a country is NOT "normal"; even the article says so! So the onus is for those (you) who are seeking a derogation from what is normal and wish to call NI a "country" in the face of the evidence to show why common usage and vast references to alternative terms have no weight. This you have totally failed to do. Secondly, NI does NOT have a flag. Look at the Wiki article on NI. No flag. (Sarah777 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say that deeming there to be four constituent countries of the UK and saying that Northern Ireland is one is perfectly normal. It's on an equal status and has more right to the title than Wales as far as I can see. There are sources for Northern Ireland being a constituent country, there are none for it not being so. Simple as that.

NI has a flag (many, in fact) that is unofficial. That does not mean it doesn't exist; moreover, I hardly consider it relevant. --Breadandcheese 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infobox

Hello again. I came across Inverness today and wanted to share that you are right to remove the Saltire from the infobox per WP:MOSFLAG and this consensus. Hope it helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is really frustrating sometimes, and I'm a little concerned by the use of language at the moment by some of Wikipedia's very own Scottish Mafia. Things like "Neutral territory" and "Scottish Wikipedians" really should not matter when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Indeed there is no "neutral territory" - a Wikipedian of any background has the right to edit any page. So called "Scottish articles" are certainly not restricted to Scots-only contributors. I take real pride in my cultural background, but do not think that a Saltire or Union flag adds anything (bar trouble) to Inverness or other places.

There's been a suggestion now to remove "Sovereign state= UK" from the UK place infobox, which, having thought about it, means some geography-class articles about places in the UK, won't mention the UK at all! I once heard we shared a monarch, currency, island, language, history, government, military, religion, and nationality... I fear I'll log into Wikipedia one day and find no mention of it!

Don't loose faith. I'm really encouraged by your approach (which as I've pointed out, doesn't push any kind of POV, but asserts codified consensus), and think it'd be a shame for you to be dispirited by other users. I'm certainly not advocating we say "Glasgow is in Scotlandshire

, and since 1606 ruled by the Queen of England" (!), but a little less of the hiding of the Union would help us develop a great encyclopedia rather than bicker over cultural icons. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag on the Inverness article

Hi Breadandcheese, I note that you removed the {{3rr}} notice which Mais Oui! posted here.

I note a few points:

The revision history of the Inverness article shows that you did revert three times in 24 hours, and 8 times in the last 7 days. That's edit warring, and plenty of grounds for a block
Your removal of Mais Oui's 3RR warning said (in the edit summary) that "rv - no I have not. I am not going to waste my time on this further and will revert on sight as vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM: this is clearly a content dispute, not vandalism.

A block for this edit-warring would now be justified, but I would prefer for now to see if a solution can be found to the substantive dispute, so I will not impose a block (though other admins may disagree, and I will not oppose a block if someone else applies one).

To try to encourage discussion rather than edit warring, I have now protected the page per Wikipedia:Protection policy, and recommended further discussion (see my note at Talk:Inverness#Page_protected). I hope that you will work with other editors to try to reach consensus on a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The violation indication left by Mais oui! contained the wording that I had reverted more than three times in 24 hours, which is patently untrue - and moreover, hardly tolerable considering when I did the same thing to him as an honest misinterpretation of the 3RR policy, he completely flew off the handle. He has no such excuse, and something of a history of leaving extremely objectionable messages on my talk page.

In answer to the substantive point - I participated fully in the discussion on the matter. It was inconclusive, but it seemed most editors did favour the removal of flags. There was however, as discussed, consensus on the matter. It strikes me as unacceptable in such circumstances for editors to turn up, revert without providing a reason or engaging in discussion, and then cry foul of edit wars.

As you can see, I have for a couple of days been pushing for a speedy resolution to the issue, which has found little response. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neilston

Hello again,

I remeber you have stated you have links (or are from) the rural parts of Renfrewshire. Just wondered if you wanted to help an East Renfrewshire neighbour and take a look at the Neilston article I've been developing? I'm trying to get it upto WP:GA (via WP:UKCITIES) but it kinda reads badly as I'm struggling for source material and clues.

Hope you can take a look,

Kindest regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the typo. Any ideas where I might get a breakdown of demographic figures for the village. Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics seems incredibly complex. Ideally I'm hoping to complete the table I have waiting in my sandbox. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Conservative Future Scotland.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Conservative Future Scotland.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country (again)

I reverted my revert of your edit pending clarifying my thoughts on Northern Ireland.

Looking again at the article, calling Northern Ireland a province is an attempt to define it legally I'm guessing, as opposed to calling it a country. Looking on it as a part of the Republic of Ireland is... political? The former thought is probably more appropriate for the article, do you think both ideas would be appropriate for the article? Alastairward (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Union Flag and Flag of the United Kingdom articles

You may wish to vote in the Straw Poll section which follows the discussion:

Regards Rab-k (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input

Hello again Breadandcheese!

For what it's worth, I've put together a slightly altered version of the lead for Scotland at User:Jza84/Sandbox1. It's how I would imagine the lead to go. I'm hoping to bring it to the community at somepoint down the line, but wondered what you thought. I hope all is well, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Parish

You have done a good edit. However, the 'History' section seems to be entirely about England and Wales, except one paragraph. I rather wonder whether all the Scottish material should not be separated from that, but this would require furhter restructing. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I have to confess I had similar concerns. I think I opted for the most straightforward restructuring option given the information already there, but I certainly wouldn't have any complaints if the material was to be separated up. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renfrewshire (historic)

Hello again!

I just wondered what you made of my expansion to Renfrewshire (historic). Most of my material was from the Slater's Commericial Directory of Renfrewshire from 1903, and I intend to reference my additions.

I also wondered if you think you'd be able to produce (or help produce) a table for the settlements of the county, akin to say that at Greater_Manchester#Geography or Salford (hundred), but showing which settlements lie within which contemporary council area?

My aim is to bring the entry upto GA status at some point in the future. I'm also seeking to obtain rights to use this image for the article too! --Jza84 | Talk 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a good few solid-world reference materials from days past at my other address which I keep meaning to utilise in order to update such things. I'll certainly put it all in the works so to speak, but the amount of time I get to spend on Wikipedia comes in rather sporadic patches. Excellent photograph too! It'll make a valuable addition to the page.

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		I User:Energizer07 hereby award you this in recognition for the contributions you have made to Elizabeth ii

--Energizer07 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmacolm railway & station

Thanks for putting in the NCN reference -- I knew it wasn't the Firth-to-Forth path, but was too tired/lazy to look up the proper route details. I'll edit Bridge of Weir to include the information some time soon, too. Jonobennett (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lochwinnoch

I merely suggested that edits be discussed on the discussion page as there appears to be an edit war starting... I would suggest that you also read Wikipedia:Civility as the tone of you comment on my page comes dangeroursly close to incivility. Frenum McSpleen (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see much edit warring, just a very poorly written page in desperate need of upgrading. If you care to dispute any of my edits, feel free to do so, I will gladly participate in any dispute resolution matters raised; reverting them because you feel they should be discussed is not a valid editorial action, nor will I pay any heed to it. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]