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]

The souce for claiming that Aberden University and not King's College is very simple: the words of the papal Bull itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (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]

I see little problem with your edits, you are correct that the Village Website section added little, if anything, to the page, and as long as the Website URL is still displayed (as it is) then no problem. However, your comments justifying your edits are a little uninformed: The village web site is a significant community project, is non-profit making and in no way commercial, and has been verifiably recognised as a significant community contribution.

I am a wikipedia newbie, so apologies that I don't know how to correctly cite references, however here are some links:

Lochwinnoch Community Council wins Community Enhancement through the Internet Award at Calor Scottish Community of the Year Awards

"...this website has managed to reach the finals of the Calor Community of the Year Awards every year since its launch in 2000."

SRANI Report "the Lochwinnoch village website (www.lochwinnoch.info) presents the many and diverse activities available to visitors and local people alike (along with a wealth of other information)."

Java Jockey (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me congratulate you on your edits however, they have made the page much better Frenum McSpleen (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Ulster_Scotland_mural.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Ulster_Scotland_mural.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Quarriers home.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Quarriers home.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Quarriers home.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scots university nations

You moved the article on Scots university nations into the article on Nations.

That means that an international topic, (nations), has only a specific mention of the situation in Scotland, and no where else. Why would the situation in Scotland merit this exceptional treatment? You also claim that a nation is not a student organization, which seems to be the only obvious generic term that encompasses it, corporations, and fraternities. You also object to the content of the article on Scottish nations, and yet have omitted to improve it. P22575R15 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Anglican High Church Adherent from Renfrewshire

I see from your user boxes you are:

This user lives in Renfrewshire, Scotland.

This user is a High Church adherent of Anglican Christianity.

From my personal knowledge that are few churches in this category in Renfrewshire. The most notable being Holy Trinity in Paisley. You have been a law student, so I guess if you attended Glasgow University you will have come across St Bride's in Hyndland. --Stewart^(talk) 19:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Undoing my edits

Why are you reverting my edits? Stop them NOW.
You will be risking a immeadeatte block if you do this again. Turbo Golf (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly in any way a blockable "offence", and while this is a content dispute, Tharnton345/Turbo Golf/whatever should be explaining reasons for edits. I've not reverted to the original version yet as the reasoning for both positions needs to be put forward and consensus reached. . dave souza, talk 10:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharnton: Unlike you I provide reasons and edit summaries for my edits. If you want to know why I am doing them, look there. If you have a dispute, take it to the relevant Talk Page for the article in question. --Breadandcheese (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some messages which were irrelevant and nonsensical, making threats and personal attacks per WP:NPA. If similar material is added again, it will be removed. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland subnational! An example of a subnation is Ohio, a US state, and your'e making England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland like Ohio! That is hurtful. Please stop it. Turbo Golf (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid what is accurate takes precedence over what one editor finds 'hurtful'. WP:FLAGS makes clear that subnational flags should not be used without direct relevance, and further clarifies this to apply to all flags that are not the flags of sovereign states - which should take precedence for reasons provided in the guidelines. Subnational does not imply the existence of a 'subnation', it simply means below national.

Considering your behaviour recently, I am finding it rather difficult to assume good faith when it comes to appeals like this, so I am clearly outlining the case now for your benefit. I will not do so more than once. --Breadandcheese (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union flag name dispute

Hello, I see you recently reverted an edit from: "Union flag, more commonly known as Union Jack" and I agree with you, to change that as no ref was provided, but perhaps "also commonly known as" might fit the bill as a compramise at the very start of the article Union Flag? cheers Philip.t.day (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly acceptable to me, yes. I think that is more than demonstrated in the text of the article. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a reference to a printed source about the common use of "Union Jack" for Union Flag (or conversely whether "Union Flag" is now pedantic), please drop a note on my user page, and I'll look one up in one of my heraldic or vexillographical books (I.O. Evans, Boutell's Heraldry, etc.). Happy St Andrew's Day from Providence, Rhode Island (USA). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nations in Scottish universities

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nations in Scottish universities, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nations in Scottish universities. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Aberdeen University arms.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Aberdeen University arms.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh/Lothian Conflict

Please stop doing this. Edinburgh is well part of the Lothians, and you shall be reaching a permanent block if you do this again. 89.242.19.188 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not troll my talkpage. I suspect you are a sockpuppet of a recently banned user, so we'll leave it at that. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to note WP:SSP#User:Fila3466757 (3rd). . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Conservative Future Scotland.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Conservative Future Scotland.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AUSA logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AUSA logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Harrislogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Harrislogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ConservativesNI.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ConservativesNI.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)

Hi Breadandcheese.

REF: "22 parliamentarians, representing over 1.45 million; English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh (British) constituents."

I've read the "Wiki Peacock terms." I do not think that these facts are insignificant, especially when listed in the same "Opposition section referring to Irish Republicanism." Moreover, as parliamentarians are listed earlier in the article, I believe it would be appropriate to move the "Legal" section to; just above the "Pressure Groups," and also re-name "Legal" to "Prior Legal Challenges," (as historically there were others, which I will be adding.) I'll re-edit these proposals into the article, if you have any further constructive suggestions or comments, we can discuss them on it's Talk page. PS. I am not, nor have ever been, a Republican, or anti-monarchy, per se. Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Renfrewshirearms.gif)

You've uploaded File:Renfrewshirearms.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

"Racial stereotyping"

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but you, and the other editor, are confusing "British" and "English". The "English" are a white race hailing from England. The "British" are a mix of ethnicities, ranging from the native Scots/English/Welsh/Irish etc, to all the colours that have since emigrated there - Indians, Pakistanis, Africans, Jamaicans etc. Please read English people and British people before reverting this again. Anyone referring to a "White British subgroup of English people" is utterly confused about their terminology. The reality of the situation is that the English are a subgroup of the white British population. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing in the world to suggest that someone who is not white cannot be English. English is a nationality like any other, regardless of what some might like to imply. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common view held by ethnic minorities in England, that English refers to the "indigenous", white English people. However, it's not universally held by any means, and even in conflict with the strong sentiments held in Scotland and Wales, whilst of course there is no law governing this minefield of identity politics of the UK. This is reported on at British_people#Classification however, drawing from research by the Commission for Racial Equality.

..... by coincidence, thought you may wish to take a look at British people - I've been working on this article for the last fornight and want to take it through WP:GAC. That was why I popped across to leave a note, when I saw the above. --Jza84 | Talk 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:UK Supreme Court logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UK Supreme Court logo.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) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Party

Hi, I notice that you have started a discussion on the name of the article for the Conservative Party in the past. I would be interested to have your comments on my attempt to reignite the argument on the unsuitability of the current article. Orthorhombic (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Aberdeen Arch.jpg

This file or media is currently the subject of a Deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons.

If you have an interest in this media, or have information which could prevent it's deletion, please participate in the discussion, or contact someone from Commons as soon as possible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union Square Aberdeen

Hi, I would like to sort this constant back and forth editing of Union Sqaure.

I have spent a lot of time and effort finding out this information , so that people can be informed of what is to come. I am not promoting the shopping centre or advertising it, i do not work for the company , I am merely a citizen who has taken a keen interest in the shopping centres progress as it has been a long time coming and something Aberdeen has needed for a long time. Mearly listing the stores who have signed up leases within the scheme and their unit positions within the scheme is not advertising ,its just so that people have a rough idea of where things are in the centre. I do not think that sharing this info is inappopriate. I have removed the link to First Bus website as i see how that may have been advertising , and i dont mind removing the bus info , even though some people who have not been to Aberdeen before would find it useful to know what bus they can catch to get to the centre.

One thing you could help me to do if you want is how to add references ? As i can easily justify all of the stores I have put on the page.

Please lets come to an arrangement.

It would have been nice if u had messaged to air your grievances first before just removing things.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottylawrie (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I'm generally working to the guidelines contained in the What Wikipedia is Not and the Notability pages. In particular, Wikipedia is not intended to be a guidebook or a directory, nor a repository of all information pertaining to a subject. It represents notable facts, not trivia or something that someone may happen to be interested in.

Transport details, for example, cross that line, and whilst I am satisfied that a list of shops contained within the centre is quite appropriate, a list of associated retail unit spaces is not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, nor is it particularly readable. There were also a number of other problems - issues with peacocking etc.

Back-and-forthing an article is a process designed to weed out problems which does take time; but the page certainly seems to be getting better. If you're interested in helping provide references Wikipedia:Citing sources is the place to look at.--Breadandcheese (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above user Scottylawrie. Please leave this page alone. We know what we are talking about, do you even live in Aberdeen? If not the page doesnt really concern you. we are working to make it better with Citations as best as possible, but your constant fuddy duddyness in regards to the content is getting a bit tiresome. If you have something useful or interesting to add to the page then please do so. If you are just going to nit pick at things, then dont bother. Why does it matter to u if little things are missing. Not like people will lose any sleep over it, so please stick to the subjects that you appear to be good at contributing too. And leave our page , about our city , which we have a vested interest, and we know for sure that a lot of people visit our page from Aberdeen to find out info. So please, if your going to keep changing things. Dont come back to the page.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.117.94 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over editing this page - fully in line with Wikipedia guidelines - I have been subjected to a campaign of abuse by numerous IP sockpuppets. I suspect this is part of of a process of spamming Wikipedia. I will not tolerate it, and henceforth will be strict in my interpretation of guidelines. The limits of assuming good faith only go so far. If you are actually interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia, which I must confess I very much doubt - then I suggest you read the guidelines at WP:OWN --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish nationality in Countries of the UK

Originally this did explain things regarding duel citizenship etc in certain short detail (as it is complex - eg you can write to both govts regarding what you want). Have a look at the early diffs. But I don't think the current workding is actually inacurate if you read it by word by word - "Irish nationality law] entitles people born on the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, to Irish citizenship." Above that, there are additional factors to it for sure, like dates of living in Ireland if I remember rightly, and the various wishes of the people.

I wanted to get some basic copy editing in, as I think the intro as it was standing lacked clarity from the outset (due mainly to all the text movement), which is against the purpose of the article (obviously). If we do things in turn, we could back to the citizenship part later. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Breadandcheese, the we keep running over and back across each other on that article. Irish nationality law is a little different in wording (but not effect) from UK nationality law. It is based on a (rather confusing) concept of "entitlement". Once someone who is "entitled" to be and Irish citizen does something that only an Irish citizen then they become an Irish citizen from birth. Yet paradoxically, they cannot be assumed not to be an Irish citizen just because they have not done anything yet. There is no distinction drawn between the state and the island with respect to Irish nationality law.

The upshot of this is that someone born in the Republic (to Irish parents) will have done something from day one that only an Irish citizen can do (i.e. reside in the state on the basis of them being a citizen of Ireland). Whereas a person born in the North will probably have to wait a little longer before doing something only and Irish citizen can do (e.g. enter the state on the basis of being an Irish citizen, as opposed to on the basis of being an EU citizen). Regardless of when someone born on the island of island does one of these things, they become an Irish citizen from birth - but it cannot be said that they were not an Irish citizen before then. (Confusing, eh?)

Here's the relevant section on the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 2001:

6.—(1) Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

(2) (a) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she does, or if not of full age has done on his or her behalf, any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do.

(b) The fact that a person so born has not done, or has not had done on his or her behalf, such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen or is a citizen of another country.

I hope this clear things up. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comments. As you've highlighted from s.6(1), I was clearly wrong in my presumption that the term 'entitlement' did not apply to those who were 'automatic' Irish citizens (ie, those entitled to no other legal nationality). I am happy to then re-include that on the page. It does seem that the conditions for NI-born individuals is not entirely similar in practice, due to their entitlement to British citizenship.

As to the 'people from... are British citizens without distinction' section, I think it rather suggests a cross-over between identity and legal status which doesn't exist. I could consider myself English without being a British citizen; indeed, plenty of people across the world clearly consider themselves Irish without having ever set foot on the island! --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The is a practical difference for NI folk in that is is easier for them to relinquish their British or Irish citizenship compared to someone born in Britain or southern Ireland. Because you or I (I'm guessing) are only British or Irish citizens our respective states are obliged under international law to refuse applications from us to relinquish our citizenship in order not to leave us stateless. NI folk have the benefit of being able to relinquish either citizenship and still have one left over. (In practice few do this, indeed many Unionist opt for an Irish passport just because it's cheaper - or at least used to be!)

I put the bit about ENG/SCO/WAL/NI nationality back in with a parenthesis about about the legal status (i.e. none?). It does indeed need clearing up, I had originally read it as doing that (i.e. saying they were all British) but didn't think about the "reverse" (i.e. saying that they are not - legally at least - "English", for example). I did this before reading your comment here, so please edit it further if you think it needs further clarifying.

There are some finer points about that though e.g. voting rights in Scotland, I believe, or something like that? Something that could be put into the body, maybe? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles

Following from a discussion you were a participant in on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom, a (limited) RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]