User:Billreid/Archive/Archive5
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography[edit]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bill, long time indeedie. Hope you're alright. Anyways, deleted the page for you. BTW, you might if you haven't already check out the database of the Scottish saints project. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to merge {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} into {{Infobox church/sandbox}}[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Mitred abbots[edit]
Sorry to tell you there is no such information. Finding such will take your own research methinks.:/ Good to see you're still theoretically interested in the project. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- About who is and isn't mitred? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did you give up, btw, on that religious houses page? I know it was quite a biggie. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
BI talk page[edit]
Hello, Bill. I have to say I am a little puzzled over your statement that 80% of Scottish people vote for mainstream British parties. If you look at the SNP percentage share your figure makes no sense. I work it out as 63% voting for mainstream parties, if by mainstream you mean the unionist parties. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply Bill. Thanks also for your link to the 2005 General election results for Scotland, where of course your figures are spot on. I do though think that if any figures are given out concerning the percentage votes for unionist parties we should be looking at the most up to date figures, which would be the Holyrood elections. We must not forget that the unionist parties during the election made a lot of noise concerning the SNP's desire to break away from the union, so in effect, a vote for and election of the SNP was a repudiation of the oppositions policies on the union. We will of course have a better idea when the referendum takes place in 2010. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe there are two ways to look at whether a government has a mandate or not. Strictly speaking they do have a mandate, as we are a union and are ruled from Westminster. On the other hand, when Scotland are ruled over by a party who are a small minority here, as happened with the Tories, there is a feeling in Scotland we are not getting what we voted for. You may say the same thing for any part of Britain ie, North of England, but you and I know there is always a feeling of being seperate no matter what your politics are. Those are just my thoughts on the subject and not eveyone will agree with them. I noticed in you reply to me you seem to infer you are very good with statistics. I'm going to have to be careful and do my homework in future if I quote any to you. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Scotland[edit]
Why can't everyone see it my way, what's wrong with you all? ;) Ach well, as I said on the talk page I'll drop it now unless there are a flood of editors waiting in the wings who agree with me. Jack forbes (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Bill, I didn't intend to come across as touchy. No hard feelings, I hope. Jack forbes (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
invitation[edit]
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites has opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Failed Doppelganger[edit]
Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888Talk 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
British Empire[edit]
Thanks Bill, voice of reason and all that much appreciated --Snowded TALK 07:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just because he reinforces delusional, circular arguments and self-fulfilling prophecies? It is as if he uses a word to define itself. Give us all a break. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The Empire strikes backwards[edit]
I think we are about there - I've been through everything I can find (waiting on a few more but I think they will be the same) I plan to summarise in the morning based on the two options with some bullet point arguments, May be a simple poll to see where we are and invote others to contribute on one of the notice boards? Any advice/thoughts? I've been sorely tempted with an ANI report with some of the comments and attacks but will hold that --Snowded TALK 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for lack of response. Morning or rather afternoon after the night before. Yes, I think that's fine.
- Some of the comments have been way out of line but it's a sign of losing the plot. Personally, its the ownership issues that annoys me more. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Scotland Rules & socks[edit]
Last night I realised I'd found a sock of SR, and the sock and a few others have now been blocked. I see you've been dealing with some of their edits, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw what your were doing and I will follow his steps, well done yourself. --Bill Reid | (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick[edit]
Thank you for you comments at the talk page of the above article. Would you be willing to participate in the effort I have started to get this issue resolved and get the article promoted at FAC? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Infobox royalty vs monarch[edit]
Hello! I see you have reinserted Infobox monarch in Robert II of Scotland article saying that it is better than Infobox royalty. Could you please tell me why do you believe that Infobox monarch is better than Infobox royalty? Infobox royalty is used in other articles about European monarchs and it looks somehow superior to Infobox monarch (perhaps because the latter lacks elegance, possibility to include different titles held during different periods and inherited from different people, image adjustment, etc). We should try to achieve consistency. Most articles about Scottish monarchs use (or have used) Infobox royalty (eg. the article about Margaret and all articles from James I until Anne). What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. The formatting of the offspring section was not implemented properly and just made the template look ugly but if you can fix that, then I've no problem with the switch. Rgds, --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Issue section. If you see how it is presently formatted in the monarch template, the children are not left aligned but are aligned directly under the other fields. The royalty template shows all the children to the left leaving the template looking unbalanced. I'm using Firefox. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, it looks the same to me. Generally, I find Infobox royalty much more balanced than Infobox monarch (eg. it has less white space). I don't think other people had issues with the looks of the Issue section, but you could share your concerns here; perhaps the person who created the infobox will be able to help you or explain why the children are directly under the other fields. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Bill, I just want to say thank you for the comment you just made about CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ta, but that's the way I see it. The three of you have made and continue to make a difference to the what your trying to achieve. Too many i 's being dotted and t 's being crossed but good luck with it. -Bill Reid | (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I came here to say that for you not to "be bothered" reading the background is pretty poor when you are prepared to come out of the blue comment on another human being like that. All I've done is react to the constant demeaning attacks I've had for standing up for Wikipedia's core values. It has all been defence and reaction. I doesn't surprise me to see "the excellent Tryptofish" and MacDui here. They are as clear a cabal as you will ever see on Wikipedia. I really am not kidding - it's as bad as I've seen or read about. I signed up to something I see them abuse every day, and if you want evidence of how "tight knit" they are: just read the above. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bill
I noticed that you had edited Buckie by positioning the North Kirk "in" as opposed to "on" Cluny Square. Always happy to take guidance, but I would love if you could cite the grammatical rule stating in/on usage in this case as this will help resolve a philological issue. I had a rather fruitless discussion on this very same subject with a dictionary compiler about 6 years ago but you, on the contrary, seem quite emphatic. I look forward to being able to put the wordsmith to the sword. Thanks in advance. Philfaebuckie (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bill
Yes, I understand where you are coming from, but there are arguments about in/on usage which casual linguists seem to forever end up bogged down with. I would like to find the rule that defines this usage. I have passed the question to an academic who might be able to give chapter and verse. Yes, it's a slow day!!! Regards PhilPhilfaebuckie (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Bill
I have reread Buckie from top to bottom and found a couple of grammatical errors to be corrected which are well beyond mere supposition of the in/on/at variety. However you seem to have felt it unnecessary to comment on those. Pedantry is unwelcome. Buckie people suggest an outside bias but I demur on that one.
Regards
Phil Philfaebuckie (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill
Ignore the last remark completely. That was a so-called "pal" of mine using my account. Yes there were a couple of glaring errors, but that is neither here nor there.
Best regards
Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philfaebuckie (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Shetland Busses.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Shetland Busses.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:TheGlenGrant.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:TheGlenGrant.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer[edit]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Dedications of Scottish religious houses[edit]
Top of the evening to you Bill. Hope you are well. Just thought I would let you know, in case you didn't already, of two online resources relevant to User:Billreid/Religious houses.
1) James Murray MacKinlay Ancient Church dedications in Scotland
Volume 1
Volume 2
The first volume deals with biblical dedication, the second with non-biblical dedications.
2) If you can work out how to use the database,
Also, as a side note, keep a look-out for the Prosopography of Medieval Scotland database, which might show up here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
United Kingdom[edit]
I've made suggestions to Template:Infobox & Template:Infobox country concerning 'no names' at top of infoboxes. PS: Snowded's driving me nuts. GoodDay (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I noticed what you did and didn't agree with them. You can't simply remove verifiably correct information. It is absolutely silly to remove the name of the country from the country infobox--just doesn't make sense. As regards Snowded, his opinions are sincerely held and strongly argued, I just hold an alternate view. You know I'm sure that you come to these articles with the best of intentions but you need to make arguments not statements of your opinion. Regards --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quite agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking back, you're correct. I shouldn't have blanked the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Splling[edit]
I don't want to edit your user page, but why has it said "Picure.." (sic) since 2009.... ??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks--shows how often I look at it and it's well out of date too. Done the correction, though. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably just a mistake but...[edit]
... why did you revert the spelling correction I made to my own comments on User talk:Tnxman307? Arbor8 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is inexplicable. On 21 Apr I was travelling to Hungary and hadn't accessed the internet until Friday 22 on my i-pad. I saw your message to me and immediately checked what you said to me. Sure enough an amendment to your post to tnxman had taken place by my account. I immediately suspected my account had been hacked so I changed my password straight away and coming back to uk today I noticed no further activity on my account. For some reason, and maybe its me, but I cannnot edit WP on my i-pad--I can get to the edit page but I simply can't actually get the QWERTY screen to appear no matter what I do so I couldn't come back to you until now. PLease note, I'm not saying that my genuine account didn't make the correction as I had left my pc open and I'm not discounting family members having made the edit. I'm very sorry that this happened and I will ensure in future that I observe better security. Please accept my assurances that this sort of childish behaviour is not my way of editing WP. Best regards. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)