Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and I am also aware that you have reverted the Falklands page at least as many times recently. The poll is currently running in favor of keeping the historical names in the lead. ] 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and I am also aware that you have reverted the Falklands page at least as many times recently. The poll is currently running in favor of keeping the historical names in the lead. ] 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
== Category:Constitutional laws of the United Kingdom ==
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I do not share your opinion, nor do I care about it. You have made crystal clear that you hold me in contempt, therefore I am very surprised that you would condescend to comment on the Talk page of one of the great unwashed. I will not be entering into dialogue with you. --] 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just looking through the Military of Pakistan article and it's daughter articles, I noticed there were two templates in use of which you created one in August 2005. A new larger template is now being used which includes the links to the daughter articles. Would you be bothered if I ask for your template to be deleted? Green Giant05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Still trying to work out the best way to categorise acts like this. After a discussion with User:Mais oui! yesterday we thought that that UK acts that apply only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should go into the subcategories. I thought to begin with that an act like this could go in both Scottish and British categories, but he tells me articles should not go in a category and its subcategory. What do you think? Kurando | ^_^09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
One solution would be to create a new category, called something like Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland, and make it a subcat of both Category:British laws and Category:Scottish laws. Although the current system is OK, it would perhaps be better to differentiate between pre-Union Scottish laws, British laws for Scotland, and devolved Scottish laws (at the moment they are all just lumped in together, which will become more and more messy as more articles are started and entered in the cat).
Although I regret the catty nature of Astrotrain's comment left on your Talk page yesterday, he does have a reasonable point in wanting British laws to be correctly labelled as such, even when they are only applicable to Scotland.
All of the above goes for Eng, Wales and NI too.
Finally, I think that an article actually listing all the UK parliament legislation only applicable to Scotland would be an excellent tool, helping to give structure to the new subcat. Same obviously for Eng, Wales and NI.
Oh, another "finally": you really, really ought to try very hard indeed not to enter an article in both a subcat and the parent cat (although occasional exceptions do exist, this isn't one of them). It is just standard good practice, widely observed throughout Misplaced Pages.--Mais oui!18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.
Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:
"British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
"contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.
I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.
Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui!21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved archived material back, shortly after the post above.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Misplaced Pages article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.
The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui!22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It is extremely unhelpful for Astrotrain to keep flipping this discussion between three different Talk pages. Can we at least agree to keep this conversation in one place?--Mais oui!22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I do see your point. However laws passed by the UK parliament should be kept seperate from laws passed by the Scottish Parliament to avoid confusion. Astrotrain22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you on that point: Category:Scottish laws should have (at least) three subcats, with names something like:
I'm not sure that that wording is best, not least because I'm not sure if Statutory Instruments are meant to be getting included too, but you get my drift.--Mais oui!23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is actually more complex than that. Although the purpose of the Act is to make a change that relates to Scotland, the Act itself does not have an "extent" provision (normally found in the last few sections) and therefore applies UK-wide. It does therefore amend English law. While many Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title do indeed extend only to Scotland, this is not always the case - for example some provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Act included a provision relating to the Channel Islands. The moral of this story is that the presence or absence of "(Scotland)" from the short title of an Act is not a foolproof guide. We had much debate when the Scottish Parliament was established about whether its Acts needed to have "(Scotland)" or some other indicator of their Scottishness in the title.--George Burgess14:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, very interesting comments. In that case, I would say that all acts passed by Westminster should be British laws category as there is no guarantee that they only apply to Scotland. Astrotrain14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of new subcategories per mais oui!'s suggestion as most of the exisiting categories are rather overloaded anyway. If we kept British laws, Scottish laws and English laws, and then had
'UK acts' which contained all acts passed by UK
'Scot acts' passed by Scot parl
Laws passed by UK which apply to Scot would go in UK acts AND Scot laws, but not Scot acts
which would make a somewhat more complex categorisation scheme, but I think less ambiguos as it would not contain double entries. Anyway, i think I will try it out when I think of some suitable category names. Kurando | ^_^09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I note now that a new comment has been left under the relevant notice at Misplaced Pages Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. I had hoped that we could keep this discussion in one place. I would therefore like to recommend that we stop discussing this on personal Talk pages: I am going to copy the entire discussion thus far to:
Hi. Given that you are an experienced editor I didn't want to patronise you with the standard nosource template. I was just wondering if you could provide source info for the above image so that its CC status can be verified. Thanks Mark8312:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Source added 13:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The CC template is very poorly worded and I'm pressing to have it changed. It appears to suggest that Crown Copyright = available for use free of charge in any format or medium provided. In fact each government website has its own copyright notice some of which allow use under these terms but some of which expressly prohibit any non-personal use without specific permission. A partial list is available at Template talk:CrownCopyright regarding useable/non-useable websites. The British Army does not allow use on Misplaced Pages:
The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright unless otherwise stated. All material may be downloaded to file or printer for the purposes of private research and study. Any other proposed use of the material may be subject to a copyright licence. Licences are issued in accordance with the HM Treasury guidelines for the re-use of government information.
I don't blame you for getting it wrong, as I said the template suggests all CC material is OK. I'd love to change it but it's protected. Thanks for getting back to me. Mark8318:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Alas, I am experiencing the same sort of problems with User:Mais oui! as you. He seems either unable or unwilling to engage in meaninfgul discussion about article edits, preferring instead to unilaterally revert to his versions, even if amendments have been discussed and agreed on the discussion pages. Normalmouth19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
hi, you amalgamated this article with Royal New Zealand Air Force, presumably on the understandable grounds the RNZAF article covered NZPAF history. In medium long term I was thinking of recreating a separate NZPAF article. Any particular objections? Winstonwolfe08:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
havn't really looked at the RNZAF article for a while, but I see the history section has been vastly expanded and approved. If you are planning on adding more then it would make sense to have it in a seperate article. I was thinking that it would also maybe be a good idea to create a general History of the Royal New Zealand Air Force page, and move the history section here, and leave a summary in the main RNZAF page? What do you think? Astrotrain 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - perhaps we should leave something on teh discussion page and user pages of those who have edited it recently seeking their views?Winstonwolfe22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Your new blood brother
I was delighted when you made your 3rr pact with your new blood-brother yesterday. Please gallop to his assistence forthwith: he is having great difficulty trying to vandalise an article, and I am sure that you would not refuse a damsel in distress after your gallant blood-bond ceremony:
You really ought to commit to long term relationships after much more contemplation: they can very quickly become an embarassing burden.--Mais oui!13:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Falkland Islands
Hello. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We already have the Spainish name Islas Malvinas in the intro. The only times we put another language in the first line is if it is a native language of the country- and only English is native in the Falklands. Also the image size has to be 250px so that the template can scroll across the page. Astrotrain20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably most of what is currently contained in that category needs to be moved into more precise subcategories i.e. Acts of the Scottish Parliament and Acts of the Parliament of Scotland. However, Category:Scottish laws will probably stay as a parent category. Whether it should contain any UK acts that apply to Scotland specifically I think is probably best decided on case-by-case basis. Kurando | ^_^09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Falklands' names
Hello Astrotrain. The Spanish translation of Falkland Islands is Islas Malvinas. The only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world that calls them Islas Falkland is Chile. Also many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea. Please stop reverting changes, you violated the 3RR rule several times and I'll personally request AIAV if you continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)
Chile is a Spanish speaking nation, therefore if they call them Islas Falkland, then that is the Spanish transalation! Islas Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the original French name for the Islands. Offically the islands are administered by the UK, therefore they are called the Falkland Islands. We mention in the intro that the Argentines call the Islands the Islas Malvinas anyway, so I don't see what the fuss is about. Astrotrain18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't see "what the fuss is about" then don't revert changes. Look at this, we're in an edit war between admins, regular wikipedians, and even dinamic IPs, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING STOP REVERTING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOR VIOLATION OF THE 3RR RULE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for uploading Image:BA Flight 149.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan16:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Reverts
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Astrotrain15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and I am also aware that you have reverted the Falklands page at least as many times recently. The poll is currently running in favor of keeping the historical names in the lead. Jonathunder15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Constitutional laws of the United Kingdom
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I do not share your opinion, nor do I care about it. You have made crystal clear that you hold me in contempt, therefore I am very surprised that you would condescend to comment on the Talk page of one of the great unwashed. I will not be entering into dialogue with you. --Mais oui!09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Astrotrain: Difference between revisions
Add topic
