Clydey

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Clydey! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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 ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! — —Centrx→talk • 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Writing and editing Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Graham Bell

Dear Clydey,

On Wikipedia we assume good faith in other contributors. For example, you shouldn't call a reference "bogus" just because the website is experiencing difficulties when you happen to visit it. Take a look here at a cached version from Google: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:hSlf7O9RZPMJ:www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php%3FpID%3D120+graham+bell+canadian+citizen&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Second, you called the description "Scottish-born American" partisan and offensive? Here we just deal in facts. Both of those are eminently verifiable. You can't just delete something on a whim. You must justify your actions by showing that a fact is not true. Penser 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)penser

I apologise for calling the reference bogus, but I did give it a day to sort itself out after first checking it. The website in no way verifies that he was American first, Scottish second. It is offensively partisan, as it is a huge leap to call him "American", relegating his Scottish heritage to an afterthought. Now, we can either figure out a compromise or engage in an edit war that resolves nothing.

Need I reel off more facts that support him being Scottish? I will check this day and night if I have to, as I will not allow one of Scotland's great innovators to be stolen from us by virtue of a website that is no less speculative than any other reference out there.

I suggest we simply revert back to a much earlier version that acknowledges both America and Scotland in even terms, rather than giving the upperhand to one or the other. To be honest, I see no fairer compromise. It will not refer to him as Scottish, American or Canadian. Rather, it would simply state the facts.

Something that includes his being born, raised and educated in Scotland, but also that he later moved to America, gained citizenship, did much of his work in America etc.

Is this a suitable compromise? If not, I am open to suggestion. Again, my apologies if I've been in any way hostile. I'm just a patriotic Scot - too patriotic, in fact. I get too worked up over Scottish matters.

Okay, yeah I'm sure a compromise can be reached. The countries of Scotland, Canada, and the US all played important roles in his life and work, and they should all be noted.

I just felt that a man who wrote on his own tombstone "Citizen of the United States and Teacher of the Deaf", probably believed that being an American was of great importance to him.

How about something like:

Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922) was a scientist, inventor, and innovator. Born and raised in Edinburgh, Scotland, he immigrated to Canada in 1870 and then to the United States in 1871, becoming a US citizen in 1882. Penser 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Yeah, that sounds about right. I don't doubt that becoming an American citizen was important to Bell. He raised a family there, from what I gather and his family consider themselves American, since their ties to Sctland are relativly loose if compared to their father. Anyway, that sounds like a good compromise. Care to do the edit? I tend to make a mess when trying to input links.

Done! And don't worry, no one can ever take away the world's most famous economist, Scotland's Adam Smith.  ;-) Penser 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)penser

That's some consolation. I'm keeping an eye on John Logie Baird. I think the English want him! :-)

Andy Murray

Just because you keep saying it is consensus doesn't make it true. I have read the whole discussion, not once was it decided. I assume you are the anon IP that keeps removing my references. I would like you to kindly asnwer each of my points on that talk page, it's in my contributions list fi you can't find it. I have answered yours when asked you are not answering mine. If you belive this the be consensus go and change all the other page, such as Henman Rusedskietc. At the moment most use British so for sake of consistancy so should Murray. JimmyMac82 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know why they use British? They use it because when Dewarw changed Murray ot British, he was told that the other players are referred to as English. With Rusedski and Henman being retired players, he changed them as it does not harm the English cause. People mistake Britian for England consistently. The current revision mentions both Scottish and British. That is the best compromise. Clydey 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New message on you IP talk page. JimmyMac82 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just cut short my reply on it because I thought I had a new one on here to reply to...

There's a small reply on the IP page.Clydey 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me simplify it for you. Clinton Morrison was born in England so under his birthplace is says England but he is an Irish footballer as he represents them at football. So it says or should say, Clinton Morrison (born ------ England) is an Irish footballer. Henman will say Tim Henman (born ------England) is a British tennis player. Yes the article is about Murray and it clearly states he is Scootish in his birthplace but there is no such thing as a Scottish tennis player just like there is no such thing as a British footballer. He plays for Britain so there for he is a British tennis player. To say he is Scotish person followed by a British tennis player might be fine, but tennis should not follow Scottish. JimmyMac82 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clinton Morrison is described as Irish because he volunteered himself as Irish when he opted to play for Ireland. Andy Murray has stated quite explicitly that he is Scottish. The fact that he plays a sport that supports the UK and not the constituent countries makes no difference.

It states on the second line that Murray is a British tennis player. What more do you want? This is an article about the man, not the sport. You are vilating policy, going against the consensus, and simply being awkward by not accepting a fair compromise. Clydey 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No Morrison is an Irish footballer because he represents them in the sport. Like I say there is no such thing as a Scottish tennis player because Scotland as a Country do not play tennis at international level, they play it as part of the UK. Wayne Rooney is an Enlgish footballer because that is who he players for and Enlgand play that sport at international level. Just like thre is no such thing as a Welsh olympian ther is no such thing as Scottish tennis. Scotland birthplace, British tennis player. JimmyMac82 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He is Irish because he has declared himself as such. Murray has declared himself as Scottish. This discussion is getting old now anyway. I've taken action against you. Clydey 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Murray can declare himself Scottish all he like, btw he also declared himself British and this backs up my point about you writing this article to Murray's stance rather than what is true, but he will never ever ever be a Scotish tennis player. You cannot play tennis for Scotland so there for the term is redundent. If his birthplace say Scotland, which it did in my edit and it says British tennis player, which he is, then that is how it should be like everyone else. It does't matter what Murray declares himself as, what if he declared himself as being from the moon, he would still be a British tennis player. JimmyMac82 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3rr report

Please see here. My apologies... • Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Andy Murray (tennis). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Basically, it is bad practice for an editor to only report a 3RR violation by those he disagrees with, while ignoring it in someone who is upholding his edits. It would be tantamount to misusing the noticeboard. Sorry. Anyway, I didn't have a chance to file the report, Lawrence Cohen got there first. If you have any questions, please use the email this user button on my talk page, as you are no longer able to leave messages on my page Lurker (said · done) 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you can't use the email function due to your block and would like to contact me, say so on your talkpage. Lurker (said · done) 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would like to contact you. I couldn't find anything on your page that allowed me to contact you. Leave me whatever means you have of communicating, if you wish, whether it be MSN or e-mail. Thanks. Clydey 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, mate, I've added you. Clydey 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Rod Stewart

You have now reverted 3 times in Rod Stewart and are in violation of 3RR. As the last edit was several days ago I'm going to let it pass, RV and leave it at that for now. Another edit in this silly nationality flame fest will result in an immediate block. As you have been blocked for this in the past, it will be a longer one. The wikipedia is not the place to get in fights, if you want to do that, you'll find it very welcoming on the UseNet. Maury 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR applies over a 24 hour period, so you can't report me for violating it. Rod Stewart is Scottish. He describes himself as Scottish. You are pushing an agenda by reverting his page, as he has long since been described as Scottish. It is not up to the reader to decide. We deal in facts and the fact is that Rod Stewart thinks of himself as Scottish, as his family are Scottish. Clydey 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that practically every edit you have made in the mainspace is to put someone's Scottish ancestry, real or imagined, into the lead sentence, and that the vast majority of your other edits are to either make these claims or complain about them, I think it's fairly safe to say that if one of us is "pushing an agenda", it's not me. After all, my 20000+ edits have intersected with this issue exactly once, here.

Further edits of this sort to this article will be reverted. Continued examples will result in a block. Maury 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My agenda is based on facts. And if I have ever been wrong I have admitted as much, hence why I backed down on J.K. Rowling. That is the only "imagined" Scottish ancestry in my edit history. Rod Stewart's ancestry is not imagined. He is Scottish and refers to himself as Scottish. By describing him as Scottish I am following the facts. By removing it, you are pushing your own baseless agenda.

What I do is nothing to be ashamed of. I make sure Scottish people are described as such. I do not go around describing people as Scottish if they are not Scottish. In only one case, that of J.K. Rowling, I was basing my edit on the countless articles that refer to her as Scottish. Once it was pointed out to me that these were inaccurate, I relented.

Your threats are a bit of joke. Who gives you the authority to decide what Rod Stewart's page should say? You are the one doing unautorised edits. After all, Rod Stewart's page has long since described him as Scottish before you came on the scene. If you want to change it, discuss the change on the talk page. Until it is decided not to refer to Rod Stewart as Scottish, you have no business making threats. Clydey 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay

I wrote the following paragraph to a admin Rodhull I just want to see what a admin has to say about this.

You have probably noticed that we are currently debating on the Gordon Ramsay talk page what type of chef Gordon should be referred to . We are debating between Scottish Chef and Fine dining Chef or just chef, we need an admin to give an opinion. Can you please visit the Gordon Ramsay talk page (under nationality) and offer some wisdom as we are basically in a edit/revert war over this topic. Please note that the title of the section (nationality) is not what the argument is about there is no doubt his nationality is Scottish we just want to know if he should be referred to as a Scottish Chef, a Fine dining Chef or just Chef.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair, mate. I'll keep my eyes peeled to see what he says. Thanks for letting me know. Clydey (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring right now. A compromise has been reached which is acceptable to other parties. I agreed with your initial sentiments but this absolutism has to stop now. If you think other articles should be changed to match then change them. This continual reverting is childish and will likely see you blocked from editing entirely in the near future if it continues.

I'll leave the edit until tomorrow to give you the thrill of having had your own way for a while. After that it will be removed. Do not re-add it without first achieving consensus to do so on the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A compromise has not been reached. What on earth makes you think that a compromise has been reached? Nothing whatsoever has been agreed. Do you think a compromise is reached when you say so? Bloodloss said: "I have no doubt in my mind that Gordon is Scottish I know he is..." He should, in my opinion, be described as such, since that is the norm for British personalities.

How can you so spectacularly fail to see the logic in describing him as Scottish? Let me get this right. Rather than describe Ramsay as Scottish, you would have me change all the other British chef articles? I'm utterly baffled by that. I should change all the other articles and leave Ramsay's alone, even though his article is currently not consistent with the rest of wikipedia? No consenus has been reached. No one has agreed to a compromise. You made your thoughts known and seem to have assumed that everyone agrees with you. I certainly don't. I'm not about to overhaul countless wikipedia pages just so Gordon Ramsay's article can omit the word "Scottish". The best thing to do is wait and see what RodHull has to say on the matter. However, don't be under the illusion that anyone has agreed to a compromise. Clydey (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with calling him Scottish. I changed the damn thing back myself. but because I do not submit to your assessment that this is so important to the article that it must be alluded to not once but twice in the introductory sentence, using the complete non-rationale that "other articles do it", you've characterised me as "spectacularly failing to see the logic".

The compromise agreed to is the one that user:theoneintraining brought about: that rather than getting into a quite intensely stupid argument about whether or not he should be described as "Scottish" or "British", we should let the reader (the poor, stupid reader) figure it out himself by seeing "born in Scotland" in the first sentence of the article. Furthermore, I encouraged you to use the arguments you've given on the talk to contribute positively to the encyclopedia and add a new section to the article describing Ramsey's sentiments, while removing excessive use of nationalist labels on the articles of other subjects (because they're frequently pointless for the same reason as on this article).

Administrators are just people who have been trusted to use the administrative tools. Their opinions are no more valid than those of any other editors when it comes to content disputes, inasmuch as regular editors know Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. All an administrator could do is lock the page or start blocking people; they can't make judgements on article content which then have to be obeyed. Regardless, if it will make you stop edit warring with multiple other editors (half of whom agree with your premise!) then I await said admin's comments with bated breath. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of trying to prove a point through your edits on various biographical articles, your efforts would be put to better use at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) to help reach a consensus on dealing with the nationality of UK individuals. There are dozens of editors trying to work out the proper Wiki guidelines, which could then be applied to all related articles. Getting into edit wars on individual articles don't really help the overall cause and improvement of the site. --Madchester (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)