85.76.48.95

May 2013

Firstly, the fact that other stuff exists is not a valid reason for restoring this. Not only is it unreferenced, but providing details of someone's private address is against Wikipedia policy. Secondly, I reverted your edit here because the oil production is controlled by teh UK, and not Scotland. If Scotland votes for independence, and gets to take over responsibility for North Sea Oil, then we can think again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well do you not think it would be appropriate that you try and ensure that that policy is applied universally on Wikipedia, and not just in certain instances? Seems a bit odd. Also, with no mention of a building number etc. then a street name hardly constitutes an address.

Regarding the oil pedantry, why do you delete Scotland yet again, but those 23 other places remain? Are you also stating that you'll also remove those places this very moment too (if you have not already done so), but if they vote for independence, and get to take over responsibility for oil located in their territory, then we can think again? If not, why not? Why the inconsistency yet again? What is your beef here?

On point 1: They should all be removed, unless the address is an official residence, i.e., 10 Downing Street or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Private addresses are a definite no.

On Point 2: Take it to the talk page and open a discussion if you feel that strongly about it. Things round here are done by consensus, not by one person who doesn't like the status quo. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Salmond article which you mention actually says: "He and his wife Moira live in a converted mill in the village of Strichen in Aberdeenshire." Mentioning the town or village in which a person lives is acceptable, but disclosing the street is not. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I already did "take it to the talk page", as I feel this is suspicious and is total hypocritical. I'm amused by your comment that "things round here are done by consensus, not by one person who doesn't like the status quo". The second part of that sentence seems to sum up your attitude and actions on this matter. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Not sure exactly what you're driving at, but taking it to the talk page is good. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've reverted your changes again because you do not have consensus for this. Discuss it on the talk page, as you've started to do, set out your reasons, and if others agree then it can change. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---