User talk:Celtus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Celtus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Turlo Lomon 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Clan MacAulay

A tag has been placed on Clan MacAulay, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Turlo Lomon 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Summer Wanderer

Any reason for the edit at Sorley Boy MacDonnell?--Shtove 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the line was too long, but I'd like to keep the info in, maybe as a footnote. The relevance? None, strictly. It's just that in its gaelic and anglicized forms the name is unusual and striking, but has no meaning on its face. And buidhe/boy is translated into English.--Shtove 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kyleakin

May I ask why you have removed Clan Akins from Kyleakin. It is the origin of the name. --Vince 08:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The name origin is from the Strait of Haakon and the name Akin existed prior to this. Thanks. This is how Wikipedia works. --Vince 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bealach na Broige

I really like your article Battle of Bealach na Broige. I think the Munros of Foulis also hold contemporary evidence to prove the battle was in 1452. Psycotics1454.

Milnes (disambiguation)

You reverted half of my merge; this made Milnes (disambiguation) a partial copy of Milnes. I fail to see how this makes Wikipedia better. We don't need two articles about the same subject, with onomastics in one page and a list of people in another page (actually both pages, since your reversion). I will go and finish the merge again. Chris the speller 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Murray tartans on IfD

I saw your sandbox. *Very nice* - and particularly to have all the sourcing and the threadcounts and the copyright release in one place with the image. Without doubt, this documentation is something WP should acclaim, and a very good thing.

However, I think that even with regard to the Murray tartans you put up for IfD (here), to me there seems quite a reasonable case, as I've argued on that page (and also set out, rather better formatted, on the image pages themselves), for tagging these as {{PD-art}}. But you're obviously very knowledgeable about this, so I'd be interested to see any comments you'd like to add. Jheald 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason i think the two Murray images should be deleted is because they seem to have been just found on the net and uploaded to Wikipedia. I thought they had weaselled their way in by being listed as logos. Also, neither seem to be photos, they both look digital to me. And now after seeing the website that is likely the source, it seems that it is made up of clip art gathered from around the net. I don't understand how it can be assumed the images are in the public domain. - Celtus

Well, if I'm right in what I've argued, they should be PD because there's nothing in them sufficiently original to attract copyright in their own right - the images merely faithfully execute a design that's out of copyright. But if I've missed something, that means they should deserve copyright in their own right, do follow up on the IfD page and say so, or ask for further review. I can see this coming up again, and I'd like to know whether what I've argued is right. Cheers, Jheald 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)