User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
m Deacon of Pndapetzim moved page User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXI over redirect
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:19, 22 February 2013

Incorporating sources: can we define a good style?

This comes up in relation to getting a manual of style for the DNB project: when I saw Walter Whitford yestterday I thought of asking you. There are various ways of using the DNB's sources; and the issue is wider, for example applying also import of the Catholic Encyclopedia. For myself I don't keep many inline references. The endnote references really need a special style, and some sort of header/disclaimer (since the WP article author has presumably not checked them). I wouldn't mind seeing greater use of these resources here, but perhaps templates that are hidden until opened is a better way of proceeding. Thoughts? This area seems still up for grabs. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I went a while doing that, and thought better of it, since expanding the abbreviations is a necessary and tedious task while the sources themselves are usually primary sources. I haven't given it all that much thought, but my preference now is probably for ignoring a DNB article's sources and for referencing just the original DNB text instead. Another problem is that after the importation has taken place and editors make alterations, it is impossible for a new editor without much work to trace what comes from where. As it is now customary on Wikipedia to reference everything (at least among the most ambitious editors), maybe referencing the DNB article sentence by sentence is a good idea?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but a big problem I've found in several articles now is that the entries in the current DNB are very different from the old PD versions, and not infrequently contradict them. So finding reliable secondary sources to back up what was once believed to be true or significant is often surprisingly difficult. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Whenever I copy these articles nowadays I frequently make alterations in accordance with the updated version in the ODNB. Oftentimes there are errors or omissions about hard-to-research specifics such as dates which the ODNB articles fixes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree with the relevance of the ODNB to fact-checking the DNB entries: I often do this informally, and WP:WP DNB in time should use its list of articles to check off the articles where the ODNB has been taken into account. That's not really a problem, except for scale (30,000 to do). Referencing the ODNB with {{ODNBweb}} is quick enough and appropriate for updates. Thanks for your input anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


The Signpost: 9 May 2011

I see...

That you saw I'm expanding Pain fitzJohn. Thanks for the fix... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do those references mean you have access to the Shropshire History and Archaeology Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, U of I has this and this set of them. I have in my hands a photocopy of the Ludlow piece. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And Pain's at DYK... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
First step in the long march to FAhood? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure, honestly. There's certainly enough information, that's for sure. I guess a lot will depend on if I get interested enough to take him past GA. Did you want any articles from the Shropshire mag? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have done ok so far. :) Thank you, but I'm fine just now (may let you know if that changes!). I do often get frustrated about how difficult it is to consult local history journals from England and Ireland, which often contain the best particular and hence most-relevant-to-wikipedia-articles research. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Aren't you in the British Isles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)
You'd think that'd make a difference, but we have four different civilizations here and I'm in one of the smaller ones. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Pictish Language

Hi Deacon, I was hoping to get your comments on the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medieval Scotland#Consensus on Pictish language. By the way, do you have access to Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness by any chance? I'm trying to get a copy of a paper from volume 21, and my University library's collection starts at 22... and it would be difficult to get an inter-library loan. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the library I think. Need a specific reference? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it relates to the Skene issue:
MacBain, A. (1897), "Mr Skene versus Dr Skene", Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness, 21: 191–214
The whole P-Celtic/Q-Celtic discussion is complicated by the fact that the Picts were gaelic speakers by the 9th century, but I'm slightly alarmed by this editor's tendency to dismiss the current academic view in favour of something that more suits his view. Maybe I'm over-reacting... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, what editor is this and what pages is he editing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's User:Seamusalba, the editor who is commenting on the Medieval Scotland project talk page. I noticed some edits that concerned me, particularly to Caledonians: [1] (This with the edit summary (There seems to be an assumption that the language was Brythonic when there are equally reasonable Goidelic etymologies for their name.)
Arbroath, making edits to suggest that aber was goidelic in origin with the summary It has not been established that Brythonic weas spoken by the Picts or other Northern groups before they were called that. In fact they were referred tio as Gaels by Welsh sources. and citing James Robertson's Gaelic Topography of Scotland (same author who wrote Concise Historical Proofs, and again a non-Irish-origin for Gaelic proponant).
I wanted to nip this in the bud, as it's clear from these edits and his edits on an external site that he's aware of the current academic "consensus", but still wants to promote Skene's position. Attempts to discuss this with him have been unproductive, both on his talk page and in my attempt on the project talk page. To be honest, I'm baffled that anyone would maintain trust in sources that have been so thoroughly discredited. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I merely added that Arbroath COULD be Gaelic in origin. The argument of James Robertson and William Forbes Skene that there were nuanced meanings for Inbhir and Aber should not be dismissed. We cant simply state that an academic is an "amateur" and ignore the logic of their arguments. Particularly when there were subjective reasons why they could have went out of favour as pointed out on the article on Macbain. Its baffling how anyone can claim that I am "ignoring" anything when I am merely adding alternatives. Seamusalba (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than consume lots of time, wouldn't it be better just to say Celtic instead of either Brythonic or Goidelic. It is not by any means likely that there was any systematic difference between the two until way after the Caledonians took a name for themselves. @Seamusalba, you might want to consult WP:RS and WP:UNDUE for guidance on balancing references. What ever you personally think of any issue, the fact is that most modern historians/linguists in the area regard the Picts as British or at most transitional between British and Irish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree as to the current consensus and wouldnt dispute the existence of it. However the points raised by Skene as to the reliability of vocabulary to tell Brythonic from Goidelic are well worth mentionning on Wikipedia and the timeline for the emergence of Pictish culture is important too. Seamusalba (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Move please

Roger (Bishop of Ross) to Roger (bishop of Ross), please ✝DBD 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

EMC edits

As I finally have time to return to this, I want to give you notice that I intend to reintroduce some of the edits which you deleted in February. You will remember that you deleted in total about thirty edits and referred them to a CoI debate, which petered out without a consensus. In conjunction with that, you referred two of my articles to deletion debates, both of which failed. (In fact one of the articles was merged into the other, but as this happened at my request and with no loss of material, the fact remains that both AfDs failed.) As there was no consensus for your actions, I am entitled to reintroduce the material.

Your main complaint was CoI. Though several others shared your reservations to some extent, others disagreed, and the reasons why the CoI complaint was mistaken were spelled out very eloquently by user users Whatamidoing and Johnbod. Your second complaint related to the quality of my edits. On this you received no support whatsoever from any other user, except in relation to one single edit which was not up to my usual standard and I am glad to say has been improved. I was able to explain what I was doing with these edits, and you were the only contributor to the discussion who felt that they were wrong in themselves. A third complaint suggested that the number of edits in a short space of time gave an impression of spamming. I take that on board and will initially only reintroduce the four or five most important references. More may gradually follow, but it is not important to me to reintroduce all of them.

If you wish to challenge this, I would encourage you to find another administrator who agrees with your position, and have them speak to me. I will hold off for a couple of days to allow you to do this. I am not prepared to discuss this with you because of your personal rudeness in the past, but I will certainly work with and not against another admin if I am approached by one. If you can't find an admin to do this, you may as well give up any thoughts of building a consensus against me, and in that case, I hope you will not drag us both into any messy nonsense with reverting. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am fully aware of your view. But you failed to achieve a consensus. I don't think you have the authority to block my account under these circumstances. Unless you can bring in another admin, this is clearly a conflict between you and me, and it would be a clear abuse of admin privileges to use them in such a conflict. I for my part could request that your administrator status be reexamined, and then you would have to explain your behaviour to your fellow admins, for example your claim to be entitled to delete an article against consensus when you are frustrated about consensus moving against you; your use of sarcasm instead of argument; your treatment of newbies; and other things I pointed out before. But I don't want to do that to you. If this is as clear a case as you say, you will easily find another admin to talk to me. If you can't, maybe you should let go. Either way, it needn't take any more of your time. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, inserting unused references to a book you have an interest in (whether author or publisher) is spamming. If the source isn't used as a reference, it really shouldn't be inserted into an article by someone connected to the source. There may be some cases where links to the EMC are useful - but in general encylopedic type entries of any sort aren't usually good candidates for "further reading sections". And I certainly read this whole post as a sort of "gauntlet" you're throwing down, which is certainly battlegroundish behavior. As I recall, I removed some of your edits - but since I'm not an admin, I don't count or something? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you count, but I am not sure Deacon would accept that as an authority. But I would be very happy to work with you - maybe we can talk somewhere else than here? The bullishness of my tone above is a reaction to the way I was treated before by that user, but I am very keen on harmony and consensus. If you are prepared to talk to me, maybe on your userpage, you can maybe help me towards the best way forward. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Doric, if you had resumed this editing when the matter was up on those threads, you would have been blocked. I'm not going to spend more time going around in circles with you. As per the warning on your talk page, if you start it again your account will be blocked. Users get accounts to improve the encyclopedia; we have very clear policies on promotion and spamming. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
First, you might learn how to thread talk page replies. It's traditional to indent, using one colon per level of indentation, underneath the reply you are replying to. As far as the other, the best suggestion I have is to actually build up articles - instead of blindly inserting a citation to your work, such as here: diff, you could make an effort to add any missing information to the article. There are several things wrong with that edit - one, your citation style doesn't even begin to match the citation style already present in the article - part of editing with consensus is to adapt your referencing to the style already in use. Second, you added nothing to the actual body of the article, but you still put the citation in the references, instead of in the already existing "further reading" section. Third, there is no need for a special template for the EMC references - the existing templates will do fine. Fourth - if the EMC article doesn't contain anything new or additional to the information already in the article, it's spam to add a citation/further reading link there, as it's not furthering the reader's understanding of the person/chronicle to add that it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, which means that actual additions to the article body are the best sorts of edits to be making. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Deacon and Ealdgyth that the EMC should only be added when it is used as a source. This shouldn't be hard to do. Pick out stubs and start-level articles, or articles with little or no sourcing, and fix them up and expand them using the EMC as your source. Why would you do this any other way? Srnec (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well actually, that IS what I want to do. If that really is what Deacon is saying, then he won't have a problem with me returning to the articles in the way I mentioned. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David F. Ford

Hi, thanks for reviewing my hook. Please see the entry on the DYK page for an alt idea. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Question on source..

I just got through the library G. W. S. Barrow's The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, which are the Ford Lectures from 1977. Are they hopelessly outdated? I'm such a non-reader of Scottish stuff that I'm not sure it's worth trying to get a hold of a copy of this or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more intellectual/abstract stuff is a bit dated, but it's a good book to use to build articles on Anglo-Norman nobility in Scotland. He wasn't interested in the same things we're interested in today (like the locals!), but Barrow knows his charter sources very well, probably better than anyone just now (though he was younger when he wrote that). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's hard enough to keep up on scholarship in the fields I'm interested in, trying to keep up in other countries is just too much work sometimes! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

pmanderson edit warring

Sorry, but he really is edit warring, he's making, repeatedly, non consensus edits on a policy page. He's not 3rr, but he is edit warring. If he's not edit warring how come essentially the same edit has been made 5 times? How come there's an entire thread about his edits? That's edit warring. He's not reverting back to an old consensus version, he's remaking a new edit each time and ignoring any contrary views.Rememberway (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're "edit-warring" too, and in fact have the most recent revert. Try leaving off reverting longer and see who else actually agrees with you. Consensus is shown by the edit log ... it can't just be claimed as you are doing. I wouldn't regard action as merited against either of you, but both of you are playing Russian roulette with the admin community. Lots of trigger happy admins out there who'd love the excuse ... and both of you, as you probably sort of realise, have given that already. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I meant consensus is when everyone agrees. OMG... I only just checked pmanderson's block log. I've never seen anything that long before in my entire life... 8-( He's being blocked every few weeks now. I had a fair list of edit war blocks, but they were like once every ten thousand edits, once a year.Rememberway (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realise. This puts a whole different spin. Why on earth did you give him the benefit? He obviously practically never backs down, so there's very little chance of consensus.Rememberway (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand now. I was trying to understand why he was doing this, but it looks like a major personality flaw. He's clearly just horribly tendentious. (facepalm) Many thanks. Rememberway (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Rememberway, if you're going to bring up pmanderson's block log it's only fair that we look at your past account's blocks and topic bans as well. I strongly suggest you keep editor behaviour out of this conflict. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
^Do you like my stalker Deacon? He's cut and paste the same personal attack on 3 different people's talk pages but it's unusual to do that on an admins talk page though. ;-) Isn't he cute. Rememberway (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
How is pointing out your past history a personal attack? Two of the three talk pages are on my watchlist and I noticed you bringing up pmanderson's block log on all three. I simply suggested you avoid bringing up editor behaviour. --NeilN talk to me 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Take one Wikipedia:STALK#Wikihounding and let us know if your opinion that this isn't at least a mild case of wikihounding is still bothering you in the morning. I'm sure that pndapetzim doesn't really care about any of this, so let's leave him in peace.Rememberway (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

DYK for Law of Hlothhere and Eadric

Hi, I just reviewed and approved your hook. Could you narrow the width of the infobox somehow? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Galloway and Tír Eoghain

Good on ya! Have just read Aodh Méith and Áed in Macáem Tóinlesc, which are excellent. Very professional! Fergananim (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Will get round to Niall Ruadh in the next few days. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Deacon, I am sorry for being such an asshole. I have a drinking problem and other ones. Your new O'Neill articles are really nice. DinDraithou (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DinDraithou. If that stuff is behind you then there's no reason it should continue to be a big deal. Start afresh? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Recognizing you as a potential major resource somehow made me unhappier with everything. Once I feel offended or in some way get into a fight with someone I have difficulty letting it go if they're still around. We had our interesting disagreements but it was uncalled for for me to in the end show up on your talk page and say I didn't consider you of any value to me. It made me feel like I won but was worse than any block or report against me coming from your direction. I am famously prone to vicious outbursts when I feel threatened, which are sometimes pretty effective, so I keep doing it. A situation might actually be a threat to me but I fail to react calmly.
So what I'm saying is that you undoubtedly have knowledge I need and I would certainly work with you, although my highly active period is over now. When I saw your O'Neill articles I knew I hadn't given you the proper chance. DinDraithou (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Law of Hlothhere and Eadric

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We are not amused: Commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, Britain, or England?

I don't know if this a joke on nationalism or what, but I don't personally find it funny. Stick it in the identity section that is replacing the removal of the politicised 'country' intro-note. UK Talk has got so long now I can barely scroll to the different polls. Perhaps you could vote on one and help get the UK article unlocked, eh? Matt Lewis (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually think any neutral version is possible, because of the demographics of the editors who are attracted to such disputes. Ideologues care, neutrals don't. Certain users do nothing on Wikipedia but push their ideology into a few articles like this (in this case mostly Anglo nationalists). As a side comment, since we have to put up with them ... it is not necessarily a bad thing if they are occupied in one place in a popular and hence unstable article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right - I don't like it. Not sure about there being a dominant "Anglo nationalist" ideology here either - there are maybe two clear ones as far as I can see. The problem is (as usual) differences between Irish and Scottish/Welsh nationalists, plus the stubborn 'British' element that is usually decidedly unhelpful. And when neutrals attempt to step in that makes four. Add GoodDay for spice. Oh I forgot the token "damn all nations, the modern invention" contributor who talks like he smokes 80 a day. The last thing it needs is a troop of super-inclusionist comedians to make it a neat 7. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Shux, I'm not that bad. It's wearying to see so many people selecting sources cherry-picked through clever google searches that support their own poorly-disguised agendas, and subsequently present their positions are mere slavish responses to sources. "Constituent country" says it all ... the editors have descended into fantasy-land. The same techniques much more convincingly make England "an island-state also called the UK". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I was with you there.. right up to the point where you said "constituent country". Change that to "constituent countries.." and you have a term that is used in certain circumstances where it is useful and needed (like in glossaries or encyclopedias perhaps?) Except on Wikipedia - where it isn't allowed, partly in case people misuse it to say "Scotland is a constituent country (full stop)", but mostly because Scotland (and Wales, ho hum) are always no-less than a Proud and Devolving Countries. It's a combination of nationalism, paranoia, inability (to a degree), and complete laziness. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Nah, Matt, you've been on Wikipedia too long. Not a significant term in the real world. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto (and you more than me these days). Such a term shouldn't have to be that widely-used in the real world, but I'm afraid that it is regardless. I hate to Google-link you, but it's used all over the shop. It is essential to pluralise it though. See "constituent counties" and "united Kingdom" search, and "constituent countries" and "uk" search. Forget the results at the top - it's Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Matt, you prove my point. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Look through them why don't you? Google often sticks junk at the top. There is more here than any of the polemical shite you read absorbed into Wikipedia prose in this area. So they are mostly govenment and finance? What kind of links to do you want? Children's television? It's not that kind of term - nor need it be. And concepts like 'usage guidelines' and 'accepted terminology' are possible in this madhouse you know, even in UK-IRE. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The countries are described as countries, and as constituent parts, but this doesn't make "constituent countries" a technical term. That's is the insanity. Google search show information replication, not usage. Try google books ... and try finding usage as a fixed technical term (the way GoodDay et al wish it to be used on Wikipedia). Any English speaker in the UK, literate in politics, knows that the term has no relevance in mainstream terminology ... but you need to be literate to know. The benefit of the having a foot in the real world is you know when Wikiworld has gone nuts. ;) It has gone nuts here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, it's GoodDay and me who favour "constituent countries" in the UK intro(s) - everyone else has either been baffled or bullied off track! If GD wants to use it in place of 'country' within articles etc, then he's just wrong: but he'll understand that if it's explained to him.
Secondly, who says it has to be a fixed term?
Thirdly, I totally agree - the article is wank. But I'm not using it as a source - never, ever use Wikipedia as a source. Not because it's introverted - because it's mostly crap. As I just pointed out on UK talk, constituent country needs to be updated to include the common use of the phrase, ie specifically as an adjective. In UK use, "constituent country" is clearly an adjective with a noun modifier (which is always a noun) - with the noun being the UK. The two nouns just happen to be different instances of the same thing. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been bugging me off-wiki now, and I've made a couple of edits - first to constituent country. Embarrassingly it was me (over 3 years ago I think) who called it a 'term' - which would have been done to try to stabalise things at the time, and generally pare down all the various excesses. I completely missed the meaning of the text I removed (which I've now replaced), and had no idea the phrase had since been projected as a 'problematic term' (I just knew some people didn't like it). I certainly didn't envisage it as a singular term for each country, only ever as something that connects them to the UK.

There is nothing like an element of 'inherent confusion' to stop a term from being used in this area - see 'British Isles' when it's been found to be used too-culturally, and esp when the Channel-Islands are included. I've also explained constituent country properly in the FAQ. I don't actually notice things like the FAQ spring up, simply because I'm not as involved as you think I am any more.

You know, I may have made the offending edit at constituent country - but I'm not taking the blame for it being up there 3 years, or what has been made of it either. At least I do try and de-opinionise these flipping articles. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you British admin - if you follow the logic of your knowingly effete attitude to these matters, the conclusion is damning no matter how devastatingly-cool you think it is to be 'intellectually' above the fools. It's an ivory tower frankly. And when is disharmony good for anything? Perhaps you could archive this so I'm not obliged to periodically look for a response that isn't going to happen. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Deacon. I just stumbled on this thread and see you have discovered the answer to rude, ignorant POV warriors, who don't actually appear to make any contributions to Wikipedia. Just ignore them. I shall use the same approach. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How can an someone as anti-bias as myself be a "POV warrior"? I guess we must have disagreed over something Dai.
Sorry the above links aren't working for everyone - they work for me.
Despite Google being full of potentially useless results, I still prefer it to Google Books. Although it's hard to know how many of the half-million plus Google results are valid - even a small percentage of them is a lot. When I try the four searches in Google Books (using the occasionally-overlapping "UK and "United Kingdom") I get 3-4,000 for "constituent counties" but only 3-400 for "constituent country" - which proves my point on the way it is used. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - my argument is that it doesn't have to use colloquial language for every aspect of it, and specific word-phrases like this are perfectly valid in the right context. For me the word is simply made for the job - and Wikipedia did used to use it. And although I don't know too much about Google Books - I think around 4,000 over-all is a high figure for it. It's been used so-often over the years simply because the UK countries are indeed 'countries', and using "constituent" is clearly one of the best ways of making various sentences work. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone is offended, but I have nothing more to say on the matter. That's all my lack of response means. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

DYK for Áed in Macáem Tóinlesc

Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated "Hurrah!"s. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas of Galloway

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Gallowegian=person from Galloway

Gallowegian=person from Galloway Galwegian=person from Galway

Although they might look superficially similar, they are not.

Galwegian is pronounced GAUL-we-jahn, note the first syllable is not GALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechManNYC (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to take that up with the people who use "Galwegian" all the time to refer to Galloway men.[2][3]. English is not a language with a close link between pronunciation and spelling anyway. Usage of "Gallowegian" is comparatively rare (Gallovidian is next most common apparently). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem though is that you are referring to a possible colloquial usage, while scholarly work use the correct form, which is Gallowegian. It makes no matter to me that people mispronounce things, what matters is that the correct form be used on Wikipedia - so that going forward there is no dissemination of misinformation. You do realize how silly you're being I hope? This would be like you claiming that Edinburgher should be written Edinbuger... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechManNYC (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your comments, just point you to the Scholarly references: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gallowegian#q=gallowegian&hl=en&prmd=ivnsb&source=lnms&tbm=bks&ei=JmruTY-LO8rogQfQxICVDw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=6&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBQ&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9f4b039ccbcce956&biw=1680&bih=929 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechManNYC (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Investigate the matter for yourself; Galwegian has about tens times the results, and the usage is primarily scholarly not colloquial. This is something you'll need to take up with learned journals such as the Scottish Historical Review who set usage, rather than with Wikipedia who follow it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh... sweet thought! Wikipedia actually following scholarly, learned work, rather than tring to disseminate misinformation. One can but dream... --Mais oui! (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander MacDougall

You are not an admin so don't even think about trying to give me a warning. I am well within my Wikipedia rights to move the page with or without discussion. mjgm84 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aodh Méith

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Law of Wihtred

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Is "Peerage of Scotland" appropriate?

Please see:

Cheers, --Mais oui! (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The extra texts besides being useless actually turn it into a subcategory of the former name rather than a synonym. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Duns Scotus article daftness

I note that up until today our Duns Scotus article said he was born in Duns. However, there is now a discrepancy, with the article saying Ireland but the Infobox still saying Duns. Do you have any scholarly external refs, cos this is just the kind of inconsistency which makes the project look daft. Which, of course, it often is. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just spotted that a new user is responsible:
--Mais oui! (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Mistaken identity surely. Anyway, the Oxford DNB says "[e]arlier long-held claims for 1274 as the date of his birth and Ireland as his country of origin cannot be sustained, and are no longer accepted" and that he was born at Duns in 1265-1266. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Angus. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Presently looking out of the window at the cairn commemorating him at Duns would suggest that he was born here, or at least the Franciscan order believe that to be the case as of 1965ish. (cf. John Mair and Haddingtonus Scotus) How to get verifiable folk memory eh, there's the twist!! Brendandh (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Angus appears to have sorted it: cheers Angus. Scotus meaning "Irish" is a rare archaism in Latin after the early 11th century, and after this point almost always means someone from Scotland or descended from such a person. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Bishop move

Charles Edward Plumb to Charles Plumb (per WP:COMMONNAME) please ✝DBD 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

and Bruce Read Evans to Bruce Evans please ✝DBD 22:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
and also Ernest Edwin Curtis to Edwin Curtis please ✝DBD 12:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
and James Augustus Watton to James Watton please ✝DBD 21:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers fella ✝DBD 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Brian George Farran to Brian Farran please ✝DBD 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

& Sidney Gething Caulton to Sydney Caulton please ✝DBD 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
William Garden Cowie to William Cowie also please ✝DBD 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

"Kings of Scotland" (legendary)

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on handling the presumably fictitious early kings of Scotland/Dalriada: this is a practical DNB matter, in that certain biographies exist for them. Fergus I is not the only example here, but it does have incoming links. Later today I'll be posting the "Eugenius I-VIII" biography at Wikisource, and it prompts me to think ahead to what should be the end result sought. In effect there is a list of these characters that could be created; the ODNB can be used as a reference to introduce historiographical remarks. So would it be best to create such a list and mainly redirect the names there? In other words have a single page discussing the fictional stuff, which would have links to articles about the actual historical characters. I can see this as being somewhat demanding to get right. But is that the best way? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Those guys are objects of modern scholarship, and have historical significance for studies of late medieval and early modern Scotland. I'd be inclined to keep articles like this in as few places as possible anyway for management reasons. It's quite possible more people will add unworthy material to such articles than will monitor them, especially as some level of expertise would be needed for those monitoring. Articles such as List of legendary kings of Britain or Matter of Britain might be good models, though "Matter of Scotland" does not seem to be a well used historiographic term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a draft progressing in my userspace now. The situation about images isn't very satisfactory: but having tracked down your alter ego on Commons I see you know about that. There must be a series of engravings by Alexander Bannermann (the four Ns being the DNB's idea, that article needs moving I guess); you presumably know in what form those were published. File:Constantine III (Alba).jpg is from a different series? The website of the Royal Collection has images of a number of the paintings, and so far I have uploaded just one. There could be an image gallery for the list, but the Poets' Corner style of thumbnail images within a table would require a lot more work. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles, please forgive the long interval from my last response, a result being on the road with poor internet access atm. It has been a while since I uploaded that, but the de Wet portraits are in the Great Gallery of Holyrood Palace. These are portraits of the Scottish kings from the legendary ones onwards. I have tried to find these online intermittently but haven't yet been successful. I presume if I searched hard enough in out-of-copyright books I'd find them, but haven't tried hard enough because of their limited historical value for historic kings as themselves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just tracked down your article, List of legendary kings of Scotland, pretty wonderful stuff. I'll inform Angus Mclellan about this as (besides my own time constraints just now) this is his area of interest more than it is mine. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not yet done, of course: dates to add in particular. A couple of things where better references could help. Bede talks about a Reuda who is an interesting clue as to why Reutherus is there; but I didn't add anything, not having an explicit connection made. Also the reference to Edinburgh pageantry seems pretty interesting, would like to know more. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot that can be added. Off the top of my head there's an entertaining account of the emergence of some of those kings in William Ferguson's The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest. The early evolution of the king-lists and legendary Scottish origin accounts are reconstructed with meticulous detail in Dauvit Broun's The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to pester. If you have library access to Duncan Thompson, The Life and Art of George Jamesone (1974), which I can read on Google Books only in a stingy fashion, you might be able to find about more of the 1633 pageant portraits by Jamesone that survive than I can right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles, I've recalled this book from my library. I'll let you know when I get my hands on it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

More bishop moves

Please would you move Henry Cecil Read to Henry Read? Cheers ✝DBD 18:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, and William Henry Moorhead to William Moorhead please ✝DBD 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

and George Jehoshaphat Mountain to George Mountain please ✝DBD 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Russell Brown (bishop) to Russel Brown also ✝DBD 17:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Frank Tracy Griswold to Frank Griswold ✝DBD 13:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Frederick L. Barry to Frederick Barry also please (the ECUSA bishops are proving a hefty job!) ✝DBD 19:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
and Harry Lee Doll to Harry Doll ✝DBD 01:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
and Samuel David Ferguson to Samuel Ferguson (bishop) please ✝DBD 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Simeon Arthur Huston to Arthur Huston please ✝DBD 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
and Samuel Johnson Howard to Samuel Howard please ✝DBD 16:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please would you also move William Sheridan (bishop) to William Sheridan? ✝DBD 08:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Done! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers mate ✝DBD 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Next, William Sheridan (bishop) to William Sheridan and Henry Benjamin Whipple to Henry Whipple please ✝DBD 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Did both, but User:Jonathunder has objected to the latter move so you'll need to take it up with him or initiate an RM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I shan't bother with having an argument, it's not really worth it... ✝DBD 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Trevor Owen Evans to Trevor Evans please ✝DBD 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish in York

Deacon, I recall seeing a post of yours somewhere in which you say it is likely the Norse [Uí Ímair] were also using some of the Irish language in York. Is there any evidence for that? One would imagine that many members were multilingual and had to use Irish frequently. I think I remember reading in a paper that it was considered a language of culture by certain royalty in England at one point. Downham? Nora lives (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any Irish inscriptions or anything; we do know that Northumbria had Hiberno-Norse kings for most of the first half of the 10th century. Hudson in Viking Kings and Christian Princes talks a bit about this kind of thing. Regarding being a language respected by royalty in England, I don't recall reading an article about England, but Hudson has stuff that might be relevant too (e.g. "The Literary Culture of the Early Scottish Court") ... you might want to buy his Irish Sea Studies essay collection. Incidentally I recall from my own readings (don't remember if Hudson ever talks about it) that in Vita Ædwardi Regis Edith queen of England was said to speak fluent Irish (as well as Scandinavian and Gallo-Romance).[5] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I think she is who I read about. And there was something to do with the royal family of Leinster (Uí Cheinnselaig) and the friends they had in England, whoever they were. For the Hiberno-Norse I really should give Hudson a try, when I haven't so far because some of his genealogical theories are poorly informed and he is not the best at citing his sources (I have read). But that doesn't mean there might not be areas in which he has greater expertise. Thank you for the recommendations. I have just checked the catalogue and they have them at the New York Public Library available for the main reading room. If and when I learn about that paper again I'll tell you. Nora lives (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're talking about the pre-Diarmait mac Murchada era? Arnulf of Montgomery is an interesting guy. In some ways he gets the ball rolling on Norman involvement in Ireland, though in others he just continues the longer historic connections between the English north-west and Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó, quite the impressive figure. I have found the paper, which Brianann sent to me back in December, and forwarded it to the gmail address you had when we had our first fight. It is Clare Downham's "England and the Irish-Sea Zone in the Eleventh Century" in Anglo-Norman Studies 26 and she discusses Diarmait's friendship with the House of Godwin at some length, pp. 65 ff, and mentions Edith's knowledge of Irish. The Arnulf of Montgomery story is certainly a strange episode. I didn't know our sources might be questionable until looking at the article. Nora lives (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sending me that. Will be useful. Do you happen to know anything about the Ui Mail Doraids of Tyrconnell btw? As per usual in Irish topics there is little historical work, but hoping there might be something useful out there somewhere. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I do now and you're in luck.[6] They, the O'Muldor(e)ys (Mulroy) (Ua/í Máel Doraid), were once eligible for the kingship of Cenél Conaill, and appear to have provided a fair number, and so should be perfectly legitimate Uí Néill. For their official pedigree go to p. 164 here (Rawlinson B 502), first line under Genelach Ceníuil Conaill. According to ¶804 on p. 137 their closest kin are the Ua Canannáin. John O'Hart gives their pedigree on p. 602 in his work, with the style "ancient Princes of Tirconnell."[7] Nora lives (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this NL. The Ui Mail Doraid and Ui Canannain both claimed descent from Flaithbertach mac Loingsig, and I think he is their common ancestor. I've found these articles helpful [8] [9], but not equivalent scholarship on the Ui Mail Doraid. The latter have been suggested as the progenitors of the 12th and 13th century Scottish kings (through Crinan of Dunkel), but there is no agreement on this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You might try Brian Lacey's Cenél Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms, AD 500-800, which I have not looked at myself. I do know his arguments are controversial, but you might find valuable information. After just recovering my copy, I have looked in Paul MacCotter's Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions and found nothing.
Can I ask you something about policy here? I have watchlisted Chief of the Name, and recently a person has been adding that a certain Liam MacCarthy is now accepted by his family as such, and User:Yopie has been vigilantly removing it. But since they provided a website,[10] I contacted them, and have been provided with perfectly excellent information, because this interesting start-up association is in contact with the family themselves. This includes references for pedigrees registered with the Ulster King of Arms, as well as direction to a discussion of the issue in the 2nd edition of P.B. Ellis' Erin's Blood Royal (2002), where Liam Trant MacCarthy (b. 1957) is listed as one of the two current legitimate claimants to the title of MacCarthy Mór, the other being a cousin Barry Trant MacCarthy (b. 1931). According to my source in this new Desmond association, a very nice gentleman, the now elderly Barry has recently retracted his claim in favour of his younger cousin, who according to what I read in Ellis also happens to be the senior male representative of the family according to the law of primogeniture... of course not a Gaelic custom, but whatever. So what I have done for them so far is give them a section in Gaelic nobility of Ireland (MacCarthys Mór), but I feel like I can't just yet say that Barry has retracted his claim in favour of his cousin, one reason being because the former has a son born in 1961, and Brehon law isn't interested in primogeniture. What do you think? Also giving them a mention in Chief of the Name might be a little tricky, but because we have sources it is possible, and the creation of a new article or two could come in the future. Nora lives (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This is very complicated, but hasn't legal recognition of this position been abandoned anyway? Of the top of my head, I'd recommend mentioning claims only as claims, w/o going into more difficult-to-verify detail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing. There is still a possibility The Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains could recognize one of these legitimate MacCarthys Mór in the future but as far as I understand it no mechanisms are in place yet, and the coucil isn't even interested. Currently I am engaged in strategizing with a member of the 45+ strong order supporting MacCarthy Mór, who believe he should be on the council, although I would personally prefer the council did not exist because of the questionable pedigrees of several of those "princes" involved in its formation. Also I have given MacCarthy's sept their own article: Sliocht Cormaic of Dunguile, notability unquestionable. Nora lives (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a mess!

I think I may have messed up both Kenneth Donald Mackenzie and Kenneth Mackenzie (bishop) by moving the former to the latter! Somehow that's even though there was content on the latter page... Please could you help out with some de-moving and some history fiddling? If they could just go back to how they were before I moved the former, I can probably take it from there. Cheers! ✝DBD 10:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think I fixed it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. All done. Legend. ✝DBD 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe...

I've come across another tricky bishop move – would you please move Bishop Harper to Henry Harper (bishop)? ✝DBD 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And also Bishops of Singapore to Bishop of Singapore please ✝DBD 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kings of Alba/Brunanburh

Ross's book and the Brunanburh one arrived with the post today. I haven't had a chance to skim the Brunanburh one - it will surely do as a door-stop if nothing else - but I quite like the look of The Kings of Alba. I wonder where Athelstan has got to. Thanks for the heads up! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge list to main article

Hope you doing ok! Could you do me a favour and merge the List of Bishops of Bristol to the main Bishop of Bristol article. Thanks. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dean move

Hullo again! This dean is misplaced: Christopher John Armstrong → Christopher Armstrong please. ✝DBD 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Old news

Hey Deacon, are you sure about this edit? You removed the cn-tag, rather than the claim "now the standard reference for the study of the battle", which is clearly promotional in its unverified state. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. I intended to remove it, but apparently only removed the tag. Thanks for pointing that out.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bishop template move

Hullo – this move is blocked by a redirect: Template:Bishops of Peterborough since 1908 → Template:Bishops of Peterborough. Would you mind helping, please? ✝DBD 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubhghall mac Ruaidhri

The Kingdom of the Isles is slowly turning into a small book. In an attempt to corroborate some of Woolf's elliptical comments about Scottish sources being "coy" about the titles of the Macruari's I entered the above into a well-known search engine. Our fine encyclopedia article came out top of course, but to my surprise your non-mainspace draft came out second. Being too lazy to undertake an expedition to a library I intend to plunder it for evidence. I hope you can find the time to finish this off - when a man is tired of the MacRuaris he is surely tired of life. Ben MacDui 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom Butler (bishop)

Hullo. Please could we move Thomas Butler (bishop) to Tom Butler (bishop) (over redirect)? He is more commonly (by far) known as Tom, and both Anglicanus and I have recognised that he should be there. ✝DBD 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A fleet of ECUSA bishops walk into a bar...

Hullo Deacon! I started going through the article List of Episcopal bishops for a major overhaul, mostly focussing on links. Now, a lot of these people's articles I had moved a few months ago to what I supposed was in line with "common name" policy. Since then, I've been helped to realise that Americans in particular will tend to be known in academic literature with longer forms of their name. So I've been going back over them, this time comparing Google Books results. There's a few (so far) I can't move. Would you mind helping me with these please? They are (for now):

Cheers ✝DBD 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't move Henry Benjamin Whipple. The full name is commonly used. Jonathunder (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Patron saints of Scotland

Hi Deacon, do you know anything about Patron Saints? There is a discussion at Talk:Scotland re the inclusion of Columba and Margaret as Patron saints in the infobox for Scotland. I've added a semi-reliable reference, but wondered if there wasn't more to it than that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

List of monarchs of East Anglia

Hi Deacon of Pndapetzim, List of monarchs of East Anglia is a list-class article that I have nominated for featured list status. The process seems to have got stuck a bit. Would you mind taking a look at it for me, and either supporting or opposing it, as it's not been commented on much? Thanks. Hel-hama (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Holiday wishes...

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"

See WT:WP DNB#Volume of the Month for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Featured article review for Scotland in the High Middle Ages

I have nominated Scotland in the High Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge list to main article

Could you please merge List of bishops of Chester to the main article Bishop of Chester. Thanks. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012

Werbergh or Werburh?

Would you like to comment on the query raised here? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Deacon of Pndapetzim a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Scottish shires

I expect you have forgotten all about la:Disputatio Formulae:Comitatus Scotiae, but I have just written a comment there and would be glad if you will glance at the Scottish shire pages as I move or create them. Are there any pre-1970s Scottish shires that should not be described as "vicecomitatus", and if so which? Andrew Dalby 14:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Horror story

Please see:

--Mais oui! (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive_XXI&oldid=539702272"