User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI
 |
|---|
| 25 April 2024 |
|
Sources
Deacon, I just noticed your comments at the Augustine of Canterbury FAC, and I wondered if you could point me at an article that in your eyes handles the sources correctly. Of the articles I've written, probably Ælle of Sussex is the most source-oriented, but I'm not sure if this is what you're asking for. Do you have a good example of an article that is done well? Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the pointers. I'm glad to hear that you think Ælle of Sussex is a reasonably good example. I'll think some more about it -- I don't think you're too extreme, I'm just sometimes uncertain about the best way to introduce that sort of material without overwhelming a new reader. For Ælle it was easy -- there was so little information I had no choice but to write about the sources. Anyway, thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Augustine
I'm afraid that being a complete and utter Yank, I have no clue on how to standardize on British spelling. I agree with your comment, but could i beg of you to make a pass after I address your concerns and change everything to Brit spellings? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, it makes sense to use it. I just can't. I can barely spell American English at times, no way would I catch all the Brit spellings. I have Goffart's Barbarian Narrators, which sad to say, I haven't opened since the seminar class in college (many many aeons ago). I'll mine it for a bit on sources. Do you recommend a section before the background? (It's looking like the poor Augustine article is going to be bigger on sources and background than on the actual actions of Auggie boy.)
- Now I remember why I decided to study Anglo-Normans, I really really HATE Anglo-Saxon history. (mutters). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Coventre
Sorry, I think the problem was that Malleus was doing the polish just as Sandy closed; it is perfectly legitimate to renominate under the circumstances. I've done some tweaking myself; please see if I've introduced any error before you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you like, I will renominate; but you will have to stick around to answer substantive objections (if any). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, as far as I can tell (and I admit I'm hurried today due to mainpage vandalism), Malleus's edits were after his support which were several hours after I archived. More important is to view archival as an opportunity to come back strong and get a clean pass. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record, my support was most definitely after my edits; I wouldn't have supported otherwise. But upwards and onwards, let's see what the next FAC brings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
When you're ready to take it back to FAC, all of my previous concerns have been addressed. Malleus did a marvelous job on the copyedit, from my quick glance. I'll be happy to support again. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland
I tend to revert anons; but even then, I still limit myself to 2-rvt within 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Elgin Cathedral
Sorry for not coming back sooner but thanks for the heads-up. I'm not on a lot at the moment and won't be for a while but I'm finding a lot of fluff in the article and will try and get rid of that before asking for a detailed copyedit. Best, Bill Reid | Talk 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Congrats
I can't believe it's up there! I didn't request it (I've seen too much damage done to others!), and thought it be a far too parochial topic to display. I'm wondering what kind of damage there will be after the 24 hours is up! Thanks for the contact though
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Bernard de Linton
Thank you! Now I can read up on him. Great work! ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Russian WP and Irish towns
I was recently asked for an opinion on whether the Russian Wikipedia should go with the Anglicized versions of town names in Ireland or the Irish/Gaeilge versions. My response is here but I really think they need more input so I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and I'm dropping messages to a few of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge taskforce members in hopes that some of you might be up to helping on this. Slán, Pigman☿ 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Walter
Renominated. WP:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the connection seemed clear, and I don't know much more about medieval Scotland than any general reader. I hope the new section title will help, but I don't see how to clarify further (or I would have done so). If you do, go for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you took my bon mot about Mars bars in good heart. I see my bent turbine is now up against your (presumably straight) Bishop at DYK. I'll try and get round to looking at Walter on the sabbath. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
dyk
Not illegal but frowned on... less obvious reason is that its best if its checked by a non-author. Ive just bumped in one scottish one. Can you give me a hand with the credits and I will build the next one ... real life permitting Victuallers (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, have a go next time? Victuallers (talk)
Thomas de Rossy
I'll put it on my list but it might be a week or two before I can get to it -- I'm a bit backed up right now. Mike Christie (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 6 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St Mary on the Rock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
And again!
|
|
On 6 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard of Kilwinning, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Elgin
Hi, I have moved Deacon of Pndapetzim/Elgin to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Elgin since it was obviously intended for user space. Hope that was OK. BlueValour (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know how i managed to lose that par, but well spotted. Thanks for giving it a c-e as well. Best, Bill Reid | Talk 12:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK Lost virginity?
Well done ... I can't see any problems. You are now leader of Pndapetzim and licensed to load at DYK. Join the club. 2 bits of late advice ... always load my noms first and careful of pretend hooks and articles. Did you remember to protect the image and archive a set of articles? Good luck Victuallers (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Tom
What were you thinking of for a background? You might cover a bit more on the Schism, because while I know a great deal about it, the average reader is probably lacking all sorts of context on that. I wondered why he was the only Franciscan to become a bishop up there, were they not very active there? But that might be too much detail for the article. Other things that occurred to me were was he involved in Scottish affairs or was he more a papalist got his bishopric because the pope imposed him. The English at this time had a bit of a problem with that. (In fact, one of the Franciscan appointments to Canterbury ran off with the registers and other stuff from the diocese (Robert Kilwardby). Was he a proponent or opponent of Thomas Aquinas? No grave? The picture in the infobox could probably use a caption too, if it is not him. I'm sure I'll think of other things .... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed. 1996 (reprinted with corrections) (I can give you the full cite if you need it) p. 314 has the Bishops of the Isles. They show im as "Michael, translated from Cashel by Clement VII 15 July 1387. Died after 1 November 1409" His listing at Cashel (p. 337) says "Michael, O. F. M. provided (by Clement VII) 22 October 1382, translated to Sodor 15 July 1387" so, yes, looks like the ONDB is off. Who wrote the article? I have recently started adding to my woefully inadequeate Scots records. I'll go double check them for Michael. And yes, I saw the Sodor and Man list. I just updated the ABC list today though, so it'll be a bit later tonight before I can bear the thought of that level of minutiae. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've about decided that you and Angus can deal with the Scottish bishops. Ya'll are doing so well! Handbook is good for England, mainly because one of the editors is also the editor of the Fasti Ecclesiae for England, that's at British History Online. Thank goodness! No worries, ask any time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK updates
Could I ask you to update from the bottom two days first? This means that all articles should get on the mainpage before the date expires. If we take them from the latest couple of days, then the natural wastage is a lot higher. Woody (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't they all meant to be interesting? ;) Anyway, I am off now so you can you finish it please? I have to recuse myself from one of them anyway! Regards Woody (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, when choosing articles for the DYK update, please make sure that they qualify per the dyk standards (ie. at least 1500 characters of main body text, and a hook that's supported by a citation in the article). The Beinn an Tuirc windfarm article for example is way too short. - Bobet 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions. - Bobet 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's a reason behind that too, it's so that people take time to build actual articles, instead of one-line interesting trivia tidbits that are then forgotten. There are already enough stubs on Wikipedia. - Bobet 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't believe it was the purpose either. But there are way more noms on the talk page that can ever fit on the template, and you'd like to reward the people that build decent-sized articles. It's an easy way to screen the nominations, without hurting anyone's feelings by saying the article they worked on just wasn't interesting enough. - Bobet 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but people are often flaky, and if they actually take the time to nominate something, they probably felt there was something interesting in it. And it's usually a good idea to encourage people who write lengthy, well-referenced articles. And I'll stop harassing you now, so you can update the template. - Bobet 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- And most importantly, thanks for taking the time to update the template. - Bobet 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't believe it was the purpose either. But there are way more noms on the talk page that can ever fit on the template, and you'd like to reward the people that build decent-sized articles. It's an easy way to screen the nominations, without hurting anyone's feelings by saying the article they worked on just wasn't interesting enough. - Bobet 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, when choosing articles for the DYK update, please make sure that they qualify per the dyk standards (ie. at least 1500 characters of main body text, and a hook that's supported by a citation in the article). The Beinn an Tuirc windfarm article for example is way too short. - Bobet 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk Orcadian
This question [1] has been asked about Dark Age Orcadian language at Talk:Orkney. Any input (or suggestions of anyone knowledgeable) most welcome. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Irish journalist
Hello there, I was going through the random articles and came across one on Paul Williams(Irish journalist). I've never heard of this guy, but if he exists then whoever wrote the article on him just seems to be taking the piss! Could you take a look at it and confirm that I'm not seeing things?--Jack forbes (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Your valued opinion
I'm wondering, in your capacity as a Scottish historian, what your thoughts were on User:Jza84/Sandbox1? I'm trying to expand the lead on the Scotland article and wondered if you thought there was anyway I could make it, somehow, a little more appealing? The second paragraph is very weak, but it was just an idea to bring it more inline with other countries.
I think the Scottish reformation and Union of Crowns was upsetting a couple of folk, but these are surely verifiable and mentioned in most histories of Scotland? --Jza84 | Talk 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just wrote you a grand reply, but lost it due to database locking!...
- What I ask, is you to re-read the existing intro, and tell me, do you really think that's a befitting lead for Scotland? I won't challenge you if you do, but I'd be surprised!
- I believe, strongly, there are three major things missing from the lead: The Reformation, the Celtic heritage and the Enlightenment. My lead, is intended to address that. Do you not think these are important enough to mention in the lead? A more minor issue, and honestly so, is how the union is dealt with in the lead too, it is a watershed in Scottish history afterall. I think my verifiable additional sentence encompassed a flipside to the "widespread" protesting, but that can be worked out another time given the current debates.
- I suppose now (as I tried to ask before I lost it!), I'd have to ask if you think the lead can be improved upon in this way? If so, would you be willing to help me in my sandbox? I really want the lead and article improved, but so many editors block me out that without another, I won't ever get to add them. If this isn't for you, then, no problem. --Jza84 | Talk 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's definately three reverts with the same effect Deacon. The semi-revert for Angus served a different purpose (more of a ce). Anyway, I'm done editting the page and certainly won't be doing another revert (or edit), no matter how much I admire that lead now (at last Scotland is a country not a group of people!). --Jza84 | Talk 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it'd be my first block on Wikipedia (Probably a good thing for me!). If it happens so be it, but hopefully, should it occur, an admin would see that my changes were intended in good spirit and that I had contributed extensively to the talk page. We'll see I guess. I'll get my coat and head back to WP:GM. :-( --Jza84 | Talk 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Caledonia
Thanks for changing back the move of Caledonia which seems absurd to me. User:Hut 8.5 has been on a bit of a spree changing linked pages, so I've left a note at User talk:Hut 8.5#Caledonia fair and wild and will give a while for a response before reverting all the changes. .. dave souza, talk 17:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping to sort out the confusion. User:Hut 8.5 has restored the links. All the best, dave souza, talk 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey of Canterbury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Hi There.
Hi Cal/Deacon, Probably or almost certainly are not quite right for the body of an article. Nobody knows where the three harps were made, and scholars, as they will, could talk about it forever. Btw, I don't edit any Scottish pages. I don't want to edit war with you. 78.19.212.22 (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- And congratulations on becoming an admin, nice to see you haven't lost the old "spirit". Cheers! -78.19.212.22 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see Keith Sanger and Alison Kinnaird, "Tree of Strings - Crann nan Teud", Kinmor 1992 being quoted a bit. Are Sanger and Kinnaird just writers, or do they have scholarship work in this area. I'll see can I get the book at my local library. 78.19.212.22 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try tomorrow, it's an interesting subject, and I promise, it's not "patriotism". It seems long long ago and far away in the mists of time, and I'm pretty sure scholars will argue, as the would. I look forward to reading other perspectives, and if I come across anything interesting, I'll get back to you. Thanks. 78.19.212.22 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see Keith Sanger and Alison Kinnaird, "Tree of Strings - Crann nan Teud", Kinmor 1992 being quoted a bit. Are Sanger and Kinnaird just writers, or do they have scholarship work in this area. I'll see can I get the book at my local library. 78.19.212.22 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That-smaller-bit-of-Pomerania-on-the-left-hand-side
As a possible alternative plan - per the searches Talk:Hither Pomerania#Discussion, what are your views on a move to Western Pomerania instead? Knepflerle (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Vp is best, but WP is quite common and far, far, far more common than HP - for me the difference between WP and HP is enough to be worth the small quibble! If WP:UE were strictly applied based on evidence of usage, then this article would get moved to one of Vp or WP; as it is I have a feeling it will end up being left where it is - at the least satisfactory option with least evidence of usage. Sigh. Anyway, thanks for your time and input - see you around, Knepflerle (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Russell (bishop), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Again:
|
|
On 11 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Campbell of Carco, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Re: Rinns
For authoritative sources I would say the OS would pretty much hold sway on place names, and they always list it with one n. I have updated the article to include the double n as an alternative, because it does get some usage - I think following the Edinburgh Gazetteer would be fine [2] - principal spelling with one n, note that two is also possible. Regards, SFC9394 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- For pronunciation I would say that it would be pronounced to rhyme with "runs", i.e. with an i instead of a u. I wasn't aware of the kingdom article - if you need any maps made for these type of articles give me a shout (i.e. ones like this which are straightforward for me to produce). I have a couple "history of galloway" books on the long term reading list - but they are well down the list ATM. I have read Alistair Moffat's Sea Kingdoms book - which I would guess fit in with the time frame of that article, though his book was a very broad brush stroke across a large amount of activity. I am happy with the spelling for that one - since that is what it was properly called. SFC9394 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Heading
Hello Deacon, I hope you don't mind me asking, but when I am using the edit summary and want to point out under which heading I am commenting on a talk page how do I this? On others I see a right facing arrow and light writing of the headline. I have searched through the wiki information and am incapable of finding anything. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, can you believe I've never edited it directly!!(always used the top tab). Thanks again. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
GSTQ
Perhaps we should remove GSTQ from England, to match the other 3 components. I understand more now; O Canada is not in the Canadian provinces & territories articles? Therefore GSTQ shouldn't be in the UK constituent countries articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. Geez whizz, the UK sure has a complexed identity. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Józef Piłsudski
Wow, are you really going to go thru the refs? Could you please take a look at #157 (goes to derela.republika.pl, mentioned here [3] but I never got a straightforward answer about it) and the Patryk Dole under, I think, external links? Dole was discussed here [4] - that case was clear. Could you maybe discuss how hard this article is to edit - given the number of inline sources, could Further Reading be shortened? Novickas (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The www.komendant.cal.pl link seems acceptable - please explain rationale for removal on talk; I cannot find it in local or global spam filters. And Piłsudski was the first (and only) naczelnik państwa. PS. I see no problem with the links Novickas mentioned being used as a ref and elink. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that; what I am asking is if you know how and where it was blacklisted, because I glanced at that page and (without reading much of the content in detail) is seems not to violate any policies of ours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- All right. I found the report; which seems a good faithed edit mistaken for a spam; I also found that it was already whitelisted on pl wiki. I will file for delisting this link from the blacklist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that; what I am asking is if you know how and where it was blacklisted, because I glanced at that page and (without reading much of the content in detail) is seems not to violate any policies of ours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Be scared
Be very very scared. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Featured topics and I could do a series of Archbishops of Canterbury. Scary.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone already did the Featured list thing for the ABCs. I could easily do Anglo-Norman ABCs and Late Saxon ABCs and Angevin ABCs.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland
Hello Deacon, I have brougt a proposal to the Scotland talk page and would like your opinion on it. I may be a little naive but I felt I had to do something! If you know anyone else from both sides of the argument that would like to take part please let them know. The more the merrier! --Jack forbes (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Removing comments on British Isles talk
Hi. My comments on British Isles talk are NOT purely about one editor. They are about what I have perceived as a tactic from a number of editors on that page, where avoidance of references, use of OR, bullying, name-calling, etc., is the general tactic for anyone who disagrees with their view. I will replace the section you deleted and make this clear. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I have reported you for breach of 3RR. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt that your move will make any long term difference, although I wish it would. From what I can see edit-warring is part of the tactic on that page, to stop any discussion of actual facts. You'll note that I was already saying "bring this to talk" but was ignored. A question, do talk page comments have to meet the same standards as page edits, e.g. you can't keep saying something is true on the talk pages unless you can provide reference? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW - just saw your description (on Sarah777's page) of my attempt to open a discussion on the BI page as being "clear baiting". I have to disagree, and I wrote it so I should know. I tried to engage with TharkunColl on merits of his arguments but he kept avoiding the issue, finally resorting to spurious sockpuppet accusations and then (later) plain insults. I'd seen the same earlier on the Bardcom case, where actual facts seemed irrelevant and insults and accusations were traded rather than any engagement on the substantative issues. My question was meant to ask whether this is common on that page. It seems to me to be the case. Hence also my question above. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt that your move will make any long term difference, although I wish it would. From what I can see edit-warring is part of the tactic on that page, to stop any discussion of actual facts. You'll note that I was already saying "bring this to talk" but was ignored. A question, do talk page comments have to meet the same standards as page edits, e.g. you can't keep saying something is true on the talk pages unless you can provide reference? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I have reported you for breach of 3RR. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, looking at the Dispute resolution page. (i) Focus on Content. Check. Please see me looking for references, trying to keep the discussion on specific points. (ii) Stay Cool. Check. As above. (iii) Discussing with the other party. Check. Tried that...discussion went nowhere, got accused of being a sockpuppet. (iv) Truce. No check. No idea what the point suggests really (v) Turn to others for help. Check. I went to the most immediately relevant group of editors I could think of. Instead of this being seen as a good thing I got reverted, told that I was baiting (and apparently making personal attacks too) and got told that I should read the Dispute resolution page. Doh! What next? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- So now what? The protection is off, TharkunColl is reverting the same edit again, and again saying that he's providing balance. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that TharkunColl and now also user Matt Lewis are going to engage in a campaign to delete/deny references on the British Isles page, the British Isles naming dispute page, and potentially other pages. I believe that help from admins will be required to insist that valid references are protected and that their meaning is kept in the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Please read the edits on the British Isles page recently. I believe that Matt Lewis' edits of the article are starting to amount to vandalism. He is ignoring the clear references and is also attempting to mangle what they say. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please have a look at the state of the Intro of the British Isles page. It's now left with a classic Matt Lewis edit. The sentence is broken, the reference spills out across half the page, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've just seen all this. Can you stop this exaggerated language about me? I don't think the above was even my edit (if it was the last one before it was blocked). Every other comment you make you mention my name in this manner. I don't mind being addressed personally (or strong debate), but you always just 'infer' that I'm some kind of trouble maker. It is 'inference' that I am questioning - both on and off the main article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(reduce) Now you have deleted all the references at issue. Please put them back. Matt Lewis has been "malforming" things for quite a while. It's no reason to delete the references that are the crux of the whole issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but reference 5 is still only half of what it used to be. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Half of reference 5 was deleted in the last edits. It used to read....
"Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others." "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain". A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its usage.”
Now only the piece from "New Atlas...survives. In a discussion/dispute based on references it is unfortunate not to have the reference there to discuss. I'm not asking for changes in the text or addition of references that weren't there right up to the end. I've gone to the Reliable Sources noticeboard to get an opinion on the sources that are being challenged. I find this whole thing bizarre. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Talk:British Isles
Stifle, you issued a block to me this morning for removing baiting comments/ personal attacks on a user at an article talk page. I assume you just made a mistake, but please can you be more thorough in future. WP:AN/3 requires more care than that, and really, I work on the hope that when — occasionally — events cause the necessity, I don't have to worry about other admins getting sucked in by 3RR reports like that. No hard feelings. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Bleh, I need to slow down when clearing the AN3 backlog. Thanks for assuming good faith. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Alpin of Strathearn
I am curious at your revert to my added information, seeing as the references listed for Alpin know little about his origins. I wished to add that this was one of the decendents of Clan Gregor according to Burke's Peerage, and O'Harts Irish Pedigrees for the Greers Of Ulster. Specifically this information from the pedigrees for Griersons of Rockhall and Lag Tower:
William, Laird of MacGregor (d. 1238), m. dau. of William Lindsay, first Lord Crawford, by his wife Marjory, dau. of Henry, Prince of Scotland, and brother of King William the Lion. His son Alpin was Bishop of Dunblane...
Would you please at least have a look at the Pedigrees and Burke's Peerage for Scotland for your self, and then make a determination? It would be odd that there were two Bishops of Dunblane in or around the 13th century named Alpin, who were of 'Noble' birth. Also the moniker 'de Strathearn" coincides with several of the MacGregor's and extended families (De Burgh, De Brus, Stewert, Douglas, Montgomerie, Lindsay, Maxwell) of that era who fought in the Great Cause and the War of Independence.
Thank you
- Well now that certainly is interesting, it would appear that the peerage and pedigrees confused those two Bishops, Alpin and Albin. In fact I had not even seen the article on Albin til you mentioned it, as I was looking for an Alpin, so thank you for that, I'll make the correction to my data. The most intriguing thing is that the MacGregors at that time oft used Mac Alpin, and this Albin was descended of Alpina ( of Clan Alpin) and John Mac Gregor, making it easy to assume he was Alpin of Dunblane. Cheers,--JLGreer (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- After having a think on this conundrum, I recalled that 'p' and 'b' were interchangable, that is, 'Alpin' was pronounced 'Alban' in the Celtic toungue. Also Mormear means "mayor', from the P-Celtic of the Picts, a loyal governership that reported directly to the Pictish monarchs. It was later used by the united crown of Scotland to control certain regions (Angus, Strathearn, Moray, Fife, Atholl, Buchan, Caithness, Orkney, Carrick, Lothian/Dunbar, Lennox, Mar, Menteith and Ross)of Alba, mostly by designating members of the King's family as the mormaers. Albin(Alpin) would have qualified to be a mormaer and thus assume the moniker 'de Starthearn'. These two bishops could be the same person. regards, --JLGreer (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My comments earlier
Hi Deacon, I just wanted to first let you know straight up there are absolutely no hard feelings regarding my own RfA. Your opposition towards Thingg, while understandable, just didn't sit well with me. I apologize for being abrasive/abrupt like that - it's honestly not my way. I pride myself in my congeniality. It simply irked me to read "editor appears out of nowhere (strange phrasing) then begins to edit..." My eyes widened when I saw that. Tis cool though, just wanted to clear the air between us. Later man! Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. If you are consistent with your opposes, stick by them with conviction, and they are made in good faith and for the sake of the project, I have no right to jump on you for that. Excellent answer. About your question regarding my knowledge of the sciences. You know, I've often thought about this. Graduate school is so time consuming and frustrating to such a point that, yes, if I contributed heavily to related articles all the time (instead of just monitoring most of them them as I currently do) I might go insane. Although, I've thought about expanding a couple of key articles. Vasodilator needs a clean up, as do myocardium and cardiac muscle. I just have to crack my knuckles, grin and bear it, and..well..just do it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [5] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
A note
I don't appreciate the veiled threat, when you haven't apprised yourself of the situation at hand. The most I have on any article is one revert. I was not involved at all until I warned both users for potential violations of 3RR. To use your wording, you need to stop making incorrect accusations against established editors without doing your due diligence on the issue. Enigma message Review 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was not block-shopping. I was posting what I thought was a violation of 3RR. When I saw a different administrator reply with the caveat that he considered himself involved, I posted to his talk page, because I didn't know if another admin would see the report anytime soon. Your comment was a veiled threat, because it came from an administrator. I am very familiar with WP:rollback, and I used it in this case because the user's edits are vandalism at this point. The user refuses to discuss the issue and repeatedly edit-wars. Keep in mind, I was an uninvolved party, as you would have seen had you looked at the origins of the case. Enigma message Review 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting worse and worse. How could you possibly accuse me of "block-shopping" if you actually looked back at what I did? I did not block-shop at all. I filed a report, and then left a note at the talk page of the admin that replied first. Enigma message Review 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I now realize it did not fit the criteria. But your poor attitude is not helping. I need to chill? So far you've accused me of block-shopping (which is a lie), of edit-warring (also a lie), and threatened to remove my rollback. I would like an apology. Enigma message Review 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You mischaracterized it once again. First off, I said "I would like" an apology. I didn't "demand" one. I didn't "complain" that you issued no block. When you said you weren't doing anything and proceeded to threaten me, I simply asked that you review the user's contributions. I'm still waiting for your opinion on that. Enigma message Review 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Deacon, after reviewing the incident above, I think it's best if you Assume Good Faith of Enigmaman. Why would he go out of his way to hurt the encyclopaedia? Why would he "block shop"? As for the "mis-use" of rollback, you should AGF there too, I would turn a blind eye to someone who his reverting someone who ignores their edit warring warnings. I believe the whole event was rather exaggerated and blown out of proportion. I have worked with him many times and I know he wouldn't mean to cause any damage. Oh, and he knows policy, he knows policy very well. Finally, something I've just remembered, following all the rules can be hindering so WP:IAR :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
British Isles (again)
Hello Deacon. There seems to be two (or one) anons 'ranting' at the BI's talk page. I've just noticed now, that you had deleted his ranting section previously. I think it's best to delete again. I've no intentions of responding to the anon(s) again, on that section. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Germanic Peoples
Hi Deacon, noticed a recent edit that you had made on the Germanic Peoples page ... not keen on the whole concept of that article to be honest; so not going to bother editing it. However, Thought it was worth pointing out that although Carrick was predominantly Scots Gaelic; it had significant 'clumps' of Anglic and Norse influence. Places with anglic names like Maybole, Turnberry, Straiton and Kirkoswald were all around before 1275. Further south, Colmonell and Carl(e)ton betray a more nordic heritage. Interestingly, there seems to be something of a cult associated with St Cuthbert in the area surrounding Maybole(and St Oswald to a lesser extent) with even the Gaelic derived town of Girvan (Short River) having a dedication to St Cuthbert in the old kirkyard from around the 12th C. The church at Kirkoswald was supposedly built by the monks of Crossraguel in the 12th C; on the site of an old chapel dedicated to Oswald to commemorate his victory over the Britons in 634. Quite why the older chapel was built there ... 150 miles from the site of the original battle is less clear ... although Oswald's personal experiences, growing up with the Scots in exile may have something to do with it. PoV here; but it is these enclaves of Anglic (and perhaps Nordic) influence that go a long way to explaining why archaic Ayrshire Scots has a number of terms that do not occur elsewhere. Angusmec (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Little Russians
Could you pls look at Talk:Little_Russians#Term? Your comments would be appreciated. --Irpen 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted
You reverted an edit I made to the Norse-Gaels article. Surely, you are aware of the British Isles naming dispute. The article is about Celtic and Gaelic culture, predating the Acts of Union 1707 and as well as the Act of Union 1800. Must we use politically devisive language, simply for the sake of brevity? Windyjarhead (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that you have dismissed my concerns as "crap." I disagree with your contention that no suitable alternatives for "British Isles" exist. Suffice it to say, I have no intention of rehashing the entire naming dispute debate on our respective user pages. While your interest in this region in the 11th century is commendable, please know that your insistence on disregarding this concern is not helpful to people trying to build a just and peaceful society in the 21st century.Windyjarhead (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Roman Empire
Your edit was basically a revert of mine, and was labelled "yeah, just remove misleading infobox stuff then"" - I think it is obvious why I called it maliciously mislabelled at that point, though in retrospect you may have been referring to my edit summary, eh? Also, I don't appreciate the tone, what about WP:AGF? I've often thought of putting a happy-smiley after everything I say and linking it to AGF, just so people don't get offended by things not meant to offend. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- How exactly were you addressing Mcorazao's edit? "Unless you are going to rewrite the whole article the end should remain in the 5th century" was the main part of his summary of an edit consisting of minor fixes to my edit. "yeah, just remove misleading infobox stuff then" was your summary for reverting the article before his (and my) edit and making the end of the empire in 1453. Labelling a revert in agreement with the reverted edit is strange, to say the least. I understood the edit as clearly maliciously mislabelled, according to you in error, and if I caused any grief I'm obviously sorry, though it may pay off to discuss instead of throwing coldly-worded warnings left and right in the future, yeah? PS: I could just as easily get offended by your aggressively dismissive edit summary for the last reply you posted on my talk: "lol". +Hexagon1 (t) 04:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only the first sentence, huh? How convenient, what an odd response, by the same logic I could say: It wasn't a WP:PA. You're just going to have to take my word for it, mate. (which is basically what I am saying, it wasn't intended as a PA and I am somewhat shocked it has been interpreted as such, if your edit was in good faith my summary was an error - as apparent. What about using the 'vandal' rollback feature of WP:TWINKLE by accident on one of your edits, would you be offended by that?) But point taken, I'll now flood my edit summaries with kisses, if it makes you feel better. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. I have been repeatedly saying the following: "I mistook your edit for being bad faith. If it wasn't I'm sorry". I don't know what it will take for you to comprehend that, you seem to believe I am on the offensive, when I am merely trying to clarify the situation from my viewpoint. PS: That bit was a bit of fun. See also: Humour. Trying to lighten this up a little. If what I am saying is nonsense it stems merely from trying to comprehend your arguments. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only the first sentence, huh? How convenient, what an odd response, by the same logic I could say: It wasn't a WP:PA. You're just going to have to take my word for it, mate. (which is basically what I am saying, it wasn't intended as a PA and I am somewhat shocked it has been interpreted as such, if your edit was in good faith my summary was an error - as apparent. What about using the 'vandal' rollback feature of WP:TWINKLE by accident on one of your edits, would you be offended by that?) But point taken, I'll now flood my edit summaries with kisses, if it makes you feel better. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Orthodox Easter
Hi Deacon, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Lady Aleena's RfA
|
Deacon of Pndapetzim...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you from Horologium
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium |
Disruptive user
User:Oleg Kikta can you handle him? --Kuban Cossack 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)