User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 7

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

January to March 2007

Aero Action War

You wanted to delete my page cause you called it blantent advertising! and yet you let windows have there own page for there vista product i was not saling my game just telling about somthing that will revlotionaize the game industry so i did contst it and yet after placing a artical in the talk page you still deleted it be you didn't even read my contest to your desition alowing a compoy like mircosoft there own page to blantly advertise there new os while me not offering to sale my game in any way you delete the page you even alow EA to have a pgae and each of there games a page lol all i have to say is why delete mine when they advertise there games like black for play station and battlefild 2000 i mean good look for yourself look up ea and look at each page they have for there games!!!!!!!!!! Now you tell me why you deleted mine and give me a very good reson or i will tell every one i know to BAN WIKI! and do what i can to contest then legaly! and i found you have a list of 2006 video games a outrage as to my page being deleted and not theres you tell me why my page can't be here but you alow a page for each game made lol or is it cause you get bribed to keep them on—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex dergian (talk • contribs).

Aero Action War Final Stament

as i said bribed well i don't care if you disalow me editing no will not do any thing with legal matters i did know you had that page but i will no long use this encyclopedia as the things you said just seemed like you can't talk about your self even thoght you do on your user page very much so having links to other projects you do and im sure other wiki person do the same so yeah you do advertise lol just have to let some one else do it for you or be aprart of wiki seem all to corrupt don't both talking to my acount infact delete it i really don't like wiki but as for the ip i am at work so there is no need to do a ip ban and if you did that would just be another show of how corrupt this encyclopidea is

oh yeah and you can remove the tag i made in the product section of Aero pointing to my page i will let you do clean up im done with wiki

Re:Armenian Genocide

The edit warring seems to have started on the 29th and has involved many editors. I don't really want to wait until this becomes too serious before taking action. I hope everyone will discuss on the talk page, so they can at least agree on what should be in the article. Nishkid 64 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven banner

I will be expanding this article over the next few days as I'm able, but in the meantime, I wanted to alert you to it so that you could add if you were interested. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made major additions, inserted pictures, etc. Would be interested in your input. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warning

But that discussion is about registered users removing warnings from their own Talk pages. Wikipedia:Etiquette frowns on that, but it's not in itself disruptive. Anon IPs are a different matter. I'd never say that there's unanimity on anything here, but I'd be surprised if there was much dissent from the view that warnings shouldn't be removed from IP Talk pages.

Ah, in fact the relevant section does include some dissenters, but Rossami has the last word, with a pretty strong argument. (He had the last word; I've just added a comment of my own, rather belatedly.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that my memory was that it was explicitly forbidden; in fact I'm pretty sure that it was, but I took a break recently formore than a couple of months, and it's surprising how many things have changed.

I still think that it's to be deeply deprecated and discouraged. And while I agree that it's possible to check page histories every time an empty IP page turns up, it's a drag for anyone who does a lot of vandalism-patrolling; most empty pages are empty because they've never been written to. Moreover, placing a {{test4}} or {{test5}} on an otherwise virgin Talk page is just asking for dispute from other editors who haven't looked at the History... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more — but that's a matter of the application of the policy, not the nature of the policy. The same thing could be said of most Wikipedia policies: overeager or confrontational editors (including admins) can apply them inappropriately and in ways that exacerbate problems — and I'm on record concerning my opinion of WP:PAIN. When an anon user removes a template, I replace it and explain why; only if it becomes clear that this is part of the pattern of behaviour of a persistently disruptive editor do I start to get heavy about it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New RfA question

A careful reading of WP:BLP should help any nominee provide an answer. This is addressed on the policy page. I'm just trying to see if the nominee has actually read the policy, especially as it's seen as very important by Jimbo. If a nominee stumbles on any of my questions, I'm happy to provide coaching to point them in the right policy direction. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps WP:COI; its a harmless question, yet important (sometimes). — Nearly Headless Nick 16:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI? That's not always observed (to pick just three). I still don't think it's a great question. YMMV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to, in a completely friendly way, dissent from Nick. WP:COI is one, not policy but a guideline, and two, more meant to apply to writing about subjects one is personally involved in. For example, it would probably be a bad idea to edit an article about the company you work for. But WP:BLP is policy and has a specific section regarding my question. If a nominee were to paraphrase this section their answer to the question would be spot on. I'm not looking to trip anyone up here. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone tripped over it already, didn't they? Maybe it's not such a bad question after all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me throws in WP:AUTO. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. WP:BLP is a policy, and to back it up, I provided WP:COI (Conflict of Interest) and WP:AUTO (Autobiographies). They are all inter-related. Editors are not ideally expected to edit articles about themselves; and we are not dealing with exceptions here. I would be expecting interesting answers for this question. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not?

Mostly because so far I've not run into a situation where I really felt I needed the mop and bucket... In the case of the diff you showed, I was able to just post on their pages (though we'll see how effective that actually was since one party isn't around from the looks of it and the other is off asking Jimbo Wales if it is OK for him to remove content from his talk page). So far pretty much everything I've needed to do I've been able to with just editor privleges. I will say though that when I visited Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets a few days back and saw the backlog it was the first time I saw something that I could probably help with more if I had the tools than without, and that at least got me thinking about it.
Beyond that, there is no shrubbery. I've been slumming around WP:AN/I for the past couple of weeks and the last couple of days I've been getting a good feel for what I would want to do and what I wouldn't want to do if I had the mop and bucket. Maybe it's just me, but I like to have an idea of what I'm doing before I undertake something.--Isotope23 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might initiate the process in another week or so. I'm still combing through the dark nooks and crannies of WP:AIV sub-pages, WP:WHEEL, and some of the other policy/admin pages I'm not familiar with. Hopefully I'll have a feel for them all shortly.--Isotope23 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Agreed, not a good idea. However, rather than redirect a Genus to a species I think it is better to point to the page where the Genus & species are, for the user to select the one he wants. In the case of Crassostrea there are 2 species to choose from - doesn't make sense to point to only one of them. Have made the change, interested to hear whether you agree. GrahamBould 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women/ENIAC

Thanks. There were a few other pages that used it, too. I hope we got them all. Robert K S 20:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need coffee

O_____________O' How did I missed that this was a user page. Thanks for the information, I will urgently make a pause in my patrol to take a good mug. -- Esurnir 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia

Happy New Year to you too! There's a map of Mercia that I made for the Mercia article - is this the sort of thing you were thinking of? TharkunColl 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

You mean the Museum of Scotland? I see Áedán mac Gabraín got you another FA. Congrats. Thanks for the link to the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England website, the site looks awesome. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBW

Thanks for your message, Angus. A very good idea to have an article on this. Unfortunately, I don't have access to JSTOR either, and I haven't come across any published articles about PBW yet. I'll keep my eyes open. Andrew Dalby 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beonna/Beorna

Dear Angus, Thanks v much for your kind remarks. I haven't quite finished with Beonna yet (only started on that a couple of nights ago). I agree most prefer Beonna (and I do) but the forms on coins and in texts vary: this was what I found based on the 'East Anglian Monarchs' category already existing and rather than fiddle (as I am a wiki novice rather) I thought I'd just fill in some articles and leave the outward form for consideration afterwards. I've been leaving any possible revision of the more famous guys (Raedwald, Aethelberht II, Eadmund) for consideration when I've filled in the rest, which should include minor notices for all the others not yet done between Wuffa and Edmund. Hope noone objects to that. Obviously Raedwald needs beefing up to his full stature and that will take careful thought... Meanwhile these tricky fellows in between! Thanks for whatever you're doing. I'll need to beg that reference on the B dynasty from you as I've mislaid it and can only quote J Campbell citing it. Best wishes and watch this (or that) space, Dr Steven Plunkett 13:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Angus for your (live!) note. I have just put the end onto Beonna, hope you like it. Dr Steven Plunkett 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglia Monarchs

Hi Angus, I have just been cleaning up succession boxes on the East Anglian articles and realise (looking at the Monarchs page) that we have been crossing over in edits with different effects! I don't know if you would like to discuss this here or on another page, but it would be as well if we agreed before I go any further. I think we need to discuss several points in the succession dates etc. Points I'd like us to agree about: 1. The annalistic tradition that mentions Wuffa says that he is ruling in 571, not that he acceeds in that year - he should be ante 571. Comment? 2. On the annals basis, Tyttla should be 578-599, not 593, because although there is a Raedwald death annal for 599 there is a duplicate for 624 (probably about right) and so 599 was probably a scribal error for the Tyttla dies/Raedwald acceeeds annal. Comment? 3. Why is Raedwald put at 593 and not 599 as in the annal date? Do you have another source? 4. Why does Raedwald not continue to be king of East Anglia until 624 (the annal date?) Presumably the fact that he gained seniority in c616 or 617 didn't stop him ruling in East Anglia, any more than it stopped Ethelbert being King of Kent or Edwin King of Northumbria? Ive never heard anyone suggest otherwise (but might have missed some recent argument). 5. What evidence, if any, is there that Eni was ever a king of East Anglia? and particularly for his dates? So far as I can see, Eorpwald is Raedwald's heir (hence Sigebert's exile) and succeeds him? I can't see any justification for putting Eni anywhere except as a possible associate king of either Raedwald or Eorpwald, and I doubt if he is ruling during the 'Ricberht' phase because Anna his son is already married and Christian by c630 and Ethilric his (?eldest) son (in the Anglian pedigree) has a Christian marriage about this time. That suggests Eni's family is well-disposed to Christianity and makes unneccessary Bede's implication that Sigebert's recall involved a military conquest. So far as I know this is fairly orthodox thinking, but perhaps I have missed something recent again? 6. I aim to put Hun, Beonna and Alberht all together in one box, with three separate articles - okay with you? 7. Also running into problems in the 770s-780s. The proto-article on Aethelred puts him in the mid780s on numismatic evidence (none that I know of, except that if he is father of St Ethelbert (as in the Life) that is about right, and the evidence is Ethelbert's coin), but the Monarchs page ends him decisively in 779. Comment? The trouble is, I don't know if the original stubs were based on recent publication or coin finds which I haven't seen yet, or on very ancient encyclopoedias deriving from Victorian confident inference! If the former, I defer: if the latter, it should reflect modern scholarship instead. Perhaps your Keynes/Lapidge volume can help? Sorry this is long, but hope you can help me thrash it out. Thanks! Walgamanus may also be interested: Ill post him to this site. Dr Steven Plunkett 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the articles is unclear. Of those which don't say, some are certainly based on the Early British Kingdoms website of David Ford Nash, some may be based on the 1911 Britannica, and others might use the Kessler website. I would recommend that you are ruthless in suppressing anything that seems implausible. I cleaned up early medieval and high medieval Scottish rulers, and retained almost none of the pre-existing material. The list of monarchs needs redoing. I can do the list. I've created a template which I think has the rulers in the right order, although I'm not very sure about Offa. Feel free to criticise: User:Angusmclellan/Template:Kings of the East Angles

Regarding the specific questions.

Wuffa: king from 571 according to Roger of Wendover (Yorke, p. 61)
Tytla: king from 578 according to Roger of Wendover (Yorke, p. 61); a scribal error seems a plausible explanation for the s.a. 599 entry.
None of my sources give an accession date for Raedwald more specific than x616 that I can see.
Yorke has Raedwald die x627, Kirby says before 624 is possible, Keynes gives the range 616x627 (hedging his bets).
I know of no evidence that Eni was king and your explanation seems eminently orthodox to me.
I'm all for combining things to make decent-sized articles!
For the period after Ælfwald, confusion seems the word. Saint Æthelberht's father supposedly royal father is shown as Æthelred? on the template. The list by Simon Keynes in the Blackwell Encyclopedia does not include him; Barbara Yorke (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 67, table 6) does, following Beorna (but doesn't list Æthelberht I, Hun or Alberht); Kirby (Earliest English Kings, p. 134) thinks that Beorna was followed by Saint Æthelberht, who would thus have ruled from 779 to 794. Clear as mud. I've tabulated the data:

Keynes	Kirby	Yorke
Ælfwald (d. 749)	Ælfwald (d. 749)	Ælfwald (d. 749)
Hun, Beonna and Æthelberht I (acc. 749)	Hun	Beonna (& Hun & Alberht
Mercians?	Beonna (acc. 758?)	Æthelred
Saint Æthelberht (d. 794)	Saint Æthelberht (d. 794)	Saint Æthelberht (779-794)

I hope Walgamus has some bright ideas on how to present the period between the death of Ælfwald and the appearance of Saint Æthelberht. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this very helpful response, which makes me feel more confident as it is more or less as I have it in Suffolk in Anglo-Saxon Times. I can now press on and be damned for it... In the latin, Wuffa is already in post by 571, so he should be ante 571-578. Tyttla 578-599. Although the annalist-copyist never mentioned Raedwald's accession, he obviously had a sleepy day when he copied out the same thing twice for Raedwald's death, but he had a 599 annal in his source which he never copied out the proper text for. That, I take it, was the end of Tyttla and the beginning of Raedwald. R has to be there well before 616 to be building up his power in Ethelbert's lifetime and getting baptized, sheltering Edwin etc. - and being strong enough to face up to Ethelfrith. I shall put him down for ?599-624, and becoming 'Bretwalda' in 616-7. Really Eni shouldn't be in this list, but I suppose he can be listed as a ?sub-king so people can find him, ? active under R's supremacy. I've done some of this fiddling on the succession boxes. Incidentally the copyist went wrong again later and slipped all the annals for Sigebert etc, out by one event in the series: he still kept the right dates but put the wrong events next to them. I expect he was reading from one of those much-copied texts where the year is not directly opposite the annal entry. Should we really be using the term 'bretwalda???' It used to be frowned upon as term of Anglo-Saxon revisionism to evoke the idea of a crown of Britain. But leaving that aside, (as it will affect everyone else), as to the later period, the Oswald of East Anglia coin mentioned in the Aethelred stub is a mistake, because there was an O of EA in coins, but he is after Eadmund, a sub-Guthrum ruler in the 870s (not the 770s). He needs to go out here. So the stubs are full of stuff that just needs clearing out and start again. That's fine. Thanks Very Much, cheers. Hope you like the rest when it comes and let's reconsider everything when some more is done. Why not leave the Monarchs list till last and amend it at the end? Dr Steven Plunkett 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen

I hope you didn't take my earlier mention of this AfD at WP:ANI to be questioning your decision to close in any way. I agree with your decision, but wasn't sure how to handle what seems to be a new user who was making, IMO, a pretty serious mistake. This is a user who filed an RfA the day after making those sock comments. I wasn't sure if it was an issue that I should take directly to him, so I decided to go to ANI with it. If that was the wrong forum to bring a discussion of the matter, I apologize. --Onorem 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS AGAIN

Hi Angus,

Thanks so much for all that info - great way to write and edit. I just could not stomach more trips in and out of word. I will use the sandbox. GREATLY appreciated!!!

Cheers, ArchiemartinArchiemartin 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penda article

Dear Angus, looking at the Penda article (preparing for Aethelhere) it says at note 52 (in text) that Bede says Penda was decapitated. I can't find this, can you? In HE iii.24 he is interemtus or interfectus, but not obtruncatus or decapitatus. Do you know if it is elsewhere in Bede? Dr Steven Plunkett 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that Angus. Article now provisionally written (AEthelhere), will ignore the headless Penda as not relevant here. Your vetting comments if any will be welcomed! Dr Steven Plunkett 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your language templates

please, please stop creating these {{lang-ISO3}} templates. It is insane to create separate templates for the 5,000 or so languages in ISO. It is perfectly sufficient, and much cleaner to just use {{langWithName}} directly. What you are doing is creating a crapload of templates that do nothing else but transclude another template. Which is a bad idea already for concerns of server load. I would even recommend scrapping that too, and spell out the langauge link in the text, as in

[[French language|French]]: ''{{lang|fr|langue}}''

dab (𒁳) 10:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why, thank you (I expected a "volley of argument" so to speak, hence my somewhat polemical approach, sorry) -- I think it will be enough to deprecate them, as I did on {{lang-de}} already; if the deprecation doesn't raise too many eyebrows, we can always send a bot after them for replacement later. regards, dab (𒁳) 10:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no hurry with the deleting, I think, deprecation is fine. People may still like to subst: them. We should look for an overall solution on Category talk:Multilingual support templates, and then send in the bots to deal with all of the templates alike. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Regarding this and other similar edits: could you, please, refer me to where this was discussed and the decision to deprecate {{lang-xx}} templates was made? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category talk:Multilingual support templates. The argument convinced me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's where I have already looked, but I don't see much of a discussion there, let alone a consensus for the templates to be deprecated. All I see is Dbachmann's proposal to get rid of the lang-ISO1 templates with no feedback. If that's the only place where this issue was been raised, I suggest reverting the deprecation notices that have been placed in the {{lang-xx}} templates so far and waiting until a consensus is reached. Deprecating templates before anyone had a chance to say anything seems just... wrong. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert the changes. I do not feel strongly about the matter, apart from the certainty that creating many of the tagged templates was an error on my part and that the alternatives were deprecation or deletion ({{db-author}} says "created in error" which they were). There's no danger of an edit war. I spend many of my working hours arguing about (and usually against) the re-invention of the wheel, and the creation of unnecessary custom solutions to problems, so I really do not want to do things like that on Wikipedia. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just so you know, the only reason why I will revert the changes is because the templates are in fact used by the community, and there has been no consensus so far to deprecate/delete them. Just procedure, nothing personal. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEthelred of East Anglia

Hello Angus, sorry to keep bothering you, but... The problem with that AEthelred of East Anglia page was that it was for the guy in the 870s who just has coins, after Edmund and before Guthrum: and Not for the legendary father of AEthelberht KM, who fl 760s-80s if not merely mythic. So I have moved the existing page (stub) for Aethelred of East Anglia to a new title Aethelred II of East Anglia, and am about to create a new one for AEthelred I of East Anglia for my 8th century geezer. Unfortunately when I check this (AEthelred II) for links etc it comes up with your template and a long list of dates in the 770s etc, which are to the wrong page. here doesn't seem to have been a page for the first AEthelred. Sorry about this, not quite sure how one fixes it. But I'll go ahead and make my page for AE I now. Thought Id better let you know. Best, Dr Steven Plunkett 12:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Ive sorted them I think. Could you help a little more with the template? I think I want to express that Offa is overlord (but not exactly Bretwalda) in East Anglia through the 760s until 796, and similarly for Coenwulf, Ceolwulf and Beornwulf, parallel with the reigns of Aethelred I, Aethelbert II, Eadwald and AEthelstan (who should commence c 821). Is there some way of doing this in the boxes at the foot of the articles? Could you set up an example for Offa, for instance, through the reign of AEthelred I, and then I can copy and adapt for the others? I get the impression that you are the man for templates! Thanks, Dr Steven Plunkett 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant and so simple! Thanks again Dr Steven Plunkett 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins with high edit counts

I noticed your comment on Durova's talk page, where you linked Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as your source.

Just as a FYI, Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts serves the same purpose as your intention, without all the admins listed (of course :P), and with some comments regarding whether this user wants to be nominated. Just thought you'd like to know :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oengus mac Fergusa

Dear Oengus, just looking at this article as I had a slight interest in this fellow, noticed the reference to Isabel Henderson's 'Primus inter pares: the St Andrews Sarcophagus and Pictish Sculpture' is to Taylor op cit, which is elsewhere under another article in this list of references. In fact this paper originally appeared in Sally M Foster, Ed., The St Andrews Sarcophagus - A Pictish Masterpiece and its International Connections (Four Courts Press, Dublin 1998) ISBN 1 85182 414 6 (hbk) (or 4, pbk), 97-167. I remember because she spoke at the conference for a long time, and it was very illuminating. Possibly that ref is worth citing? I suggest rather than wading in and doing it myself as the article seems to be largely yours and I don't wish to tamper unnecessarily! Yrs aye, Dr Steven Plunkett 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further search I see you know all about it. These articles are beautifully written and amazingly informative, thanks! I will interefere no more. Dr Steven Plunkett 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for catching this! It's the kind of cut and paste blunder that I'm very unlikely to be picked up unless it is right away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I just received your welcome. I've been overloading my senses at Wiki since I found it these past two months and have only gotten brave enough to correct typos. I look at your credentials and mine are simply 50 years reading encyclopedias and dictionaries like they were novels. I admit a favoring for the flavor of history but that takes me to many other spheres. I worked at the UIUC when Netscape was still Mosaic and HTML had about 30 commands. I've been on hiatus and out of the loop since 2003 but I'm looking forward to sharpening my skills in the sandbox. So you are my go to guy? I would like to spend some time working with the deletion project if it would be helpful. But I could not figure out how to add myself to the list. Can you help me? Will I be notified of new additions or do I check back periodically? Thanks for making yourself available to us new folk. MarlaB 08:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)MarlaB[reply]

David I

Angus, the contribution was not precisely *scanned* -- the source is simply my Master's Thesis. I edited it down, attempting to turn it into a readable form. I included endnotes and a bibliography. It is, essentially, all of the information I managed to track down on the subject of king David I during about six months studying him. I have since moved on to other subjects, and have little use for a paper on the subject. It is not technically copyrighted, and should be in the public domain. I hope it will be useful; feel free to do with it what you wish. :o) SlowwwwMoses 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad it will be of some use. Sorry about the length -- you'll be happy to know that I edited roughly half of the paper out already. (I suspect if I had simply posted the entire thing, you wouldn't be nearly as understanding.) It is true that the historiographical section is still a bit long -- it was also the most time consuming to produce, as you might imagine -- but as you say, there is material in there that might easily be shifted around, especially the background material on Malcolm Canmore, Saint Margaret, Alexander I and Edgar I.

Oh, and don't worry about the questions! I'm only too aware of the problem of plagiarism and copyright infringement; my students are prime offenders, (the little bastards). Wikipedia must face those problems, and vandalism, in order to earn a reputation as a trustworthy source. Just look at what happened to the Battle of Cannae, today. The Battle of the Gay Poopers, indeed. Ugh. SlowwwwMoses 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notifications

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users). —Psychonaut 05:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. My apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Cairthinn mac Coelboth

Hey there; just going to drop a line on the above and some other obscure stuff to whet your appitite but I see you are already working on some related topics. Let me know! Fergananim 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU procedural question

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This AfD may interest you, since you nominated one of the bundled articles for deletion before, albeit unsuccessfully. Rosenkreuz 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

Nigger in the woodpile

This page has been moved to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nigger_in_the_woodpile following discussion on its talk page. Thought you'd like to know as you put up the prod. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedHillian (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Socktastic

what does Declined mean?--Vintagekits 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingjald Helgasson

Just started an article on Olaf the White's father... Know anything about this fellow? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the traditional view is that the Halfdan you're talking about, the Halfdan of the Great Heathen Army was the son of Ragnar Lodbrok though of course that's controversial. I've seen him also conflated with Hvitserk but I'm not sure if there is any textual justification for this; they seem to have led quite different lives. Guthred seems to be a very mysterious figure and beyond his formerly slave status, I don't know much about him. Have you read Bernard Cornwell's Lords of the North? He is a major character. I think the book "Viking Empires" which is cited in Olaf the White has some good discussion of the Kingdom of Jorvik generally. I'll take a look and see what I can find. Why don't you email me so I have your address; that way I can see if I can scan some pages and email them to you. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEthelstan Half-King

I haven't looked yet as I'm a bit tied up with Sutton Hoo, but wasn't he the one who went off with Edgar's intended bride? She sold Stoke (the over-river half of Ipswich) to Bishop AEthelwold when he was re-endowing Ely in 970, and as Stoke has high ground and a clear view down the Orwell, a dedication to Augustine, and is next to Bourne (Cyril Hart's preference for Burna, St Edmund's place of consecration in 855), we like to infer (!) that she got it from Aethelstan and he had it as a royal estate inheritance: so, possibly a dwelling for him next door to the big harbour. God knows how to reference that! He's slightly late for my expertise but I'll gladly contribute if I can. Hope you're flourishing, Dr Steven Plunkett 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC

Apologies, that was Aethelstan's son, an East Anglian ealdorman. Dr Steven Plunkett 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!

Hi Angus! Thanks so much for note. It meant a lot to me. I worked diligently on researching that article and the initial rejection broke me, but I'm back! I'm beginning to understand the Wikipedian community and I've grown as a writer because of the initial ban. Odd as it may seem, I'm grateful for the learning experience and have grown to admire this community. I've started article # 2, let's see how that goes. Thanks again and cheers - au revoir et merci! Windwall ww 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rvv

My apologies, in fact, I was reverting the entire article, removing the (unnecessary IMHO) mention about history in the whole process, but my connection is slow at times and you reverted while I was still checking if I handn't forgotten anything. I didn't notice till it was too late... Sorry about that and thanks for heads-up, I'll double check everything from now on :-) - Myanw 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS: merci d'avoir écrit en français :-) - Myanw 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WP:CSD G4 to me! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerball mac Dunlainge

Hello Angus. Yes, any red links on those articles are ones I hope to create soon, if only as short stubs. But don't let that stop you from having a go if you want; love to see what you do with Brega. One particular Irish king I wish to focous on presently is King Cerball mac Dunlainge of Osraige 842-888. He is far more significant and interesting that I ever guessed, especially for one from such a previously obscure kingdom. Wait and see! Fergananim 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Déja vu all over again

I will be trying all options, until we get anywhere. However I am afraid that none will satisfy majority, and thus the current minority who supported Jogaila and managed to hijack the article into it's current name and now of course opposes anything that is not supported by 'majority' will tryumph - a sad case of victory for wikilawyers and miniority POV pushers :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I'm not sure those terms are helpful to the discussion. :/ But I'm curious, what ever happened to the idea of mediation? I remember there was a start on it, and then I got busy with other projects, figuring that someone would let me know if the RfM ever came to fruition. How did it get stalled? --El on ka 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably died after long tortures here, and is currently being staked here and exorcised here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation is just sleeping. Essjay checked it over and said that it was more or less in order. I can dust it off if you like. All together: "voting is evil!". It's what got us into this situation in the first place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, I looked at all three of Piotrus' links, and couldn't find any mention of a Jogaila / Wladyslaw II Jagiello mediation? The pages do show that there are still some fundamental difficulties with communication, but all that tells me is that we really have nothing to lose by attempting a good faith mediation. Yes, Angus, I'd like to take you up on your kind offer. :) --El on ka 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can try mediation, but we can also simoultanesly try RMs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd suggest that "involved parties" should be kept to a minimum. I'll add you, Piotrus, myself, and I'll check with Irpen. This might be just the thing to get Ghirla back too! (I appreciate that not everyone here would welcome that quite as much as me.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend announcing the intention to start the mediation at Talk:Jogaila, and asking there who is interested in participating. --El on ka 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will as soon as I eat something :) Perhaps you could stub Aeroplanes Voisin and Voisin series?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation seems stalled. Oh well. Would you support either Jagello or Jagiello? What other names would be acceptable for you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila

Thanks for notyfying. --Beaumont (@) 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jogaila

All I can say is, oh dear. I'm not sure what I should do about it. BTW, I see you're working on Columba and Robert II; are these still ongoing? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcomer, Sunno, and Genobaud

Angus, thanks for your kind reaction. It is just so fast I haven't had the time to give you a detailed reaction, but I promise I will do that later today on the Marcomer page. Johanthon, 02-02-2007. 12:12hrs

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jogaila

I'd welcome your comments at the above FAC. I thought it would be a walk-in, but the unexpected lodging of a request for mediation in the middle of the FAC process seems to have caused some people to "object", though I see no offence to the criteria on that account (by all means respond that way yourself, by the way; this isn't canvassing but a request for informed opinion on the actual article). What I long for is someone who knows about history to give a response to the article itself. I know this is only a personal consideration, but I have buried myself in the subject for the past several weeks and might not be able to respond in so well-primed a way in a future FAC. It's not anyone else's concern, but I'm really up for this at the moment and would like to get the FAC out of the way, leaving people to discuss the title in the future, as they probably will do forever. (My view on the title is that even a group of Medieval historians wouldn't presume to mediate a definitive title for this king, so any Wikipedian who volunteers to do so is certainly brave: this king has never had a definitive name, as the article and the books on him show. I'm thinking of writing a book on him myself in the medieval kings "Choose Your Own Title" series.) qp10qp 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cbladey

Thanks for your note and for visiting my talk. Good to see your interests- For a while I specialized in the Archeology of Britain (I started in London in the 60s with the Guildhall Museum). I went to Durham University-studying there Anthropology, Archeology and History. I settled out specialist in things Celtic due to my re-location to Munich and its proximity to early sites. Then on return to to the USA I found the best use of my skills to be in teaching and writing about Irish Studies- specializing in the Earlier Periods but becoming a generalist- that means mastering the messy politics... etc.....I took a detour into politics to prepare for teaching but have been in the relativly fresh air for a good while now having gotten my education and failing to convince politicians to embrace culture! I tend now to be more interested in celebrations, food ways, folk music and customs.

I have specialized in St. Brigid of Kildare primairly because I saw a need to gather all of the ancient or at least the older sources and make them availiable to those who were interested in the baseline information. It seems the world is awash in "new revelation" which is the best way I can describe it, so perhaps my work has a utility. No problem with "new revelation" if it is properly souced. I notice that there are indeed two Brigid pages which seems good. Saints lives are interesting in that they can be many things. The Brigid page (christian) needs a bit of work-repeats itself a bit- and there is some information which is not there. Association with plants....status of relics....and a few more bits. Some day I will see what I can add from my book. Trouble is - space limitations but there are some short things which might flesh out the article just a bit.

Wikipedia is a bit overwealming at first. I find much of the heavy process and beurocracy discouraging. But, if there is time I will see what I can contribute.Cbladey 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

- - Thanks for your support. As I get the time I will take a look at Patrick and Brigid. I am good for the folk custom aspect of saints- celebration etc...as well as for relevant poetry and verse.Cbladey 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for following through on the Piedmont Bible College AfD. That's only the second one I've tried, and I obviously did something wrong not to get it listed properly. Listing it in the first place was also my mistake, but an honest one. I've apologized to the author. All the best,John Foxe 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I

I'm currently planning on finishing the David I article. I see someone beat me to it. Not sure what to do now. The added text is very significant, but not that much of it seems to be written in a style appropriate to a wiki article. Virtually all of the "Political Context – Malcolm, Margaret and the ‘other’ Canmore kings" looks discardable, for instance. I think some can be saved with some editing ... it certainly helps the historiography and personality sections. Do you think I should still proceed as planned? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? I guess I can look to see what I can incorporate or something. The style is not very encyclopaedic ... and ignoring some factual inaccuracies (such as a confusion of Causantín, Earl of Fife as a ruler of Moray), the historiographic section is fun to read and interesting at times. Need your advice on how to waste my time. Advize! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)

The author is an intelligent chappie ... some nice observations. I was planning on doing a similar thing with my dissertation on Cranes and Pygmies (which got a good first), but like this article, it reads like a paper rather than an encyclopedia article. Anything salvaged ... and it'd be a shame not to salvage lots of it ... has to be edited heavily in order to make it encyclopaedic and self-containing. Also, moving lots of it would rob the contributor of the credit. Any thoughts on that? Ignoring that, when I finish, we can start salvaging it. For instance, I'm gonna have to create sub-articles to get my article down to size - e.g. early life, davidian revolution. Other sub-articles could be create from this chappy's contribution ... such as Personality of David I. We could have a template on the bottom like on the Adolf Hitler article or the George Washington article. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major sections which need to be salvaged, the Margaret bit and the Historiography of the reign of David I part. The latter is most of the good part of the essay. I'm thinking that when I'm finished we should moved the David I of Scotland article to Historiography of David I, King of Scots, paste my preprepared article on the redirect, and edit the new historiography article to be both encyclopaedic and including only the historiography, finding new homes for the rest as we wish. Please tell me if you approve of this suggestion, if you think wider community discussion should take place first, or if you have any other suggestions or suggested modifications to my plan. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much for your counsel. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the AfD

Message by Mobile 01 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter:

From - AfD etiquette

Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines.

At 18:03 on 3rd Feb 2007 Angus McLellan notified Travb about this AfD[1]

At 18:34 on 3rd Feb 2007 Travb begins editing this AfD[2] The Speedy Keep introduced by Travb would appear on the surface to be a solicited vote. Mobile 01^Talk 03:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my repsonse. [3] As you see, I have asked her to remove these comments, and hopefully she will. Travb (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the AfD. I don't want the comment removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why not? What did you think of my response? Travb (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was fine; the "hit list" thing isn't news to anyone, but it's never a bad thing to mention it, what with Morton having "accidentally" listed this AfD on someone else's page. Mobile 01's comments don't bother me, and make her look less than brilliant. "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic." What is my view? So far, my canvassing has resulted in two or three keeps and two or three deletes, and I haven't given an opinion either way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, best wishes. I have never met you before, but I am sure we will see each other again. Have a great weekend. Travb (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Northumberland

Angus, do you know any reason why Earl of Northumberland and Earl of Northumbria should be separate articles? Northumbria, after all, is just a Latinization of Northumberland. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland is just one county in the old Kingdom of Northumbria. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you're confusing the modern day county with the historical region; Northumberland means "land north of the Humber"; Northumbria is the Latin version. Today Moray is just one region in the old Kingdom of Moray; but you don't have to use the term "Moravia" just because of that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but you all earls can be referred to as "of Northumberland"; e.g., Robert Bartlett calls Waltheof and Siward "earl of Northumberland", and avoids the term "Northumbria" altogether; "Northumbria" is one of those annoying Latin importations that double up on an existing word. A like example is "Angles", which makes the unwary think "Angles" and "English" were once different concepts. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 article and sources

Ah, I see. Thank you. I do grow a bit suspicious of any sentence which contains the words "widely regarded" while it does not cite its sources, hence my edits of late. DieOfGoodLuck 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berig

Emailed him but haven't heard back. I think he was angry that I didn't jump in but I was actually out of town and didn't know about the ruckuss at all until late yesterday. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Charles Scripps

The version I deleted was only one sentence long. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good news. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Nordic articles you may be interested in

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raven banner

FYI... your input would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of living persons adminship

"Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia." Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumacurve

15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I work for the Lumacurve Company and have authorization to use this information on Wiki. How can I become authorized to put our companies information onto Wiki?

Thanks, Liz

Julio Brouwer

It's gone, thanks for the tip. NawlinWiki 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for undeleting my pic. I`ll remember not to do again such a n00b mistake xD--ometzit<col> 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Congrats, nice work. I'll see what I can do. I actually love ballet and went to Royal Opera House last night to see Bournonville's La Slyphide and Ashton's Rhapsody, both of which were delights for the eyes. But I'm not so up on ballet history as I am for opera. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created a redirect, changed the citing format to the standard one used for Grove Online, and added a few inline cits. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Somitho's RfA

Thanks for your message, Angus. I was pleased to know that it wasn't just me who found it all rather bizarre. It's rather unfortunate that people nominate candidates who have no real hope of passing because it inevitably leads to bad feelings. I understand wanting to nominate people you like but it's just not fair to lead inexperienced people to believe they have a shot at RfA when anyone who hangs around RfA these days would know that someone with less than 400 edits has no chance. Unless we enter the Twilight Zone. :) Sarah 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"lesser English dialogues"

Fair enough. Thanks for the tip-although you talk to him. He can't be serious! Natalieduerinckx 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source Canvassing

I've started a discussion about the phenomenon of "Source Canvassing" at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Source_Canvassing with the idea of coming to a common consensus about the larger issue and documenting it on that page. Any input or ideas you want to contribute would be helpful, thanks. -- Stbalbach 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page warning for User talk:Jaredmarc

Please let the editor who tagged the page make the warning. NipokNek 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style? Fergananim 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, and thanks for the thoughtful (as always) reply. I did'nt think of the copyright issue! Thanks for bringing it up. I'll continue, but will keep this in mind, and hopefully should trim it in time. As for the infinite ban idea, it arouse out of an ever growning anger at the number of Wikipedians driven off the project by both trolls and abusers. A way of blowing steam, to be sure, but a serious issue nonetheless. Looking forward to catching up on your latest work! Fergananim 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I again

Any thoughts on what should be cut from the David article? It's tough ... the notes and bibliography take up over 30kbs, meaning that any cuts taking the whole thing below 80 would severely alter the article. And it's a hard thing to destroy one's own work. Also, d'you think there should be a background section? If and when you have time to respond - I know you must be sick of me and this article - respond on either my talk page or Wikipedia:Peer review/David I of Scotland/archive1. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At it again

The Jewish/Messianic Jewish war continues, this time over whether the Messianic Jews can have a template. It's gone to WP:DRV here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Angusmclellan/Archive 7

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: David

Thanks for you help. I'm gonna have to cut some of the text and divide many paragraphs, even though I really don't want to. Undoubtedly this will produce more typos and I'll have to do more work. Such is the FAC process. But the way it works is that FAC is the only way to be assured decent peer review and outsider perspective, and so is a necessary evil. BTW, I just sent you that material because I thought you were working on getting Flann Sinna to FA, but you should feel free to do whatever you want. Like I said, if you need anything from that source for any other figures, just ask. Oh, do you have designs on the St Patrick article? I'll send you the relevant article just in case. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA EU Warrants

I believe that the EU warrants for arrest of 25 CIA agents is a stunning event. These warrants are lawful and may be applied in all EU states. This is a novel legal trend and I think it should be followed. I think that it should be archived. This is the beginning of a long process. I believe these names are probably aliases, but in any event this hasn't been reported in the mainstream press. I would like to leave the article on wiki for a month and improve it with other articles. If the arrest warrants are withdrawn then I would be happy to delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thething88 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RFA?

I was reading WP:AN/I and I noticed that you said that you weren't an admin which I was in shock. I always see you around doing good work and I wonder if you are willing to have an RFA. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip crisis

I added the permalink to that version of the wiki page, as up to that point all edits had been made by Straub himself. But granted, its a long shot, but I'm not sure another source to that fact exits. LukeSurl 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dug around and found a better source [4] (bottom section). LukeSurl 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic culture

Ok, thank you, there was an earlier dispute as to why the article was titled German culture, but i renamed it to Germanic culture to 'widen' the description title, i must have been thinking of actual "Germanic" culture. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelwald Moll of Northumbria

I've made some changes. I will also check Michael Ashley's Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens and see if there are any good tidbits in there. -B Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodel Itulrade Fair enough, your points were all valid. I simply thought that Itulrade is likely to feature heavily on the 12th book of the series, and thus readers curious about what is known could look it up on wikipedia rather than having to go through the entire wheel of time series themselves.-User:Dezza91

Question re (attempted) new stub

Hello Angus, I'm a bit of a "noobie" here so ... I attempted to add a stub regarding folk musician Andy Ramage who was influencial from late 60s through current times (Bitter Wythie, Harness, Glenfarg Folk Club). Your return comment indicated that I did not meet guidelines. I've contributed serveral things over the last couple of years without wading through guidelines and this is the first "push back" I received. I skimmed the guidelines in this case. Most are clear and reasonable but do not seem to be relevant to this case so any detailed feedback would be helpfull.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wundermac (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Angus,

I hope I'm using this system correctly (note that my post in your discussion is marked as "unsigned" - take this as unfamiliarity rather than disrespect:-)

Thanks for the detailed response. Between my question and your response, I read through the music notability discussion and frankly it's a bit of a "bourach". The most obvious criticism is that the attempted guidelines seem to be well suited for mainstream recording and commercial work but not for less-commercial areas of musical activity.

My early understanding of Wikipedia was that it would not suffer the problems of conventional sources (e.g. exclusion of "less important" topics due to lack of space - as in a book) since it was digital and bits are cheap and available in vast quantity.

I have to think that if we applied this sort of thing to geography, only "important" and "notable" places would be recorded and written about. I would think that an on-lin resource would want to be as inclusive as possible in order to be something more than older-style references. Instead, we seem to be getting the same social engineering that occurs when something becomes sucessful - the creation of a priesthood who control the resource. In general terms, these development are similar to those seen in the commercial music scene - payola, play lists, pr/journo flacks etc.

Ah well - I'll leave the rant and go back to the drawing board on Ramage. I have a couple of reference books on Scottish music where I think he is mentioned. Perhaps I can also add a couple of recording references and his influence in developing club and festival activity in central Scotland.

Regards

Wundermac 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Notability - Beauty is the Beast proposed deletion

Hi there! You added a 'proposed deletion' template to the Beauty is the Beast article (stub). I removed it, my reasons are on the talk page. You did have a point with some of your arguments though, and I'd like you to know that I've taken the issue of Manga Notability to the Wikiproject Anime & Manga talkpage . I'd like to get some consensus with the other project members on what a 'notable manga' is. According to the outcome, the Beauty is the Beast article could get put up for deletion again. Ninja neko 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ramage

Angus,

Thanks for the pointers - I'll review them later in the week. I was aware of the sandbox idea but NOT that you could make personal sandbox setup for long-term development of contributions. Cool feature.

Wundermac 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: misplaced comment at DRV

Yes, you are correct. YechielMan 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:UCFD

That would be helpful. Even if you only participated in the discussions would be nice, as you can see we don't have very many regulars there and some end up being closed after only 3 people adding their input. VegaDark 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closings looked fine. Except non-admins can't do all the work that is required in a rename result, since the original category needs to be deleted once the new one is created and the members are transferred over. just tag it for speedy delete when you are done transferring members and that should be fine. VegaDark 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

column layout example

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A quandary: a complete listing of works, or links to existing listings? Itayb 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question. :) Your explanation was very clear. Nevertheless, i must be missing something, because all i see is two single column lists. Can you please make sure you got it right? Itayb 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular! Thanks. :) Itayb 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh

Just after finishing extensive revising of the above article. I aim to keep on at it over the coming weeks and submit it for peer review. Would very much appreciate your thoughts. Fergananim 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All nitpicking much apprecieated. Do hope to get back to the Irish Bruce wars, as Jdorney was very dissapointed in me. Here's hoping! Fergananim 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to call on me, should you ever find good use for me and my barker technique :) – riana_dzasta 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyndall

You may be the one who asked for a citation regarding the "Man in the Iron Mask" portion of the Tyndall article. See Duke of Monmouth, where he is alleged (not by me) to have been one of the candidates. Seneschally 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nollaig Ó Muraíle

No article on Mac Fhirbhisigh would be complete without one on Nollaig. We're not short on good historians here in Ireland, but for my money Nollaig is head and shoulders above many. Besides citing a few more of his works, and maybe adding a photo, this article is nearly complete. Fergananim 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Deletion

Why do you think Category:American constitutionalists is not ready for deletion? Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Guess whose name just popped up on your talk page? Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086 ^Talk 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD no consensus?

Angus - you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Repubbliche_Marinare_of_Italy as "no consensus", even though the only two people who expressed any opinion at all (myself and Thewanderer) had come to something of an agreement - that Category:Repubbliche Marinare should be merged. (Thewanderer had not replied to my last suggestion, but I'd think it was a pretty uncontroversial WP:MOS issue.) Why then the "no consensus" close? Becuase there were only two people who ever expressed an opinion? Or because the last issue was left hanging? Αργυριου (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tapadh leat

Thanks for your kind and constructive comments on my Editor Review. I will take your valuable advice to heart.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Season Ticket

Hello, you removed a paragraph with a link to a web site where people who share tickets can manage them. I though I had written about that site in an objective and informative way. Aren't such references appropriate in wikipedia if they show no bias? I'm new here, so just wondering...Thanks, Jeanwiki 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

In closing the WP:CFD debate on Category:Founding Fathers of the United States, you listed this as having "no consensus". Counting the votes, I saw that 2/3 of the people voted to delete. This is a good consensus by many people's standards. Could you explain why you closed this as "no consensus"? Dr. Submillimeter 11:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do agree with your decisions on closing WP:CFD arguments (even if they contradict my vote), and I do respect your work on WP:CFD. This one category in particular simply seemed badly named and badly applied, and the majority in favor of deletion seemed particularly strong. I will ask for a second opinion on the category, or I will re-nominate it for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category has now been renominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Worldcon Guests of Honor

You closed the WP:CFD debate on Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor with 'DELETE', yet when I look at the list of votes there were 6 to keep against 5 to delete. I can understand possibly having 'no consensus', but why choose Delete? VJDocherty 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus - thanks for your speedy response. Leaving aside the main issue about the category, I don't understand your comments about 'easter-egged cross-namespace link' and contextualisation. I will update the List of Worldcons with the GoHs though. VJDocherty 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments to VJDocherty and while I understand them, I still think the decision to delete was premature (note, I did create the category). I was unaware of the debate until I saw the bots going through and deleting the references. There are other reasons to keep these, some of which VJDocherty articulated and would suggest, like he did, that "no consensus" would have been a better result at this time. Shsilver 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator has come to an incorrect conclusion on this issue. Five votes to "Delete" and six votes to "Keep" is not a consensus to Delete. This is either an unintentional error or an intentional error. Avt tor 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I orignally put this comment in the wrong section, sorry. I am contesting the decision to delete Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor, not the Allo, Allo thing.) Avt tor 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether the category should be kept or not. However the CfD archive states "the result of the debate was delete", and it is certainly not obvious from reading the debate how this could be seen as a fair summary. Perhaps your comments to VJDocherty might usefully have been added to the debate itself, with or without the accompanying decision. Hv 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XfD closes are only glossed in exceptionally. I don't believe this was sufficiently exceptional to require any glossing. The fact that XfD is not a vote surely requires no explanation at this time. I've explained my rationale. If it's not persuasive then according to WP:DPR any administrator can overturn it for you. You don't even need to bother with WP:DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on VJDocherty's talk page (which I should not have to track down) have it backwards. No one in the discussion referred to "overcategorization", the opponents of the category mostly just seemed to think it wasn't a significant honor, which is not the case. I have supported deleting categories in many discussions and I have cleaned up categories on hundreds of author pages to reduce overcategorization, so I know what this problem looks like, and this category isn't the problem. We can dig around and find other administrators to try to fix it, but you made the mistake, you should take responsibility for fixing it. Avt tor 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that being a Guest of Honor is "not a significant honour" certainly is an argument from overcategorization. It may be significant to fandom, but that seems a rather poor form of argument. Everything is important to some group of people. I'll happily put things back the way they were if someone overturns the close. I really don't see what more I can do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. You can't categorize arguments on one side with a dismissive template and then say arguments (from less-informed people) that are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT are inherently more logical. Had the question of overcategorization been raised in the discussion, it could have been addressed. Avt tor 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Amcl's page claims to be your sockpuppet, I'm assuming you restored the authors to this category. You might want to go back and alphabetize the names, because right now almost all of them are sorted by first name. -Captain Crawdad 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:'Allo 'Allo! cast members

I'm not really supposed to kill it until it's empty, I've moved it to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Empty_then_delete, from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Ready_for_deletion. There are scripts to empty it ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Avt tor 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks at DRV like you consented to undo your CFD close because you aren't an admin. I'd do it as an admin, and close the DRV, but I haven't been at CFD enough to fix the tag. If you can undo the close there (feel free to opine with yuor close withdrawn), we can close the DRV. GRBerry 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus. Now I have seen the elegant resolution of this twisty point, I still don't understand your comment: "Still, procedurally speaking this DRV [is] unnecessary, unless someone made me an admin without my knowledge or consent." If you are successfully impersonating an admin (which seems OK up to this point) then there still needs to be a DRV option on your action. No? EdJohnston 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Worldcon Guests of Honor

Looks like you and I had the same idea about the same time. Good idea! --Orange Mike 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Lismore

Yes, and it's only a stub. No, I didnt use that source, I used another, but it's interesting that you point that out, for I too see a similarity. Well, the stub can be left. I am sure the information is accurate as I crossed checked it. Thanks. Manopingo 15:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CFDs

Non-admins are only supposed to close discussions which are clear keeps per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Tim! 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't really see a problem, I just felt to compelled to let you know that you're not to supposed to under the "rules" but of course we ignore rules anyway. Tim! 10:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deedlit

I have made some changes to the Deedlit article, adding in some references (the ones I have access to -- I would have more to go on and cite with the light novels, but I don't have either of them - though I am trying to find them at local retailers).

If you could check the article again, and possibly add any feedback on what else would be needed for the article, it would be appreciated. -Emhilradim 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clairbert

Hmmm. Oddly enough, she isn't in Grove, so I'm afraid I can't help you there. As regards her recordings...weel, some digging around on the web showed [5] and she appears on [6]. That's two, at any rate. Apologies for not being terribly helpful. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Angus. I see you have a very busy talk page, so I won't keep you long! A big thank you for your support at my RfA. Excellent turnout, humbling result. Again, thanks. :) Bubba hotep 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Goodness

Hi,

You're entitled to your opinion, but I do think there is one way in which you are being glaringly unfair. Long before I was ever an admin, way back in Oct. 2005, I had already made clear that my standards at RfA were very conservative/very high. So they always been, and if you'll take a closer look at my own RfA, you'll see several supporters noticed my toughness even there. Think whatever you wish about my exchange with Mr. Lawton (indeed, Mr. Snow and I have come to a friendly understanding, so I feel happy about it), but I am quite firm in my view that my standards for !voting in RfA have not moved an inch from the hard line I took up long ago. I'm stodgy, but consistent. My tough standard is enforced on myself by my offer to be recalled, which stands. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For being phenomenally gracious in apologising to another editor when you found you were in the wrong. Impressed! - Alison^☺ 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that! Well done, indeed - Alison^☺ 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Michaely / speedy deletion

Fair enough, but could you explain what G11 means? As far as I can see from the WP:CSD page it refers to Blatant advertising but I can't see how that applies here. Or am I misunderstanding? Thanks Belovedfreak 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. No, I can't really see myself expanding it any time soon, so it may as well be deleted. I really created it to get rid of a red link from a film page, hoping someone else might expand it, but I couldn't really find any info on the guy, so maybe there isn't any available. Belovedfreak 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

There is generally no need to relist a simple category rename request to which there are no objections. I'd prefer to not give people the idea that they should rubber-stamp everything they agree with in order to meet some kind of quorum. Just my $.2 >Radiant< 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Regards To Brandon Zufelt

I realize that i may have acted detrimental to Wikipeda. But i was just so outraged at the fact of my serious Brandon Zufelt article being deleted. I clearly outlined his life and why he is important and should be remembered in our hearts and web pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathtobrandon19 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First revision

Angus, I've just made a minor revison explaining that while Brega was indeed divided into Lagore and Knowth, it did continue to exist as a (generally!) undivided kingdom up till the 1170's. Do hope to add more info soon. Will likewise see what I can do to help with Flann Sinna, though I think you have done a frankly amazing job so far! Have to look up Muirechertach. Was doing a bit for Palladius and Patrick for 17 March, and hope to have that data added to those articles by then. Fergananim 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to ask; what do you think of the new selection I made at Notable Irish people (see Irish people)? Fergananim 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dow

Ok, not sure on how to respond you .... Just editing the page, if not the correct way sorry, but there's no reply button or it isn't very clear on how to respond you.

So there's no private stuff here. Ok, guys, what's going on with you???????!! I'm the webmaster of Bill Dow website and friend of the actor! So yes, I own the copyright of the biography I have put on it and have mentionned "source: www.billdow.net". But someone has deleted that line. No I won't send an email with @billdow.net because there are no emails associated with the domain. I won't continue to waste my time to contribute your site and see it deleted. I have more interesting things to do!

Your RfA

Best of luck with your RfA, I have supported you and I think it is going to reach WP:100, you its only been there some six hours and you already have twenty in support, best of luck for it succeeding and happy editing.Telly addict 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A kind request from WP Films

We have a problem in WP Films lately: Categories and lists of films are being CfD'd and AfD'd and some deleted without any notification in the project page. I see now that Russian Empire films is gone. I wish I would have known in time to explain some things about it. Well, if you see another film related issued being in the process of deletion, could you please notify us? We are doing our best to organize the huge amount of articles, we have started a categorization sub-project, and I think we should have our say in such matters. I know there are still lots of messy and incomplete categories, but I think the best way to sort them out is to first let us know about it. The deletion process can be very helpful (and has often motivated great improvements in leaps), so long as we can participate in it. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For film categories, in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization. For lists in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. The nominator of the CfD * doesn't show clearly in the archived discussion, or I would have asked him/her too. I will post a request at some of the voters anyway. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Leprechaun restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My undeletion was procedural based on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Crichton_Leprachaun, but you could ask the original poster there for more information on why they were looking for the page. Anything that's survived AFD should not go to PROD or A7 speedy, in my view. -- nae'blis 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Orkney

As far as I understand it, the early earls of Orkney are regarded as fictional characters, oft. created by duplicating later figures (e.g. Sigurd the Stout and Sigurd the Mighty). I've never really given Orkney my attention, and haven't mastered the material (hence why I don't touch the Earl of Orkney article) though. From what I see from the article, you're taking the best approach to Ragnvald Eysteinsson that a wikipedian can take ... taking him as you find him; the flaws come in when legendary characters who may be inventions get integrated into larger historical narratives and people forget what the first modern historians actually based their interpretations of events upon. Bottom line, he is a work of fiction just as much as Achilles or Romulus. You can have a section (Reality?) talking about modern historical opinions regarding his existence, but that's about it. Good work and happy editing! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)

BTW Angus, good work on Flann Sinna. Article looks close to being nominatable for FA (though I'm sure you're taking into consideration the ease with which I have sometimes nominated). You realise that those charming homobots are gonna demand an infobox at some stage?! Anyways, best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, check out User talk:David Lauder. Normally I've got to go to the National Library or the Special Collection to get access to that kind of source, but apparently 18th century works are easier to get hold of than our crappy 21st century sources. Wonders will never cease! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCOWNB Participants merger with WP:SCO

As I hope you may have seen I am attempting to tidy up WP:SCOWNB by removing old notices and the duplication that has emerged since the creation of WP:SCO. One of the latter issues is that there are lists of active Wikipedians on both locations which overlap to a significant degree. As WP:SCOWNB is ideally a place for announcements I am in process of merging the lists at WP:SCO and intend to remove the one at WP:SCOWNB when this is complete. However there are a fair number of Users not on both lists. If you do not wish to have you current WP:SCOWNB entry re-appear at WP:SCO please either let me know or edit the latter as appropriate. Thanks for your patience, and continuing support of matters relating to WikiProject Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gormflaith

I saw your name reappearing quite a lot in the edithistory of Brian Boru. I'm a new user on no:wiki, and I have recently translated/rewritten the article on BB to norwegian no:Brian Boru. In the english wiki the text says that Gormflaith was formerly wedded to Mael Sechnaill (as well as to Olav Cuaran) - I can't seem to find verification of that. This marriage is not mentioned in Gormflaith either. If you know anything about this, or could provide me with some hints so as to where to look further, I would be very grateful. I haven't set up a user page here, so please respond if poosible at no:brukerdiskusjon:finnrind. Yours, Finn Rindahl, 22.45 CET —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.88.143.43 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied at no:Brukerdiskusjon:Finnrind#Gorm(f)laith's husbands. I'll update Gormflaith accordingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just what I needed. I don't have any relevant literature at hand myself, and have to base what I do on sources available on the net. You may want to take a look at Battle of Clontarf at some point, it seems to me that the whole article is based on the not enterily historical Njals saga and popular tradition... Again, thank you for your help :-) no:brukerdiskusjon:finnrind. Yours, Finn Rindahl, 23.35 CET 88.88.143.43 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Angus, I had one of those articles (9th century) but had not found the others. I didn't know anything about medieval irish history three weeks ago - and now I'm trying to write encyclopedic articles about it... Now I have got some reading to do :-) Finn R88.88.143.43 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Nothing personal

I know, you are just doing your job and I was wondering why you dont apply for Adminship seeing that you have over 20000 meanigful Edits and BTW I never saw the comment you left for me and yeah I didnt complain about his Wikipedia thingy because he had contributed enough(about 800..hehe) and anyways Iam not the type that fights with other Editors and I always take things in gud Strides and P.S can you archive your talk page pliz because it took me such a long time to wait for your page to open..Iam on Dial-up you Know(56kbps>slowwww)....Cheers..--Cometstyles 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats True but as you might have read in my userpage , Iam form Fiji and here the highest internet speed is 128kbps in Broadband which is so low, but anywayz I managed to do quite well because I only edit on Wikipedia when everyone else in Fiji is sleeping which is why I have managed to get over 5300 edits in just 4 months and yeah its true because I do encounter so much Edit conflict because of the internet speed but as usual I manage, anywayz I hope I can increase my Internet speed connection as as soon as possble..Cheers..--Cometstyles 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I've replied to your posting atWikipedia_talk:Article_inclusion#Reinserted_a_modified_version_of_the_.22over_time.22_sentences_Jossi_deleted. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyderic

See this: Lydéric and Phinaert. I don't know the best way to deal with such articles. Maybe I'll try later, maybe you can merge them. Srnec 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]