User talk:An Siarach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. /Archive 1:Earliest discussion up to 14/5/06
  2. /Archive 2:Discussion from 14/5/06 - 26/9/06
  3. /Archive 3:Discussion from 26/9/06 - 16/3/07
  4. /Archive final :Discussion from 16/3/07 -
Please leave any messages below :

Contents

[edit] Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to say anything on these matters. Siarach, I gotta say discovering you've left is really a huge blow to my morale. I hope time will bring you back; but when one needs to go, I've discovered, one needs to go - it's kinda like a relationship. I completely understand. I hope time will bring you back; much of your expertise isn't currently replaceable, and your departure will make many bad forces on wiki stronger. I hope gd-wiki will still keep you occupied. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've come across frustrations on Wikipedia aswell over these past 2-plus years (see 'Diacritics'), but I'm still hangin' around. Please reconsider. I don't like seeing established editors packing up & leaving. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Absolute Noob question

I'm no good at it either, but I went and did to it what I did to the Spes Scottorum song. BTW, regarding the Book of the Dean of Lismore, yeah they always say that the "non-Gaelic" orthography there based on English orthography and yeah putting anything else in an article would be against WP:OR, but that script isn't English orthography, it's pretty much the standard Latin orthography used to write English, French and most other languages in western Europe. Essentially starry-eyed historians of Gaelic think the only way Gaelic ought ever to have been written is in standard Irish orthography, so that any medieval Gaelic speaking scribe not trained in the idiosyncratic literacy of Ireland but trained in Latin has to be "UnGaelic" and influenced by English; hence most pre-modern written Scottish Gaelic cannot ever be true written Gaelic, which is quite a paradox if you think about it. Argh ... I'm ranting I believe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The charter is unique in being the only land charter extant to have been written in the Gaelic language
The claim is at least controversial:
Ro báid Colbán in mormér Buchan & Éua ingen Garnait a ben phústa, & Donnachac mac Síthig tœsech Clenni Morgainn, na h-uli edbarta ri Dia & ri Drostán & ria Colum Cilli & ri Petar apstal, ó na h-ulib dolaidib, ar chuit cetri dabach don-í thíssad ar ard-mandaidib Alban cu cotchenn & ar a h-ard-chellaib. Testibus his:- Bróccín, & Cormac abb Turbruaid, & Morgunn mac Donnchid, & Gilli-Petair mac Donnchaid, & Mal-Fæchín, & dá mac Matni, & mathe Buchan huli 'n-a fiaidnaisse i nHelain.
There are more of those in the margins of the Book of Deer (hence extant); there are a bunch of charters from St Serf's Inch translated "from an old book in the Scottish language" also extant (11th & early 12th cent; trans. prob. late 12th cent.); their Gaelic originals are not extant, but they are extant charters which were written in Scottish Gaelic. Just explaining my edit. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fernaig manuscript

Updated DYK query On 15 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fernaig manuscript, 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.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:the old, the middle, the classical and the new

I wish I could give you a response that'd make you happier, but I don't see that achieving success. Prolly the best chance is moving Early Modern Irish to Classical Gaelic. Angr at least will fight you tooth and nail, he's the main protector of the current names, but he would just be the tip of the iceberg. Funny thing is that Scottish writers use Old Gaelic, Middle Gaelic and Classical Gaelic, but their usage will almost certainly be regarded as "not mainstream". Maybe a series of parallel articles on Scottish Gaelic could work, but Angr is a big believer in late Gaelic diversion, and you'd prolly be accused of WP:POV forking. BTW, here's an e-book for you: Mìorun Mòr nan Gall. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|3RR was not broken as the admin responsible for the block admits himself in the explanation which accompanied the block "4 reverts in ~25 hrs". Of course this wouldnt be a violation of 3RR even if it were true and as it was there were 3 reverts in total, not 4.}}

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It appears that you've been unblocked, by the blocking admin. See your block log for details.

Request handled by: SQLQuery me! 11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol ... this is funny. I hope this block was an accident. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the fact the admin responsible managed to state that i wasnt guilty of 3RR in his comment explaining why he was blocking me for 3RR i wont hold my hopes up. siarach (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
He claimed in the comments that you made four reverts. Inaccurate, yes, but indicates he believed you'd violated it. Has he communicated with you at all, or did being blocked just come as a nasty surprise? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No communication. Logged on and as soon as i tried to edit it popped up saying i was blocked. Quite frankly considering that the admin responsible had blocked me despite the fact i hadnt broken 3RR by any stretch of the imagination (even if 3RR wasnt restricted to edits within 24 hours i still hadnt gone over 3 in the 25 hrs he states) i thought it would probably be a waste of time contacting the admin himself. Hopefully one of the increasingly rare honest and competent ones will have a look at the situation and sort it otherwise il have to wait until tomorrow to respond to Angr. siarach (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have been unblocked. I hope Merovingian apologises. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(u)(ec)By the way, FWIW, it may help you in the future, to look at 3RR as an electric fence, instead of an entitlement. In other words, running an edit war right up to 3RR, is often looked upon as gaming the system, especially if done repeatedly. Not saying that's happened here, I haven't even looked over the situation, just trying to offer friendly advice based on the comments above. SQLQuery me! 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fair enough but the problem with that kind of philosophy is the potential for double standards. For example i was blocked while the user with whom i was engaged in a dispute was not despite having committed 3 reverts in an even shorter period of time than myself. The difference being of course that this user is also an admin and thus seems to be allowed a lot more leeway when it comes to flexible interpretations (or in this case simply literal) of the rules. siarach (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Also, as an aside, this really does look like 3 reverts to basically the same version to me [1] [2] [3] [4]. Just barely outside 24h on the third. SQLQuery me! 11:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

Deacon of Pndapetzim came to me about your block, and I reassessed the situation. I had misinterpreted your first "revert", which wasn't a revert really, so that only gave you three. I don't really think you need a lecture on edit warring or anything, but I've unblocked you. Also, please forgive me for neglecting to give you a word or two about the block. As I told Deacon of Pndapetzim, I don't do a lot of blocking related to serious issues on a regular basis, just run-of-the-mill throwaway vandal accounts from time to time. --Merovingian (T, C) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Happy editing! --Merovingian (T, C) 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relative clause

I was on the Relative clause site and noticed under the celtic languages section it had examples from both Irish and Welsh, but no Scottish Gaelic. Being a fluent scottish Gaelic speaker I was wondering if you could add a couple of examples if tis not too much trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic Harper (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Macrimmons

Thanks for that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Siarach ... that's very good of you. I appreciate your vote of confidence. I guess I'll ... well ... have to accept and go through that vote thing. Nice to see you're back now and editing again. All the best! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to List of countries by formation dates

I notice you haven't responded to my last question. Did you bother reading the sources before deleting them? TharkunColl (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Err a reply within 6 minutes wasnt fast enough for you? Not that i should really have bothered as anyone so detached from reason as to think the edit youre trying to enforce is in any way defensible or sound is hardly open to persuasion by facts or rational argument. With regard to sources - as with many other articles (the Safavid dynasty was and probably still is a prime example) sources are not the problem but the blatant misuse and mis-interpration of them. siarach (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Athelstan received the submission of all the other British kings, including Constantine of Scotland. He assumed the title King of All Britain. If this doesn't count, then please go and change all the other entries on that list that use similar criteria. TharkunColl (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPSI Collaboration

The current Scottish Islands Collaboration of the Month is Bass Rock
The previous collaboration was Mainland, Orkney.

Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberate political POV pushing

Please change all the other countries on List of countries by formation dates, and rewrite the introduction to say that it is states that are listed, rather than geographical territories. If not, your agenda is blatantly obvious. Athelstan was accepted as ruler of Britain by the other rulers on the island. Just like Odoacer was ruler of the Italian peninsula, etc. etc. etc. TharkunColl (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG My RFA
Thank you muchly for your support in and your nomination for (!) my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!

Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neilston

Hello,

I believe you contribute recordings to the Spoken Wikipedia project? I was wondering if there was any chance I could persuade you into doing a recording for Neilston - a new featured article?

I would be eternally grateful if you could. I've approached yourself specifically as I imagine, as a Scotsman, you have the appropriate accent!

Neilston also has no interwiki translation, and didn't know if you do Gaelic translations for gd.wikipedia.org too?-- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

I can has mop?
 Hi An Siarach! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).
I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being
an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.
Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fernaig manuscript

Hi Siarach. Do you have any other Scottish manuscripts such as the above listed anywhere? I am compiling a number of ones from Ireland. Fergananim (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're missed

You're missed, Siarach. Are higher things drawing you away from the Great Soapbox, or have you just had your love of the place killed? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I do hope we'll get to keep you in the end. You have expertise which is not likely to be replaced, and you are a sensible guy in general. You are right, tendency to advocate intelligent things is not the most useful of survival traits on wiki (you can check my contribs for an RfA where this is sadly being proved), so maybe either being more calculating or leaving is the only way. But as long as guys like you, Angus, MacRusgail, and so many others are here, I feel I can probably hack it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. This article has been left unchallenged for quite some time now and the most amazing thing is that it provided no sources for the claims therein. I think that it needs the touch of an expert--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)