User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive IX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ukrainian transliterations

Galicia-Volhynia is transliterated from RUSSIAN. Halych-Volhynia is transliterated from UKRAINIAN. There were periods of time when the UKRAINIAN language was suppressed. People were sent to jail just for publishing in UKRAINIAN hence RUSSIAN transliterations became common in the "ENGLISH" world. Because of this suppression many Ukrainians now are offended by Russian transliteration of Ukrainian place names. Bobanni (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Several notes. Halych-Vohlynia is not' a transliteration of Ukrainian. The latter could be anything like Halychyna-Volyn or Halytsko-Voilynske Kniazivstvo. Halych-Volhynia is a pure (and rare) neologism. Second, the historic oppression of Ukrainianness by various regimes belong to the respective articles and not everywhere some would like to add their grudges. Third, the debates should hinge on the English usage, not what some claim the reasons of such usage is. "Volhynia" is anything but the Russian word, and "Galicia" is also a Polish, and a German word as well. Fourth, Wikipedia is the wrong tool to correct what some seem as "historical injustices". You run for the parliament to do that rather than distort the Encyclopedia to your liking. Last, but not least, "Ukrainians offended" is an outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. --Irpen 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samuil of Bulgaria

Thanks; I have limited time and did not check WT:NCNT. BtW, would you reconsider your opinion on Samuel, which is largely the same problem? The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is strongly, even perversely, anti-Anglicization, and still uses "Samuel"; that's one reason I cited it. I should have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the same problem, though; Halych isn't semi-spurious, either, it really is (modulo a standard transliteration) the way it's spelled in Ukrainian. But it is the case that English always has, for essentially geopolitical reasons, used either Latin Galicia or Russian Galych. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hat tipping

I've just noticed the many historical articles you've created over the past month. Good work; keep at it. You're an asset to the project. DS (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Question

Hi. Thanks I am ok, just quite busy pas few weeks. If I not mistaken names are:

• Гердень>Gerdenis/ (Girdenis);
• Эрдивид>Erdvidas/Gerdvidas.

Cheers, M.K. (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe they are not the same. BTW, in which context you found those names? M.K. (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, also check spelling of Russian names, maybe there is typoses. M.K. (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Princes of Novgorod

The Mstislav Rostislavich who was prince of Novgorod in 1177-1178, died in 1178 and had been Prince of Rostov; he was from the line of Iurii Dolgorukii (that is, a Iurevich) and was known as Mstislav the Eyeless. The Mstislav Rostislavich who was prince of Novgorod in 1179-1180 had been prince of Smolensk, known as Khrabryi (the Brave) and died in 1180. He was a Mstislavich. Both happen to be buried in the cathedral in Novgorod, so with the names and near contemporary reigns, it's all so terribly confusing, but they are not the same man; so the list showing 2nd or 3rd time as prince of Novgorod is inaccurate. I may try to go back and touch that up if I may. I have, in fact, I believe, a better list.--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[1] accessibility,[2] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[3] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britons

That's no problem. I totally agree with you, but thought that the link to Briton was confusing. I've made a suggestion we move Briton to British people at Talk:Briton. I personally think Briton should be a dab page. Of course, there are many, many sources that use the term Briton, for Brits. I wouldn't like to consider if it is quantifiable which (ancient or contemporary) is more prevailent, or dare I say, correct. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please use WP:Requested move instead of G6, thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! That was quick! Whatever the process, it was a good call. My only suprise is that this wasn't actioned before now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, Talk:Briton has retained the old discussions... -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that you wouldn't be able to move it :). Done! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

woopsie I didn't recognize {{db-move}} -I thought it was looking like {{Db-histmerge}}- and I thought you were using {{Db-g6}}! You learn something every day I guess! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David I castles

I've just noticed that Oram (Kings and Queens of Scotland, pp. 62, 63) says that David I established the castles at Elgin, Forres and Inverness — no citation, though. You might want to use that info in your map in the David article. Cheers, Bill Reid | Talk 15:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wales

I've been intrigued, by the Deacon-bot. It's caused me to ask myself this question - When did England & Wales become 'seperate' entities within the United Kingdom. I've no answer for that question. England took over Wales in late 1300's; when did England relinquish control of it? GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I should've read the article. Making a note GoodDay, read the article. That's what they're there for. Anyways, I've chosen to accept nation or country in the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting close to departing from that (Scotland) discussion. It's scary, one momment ya wanna put the Scottish in their place & the next momment, ya wanna defend them. It could cause an editor to crack up, if he takes it too seriously. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a mass confusion, my friend. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Just a heads up - i've nominated you as a potential admin here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

siarach (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just FYI, I have left you a few optional questions, take your time answering. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to offer one bit of advice, don't even think about withdrawing your nomination just because you've had a couple of early opposes. Stick with it and let it play itself out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! If I may offer some advise. I have watched many RfA's. Don't respond to every oppose. That tends to bring peoples' eyes down there (and to it). Let others fight for you and see how it pans out!--Sallicio 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moffat

I take your point. I have used him at Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, mostly checked off with Edwards and Ralston and others. Any comments or corrections are most welcome. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:comments

Well, I do respect you - I think you're one of the sites premium contributors, and sincerely so. I really enjoy the articles you've been involved with. However, as I say, I have found you overly combattive on talk pages. I was going to contact you regarding this today about some of your remarks left at Talk:Scotland, but found a RfA had been initiated.

I have found little evidence that you respect me as a contributor, indeed I'm increasing facing negative behavoir from several close members of WP:SCOTLAND, despite me never have been involved with a POV dispute or edit war or being incivil to any member of the project. On several occations now when I've merely raised a point (not enforce it) for discussion, you've mocked it rather than offer a way forwards and I feel somewhat aggreived by that.

Whether you mean it or not, I do think you come across as very hostile, particularly with me. What concerns me is that it may be because I'm this "British nationalist" (that I've been labeled twice now) that WP:SCOTLAND does not want to see around, again, despite me never forcing or enforcing any such view(s) on any article; it's hard for me to tell. Is this the case? Do I show such views?

I can take the hostility when it's against me, but I'm worried that should you be in a mediation role with others, you may not act in a way that the community would expect, and I'm not sure you've considered that or presented any evidence. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Fourth attempt due to appalling connection) - I believe that the Deacon's contributions are almost always intelligent and well-informed, and have filled many a gaping hole in wikipedia's coverage, particularly in regards to Scottish and historical subject matter. While I do not agree with him on absolutely everything, I believe his common sense and educations will put him in good stead as an administrator. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel reassured by your comments Deacon, and perhaps I have read into the meaning of some comments in a way that they were not intended. That said it does trouble me that this isn't clear in several of your remarks and you may disuade users with little experience to continue editting on Wikipedia. I would've like to have seen you work with the WP:ADOPT scheme really for experience. I feel however that there is now no bad blood between us, and am very pleased that we can move onwards and upwards (I see you as rather like an older cousin that is never impressed!)

I am aggreived at what has been taking place at WP:SCOTLAND. There is systemic bias, categorically, and I sense from several of the "antagonists" behind this, that they recognise it. I'd be unpopular to say it, but much (but by no means all) of Scotland's history and identity is a reaction to its relationship with England. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there's nothing about this on Wikipedia. I want to raise it as a point for discussion, as well as that WP:SCOTLAND has an FAC with Neilston, but I'm totally reluctant to do so as I do not feel welcome.

Anyway, perhaps if you could show some evidence of where you've used mediation skills effectively, I might be inclined to change my feelings at your RfA (though, I think you'll secure it anyway). -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a common, but inaccurate notion. Scots culture consists of far more than this. For example, do you think we celebrate Hogmanay and Burns Night because we all hate English people? Probably no more than British culture is a reaction to Continental incursions... --MacRusgail (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Thanks for the response! I notice you are a bit of a medieval history buff and was wondering what sort of things you were wishing for regarding history. Wrad (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Let me know if you ever need some literary analysis on your articles. Medieval lit is my thing. Wrad (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are right, you know

My Moray University is a very fine institution ;o). BTW,I should have told you yonks back that I had come round to believing good old Freskyn (I like that version of the spelling) was a Fleming! Good luck with RfA. Bill Reid | Talk 09:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity College?

What is the Trinity College being referred to here: "John Dingwell, Provost of Trinity College", at the College of Justice article? If you look at the Trinity College dab page we only list the Glasgow and Glenalmond ones, but they both appear to be modern, not medieval. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been having fun, creating our shiny new Trinity College Kirk article! Please have a peruse. Very interesting topic actually. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unwikified the link to Trinity College above to keep the length of the What links here page under control.--Lang rabbie 07:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! It just got DYK'ed. I certainly did not expect that for a completely new topic for the author (me).

You say: "I see from the links there's a free pic too." Which one exactly (I am useless at copyright etc)? --Mais oui! (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I will take another look, and get back to you in the next few hours. (I have a lunch meeting coming up.) Bearian (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you will do well as a sysop, in the long run, but I feel you need to stop persuing every argument and to stop worrying. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello! Thank you for your barnstar! I really appreciate it!

Artyom has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

–  ARTYOM  16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buchan

I've represented the Companion map which is as the earldom was in John Comyn's time. I believe the barony of Kynedward had been ceded to Ross (I'll need to find where I came by this belief) and the rest was taken into Crown ownership. By his marriage to the Euphemia of Ross, and the reinstatement of Buchan lands owned by the Crown in 1374, I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the earldom lands - reunited with the barony of Kynedward - put the earldom back together again. You've made me think, though, so I'll delve a bit deeper too and see what comes up. Thanks for the nudge. Bill Reid | Talk 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes by 1405 when he died his land holdings were very much reduced; he'd lost Skye, Lewis, Ross itself and his nephew was lording the Dull of Appin but I'm wondering, when he married Euphemia what sort of shape did the earldom have? So if the Crown disposed of much of the forfeited Comyn lands before Alexander became earl, then his holdings would have been mainly the barony of Kynedward. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study at UW

Hi! I'm part of a group at UW in Computer Science trying to make editing in Wikipedia easier. I'd love to talk to you and other Wikipedians in the Seattle area about your practices. You can find my webpage at [4] and email me from there. Kayur (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lothair I and Louis II

Hello. I appreciate your moving the emperors Guy, Lambert, and Berengar back to their non-imperial titles, but I don't know about your moves to Lothair I, Frankish Emperor and Louis II of Italy. First, "Frankish Emperor" is as retrospective as "Holy Roman Emperor" (and Lothair I is unambiguous) if not moreso (it has no official usage). Second, I feel that removing the imperial title from Louis II may deflate his importance and prestige. Further, he wasn't really the second Louis of Italy unless we count Louis the Pious, but he gave the kingdom to Lothair upon dispossessing Bernard. If you can't stomach "Holy Roman Emperor" (I can, but I empathise), then might I suggest the (virtually) unambiguous "Lothair I" and "Louis II, Emperor of Italy", which he was called contemporaneously (if not by himself)? Cheers. Srnec (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free 7 March

Sorry, only a few minutes a day on WP at the moment. I'll try to remember after my deadline. Tony (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter de Coventre

Looked in Fasti and there is also a Thomas de Coventre at the same time as Walter. Rgds. Bill Reid | Talk 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yaropolk Izyaslavich

On 3 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yaropolk Izyaslavich, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see many sources mentioning him, and nothing that appears like a dedicated article/page (after a cursory glance). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, than asking at WP:PWNB may be your best bet.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi there,I'm new to wiki and hope I'm not bothering you,but i've noticed that on all the Scotland related pages there are people intent on pushing the words british or uk into as many paragraphs as they can which I'm afraid irritates me a little.How do you deal with these people,let them win or constantly fight over it?--Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my congratulations too. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, gratz. siarach (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got my party hat & my noise makers. Congratulations, Administrator Deacon. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I know you will use the office wisely and fairly. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good to see it was successful. Congrats. - Shudde ^talk 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I wish you the best in your wielding of mop & bucket. --SSBohio 05:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. Bill Reid | Talk 09:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CornGRADuLAtions!--Sallicio 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Nice thanks message. Deserves a CDB, definitely! :) Congrats, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add my congrats too, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1st order of business

Hello, Admin Deacon! I placed a delete tag on this article five days ago. Can you send it to fiery demise, please? Mahalo!--Sallicio 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WOO HOO! What a team!--Sallicio 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Congratulations on winning (sorry, I sound like a spam email here!). Thanks for the offer, but I'm afraid I'm perhaps too much of a hothead sometimes! I've got too much controversy behind me, although most of the time, I'm just interested in getting info onto the page...

I'm glad that people such as yourself and Kathryn NicDhana have adminship now, as we have long needed people who actually know what they're talking about in Scottish contexts... and we need some "better read" people in charge of wikipedia. I know you edit more than just Scottish articles, but this is obviously the area in which I tend to come across your work.

I think it's time wikipedia started becoming a reliable, respectable, literate source, instead of a laughing stock, and I think you'll do your best to ensure it is. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is excellent news! I would have supported you if I had known you had been nominated. Congratulations! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I'm glad to hear of your success. Lradrama 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey great news you are an admin! Make sure you put a {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} box in your user page. --Kuban Cossack 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, ThisIsaTest: that user has been blocked many times. :) Acalamari 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on your RfA

A wee drop of one of these might beat the crappy T-shirt somewhat.

My congratulations too on your successful result. You made it in the end, although it was a bit tight. I have to say that some of the opposition voices were a bit harsh, particularly around the dreaded "question 8", but the the RfA regulars can be an odd bunch. What any policy page says at any particular month or time of day often seems to depend on the wind direction and phase of the moon. Like most things in life it's a matter of common sense and balance, cool down blocks do have some limited use but rarely for established editors (IMHO). Anyway, good luck with the new tools.

Best wishes --Cactus.man ✍ 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very active these days, so I did not notice your RfA (I would of course have added my support if I had). Thanks for being willing to use that mop as well as writing articles, and congrats on receiving the deserved support of the community. Happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum and what is in there

Okay, casting about wildly, trying to find out a source for my one remaining issue with Gerard, Archbishop of York. (Yeah, I know. It's an Archbishop of York, I get bored with Archbishops of Canterbury sometimes) Down in the legacy section, someone put in that some of his verses are preserved in the British Museum. The ODNB doesn't mention such a thing. None of my other sources say it either. I hate to lose the information, since I'm pretty sure it's possible, but I have no idea how to verify the information. Any ideas/clues/pointers? Oh, and thankee much for the barnstar! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Thanks for the welcome!--Jack forbes (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neilston - Thanks

Thanks for this, it is very much appreciated. I didn't know a notice had been posted. The article was successfully promoted yesterday however. I was raised there until I was around 7 and have not been back since sadly. Researching the area for the article brought back alot of memories.

Now I hope to get hold of some translators and a Spoken Wikipedia contributor to enhance the content beyond en. I also hope to get a couple more images too.

On another note, I must congratulate on adminship. Though I opposed, I did so tactically, purely to highlight a single area of concern; I sincerely believe you will be a great, fair and trusted administator and wish you every success with the tools. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move close

I noticed you closed the move proposal at Bender. Shouldn't moves be decided on arguments, rather than votes? I mean: two of the guys who opposed it said they support it based on the argumentation of the third. But his argumentation has been proved wrong. It should be noted that the one providing the false argumentation, called an user who acknoweldges he's a Romanian "patriot"/"nationalist" to vote in this matter see here. I'll let you guess what was this guy's vote.Xasha (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fork

Just to inform you that wikipedia is going to be flooded with several POV fork articles. I have no idea why any specific rule has not been imposed till now for preventing creation of different article on same subject. A discussion is going on regarding this POV fork phenomenon in wikipedia about Historical persecution by Christians. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive

Hi,

In your oppinion to the vote in Biruitorul's RfA, you mentioned the discussion in Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, that I followed, but did not take part in. Could you, please, read my oppinion expressed now over there. My point is: if Biruitorul would simply want to keep the existing name of that article, he won't be interested to ask questions, the answer to which brings one more step closer to renaming the article.

I have very serious disagrements with Biruitorul on articles relating to religion. I am pro-ecumenist, he is anti-ecumenist. When it comes to what is right and what is wrong, I am intolerant of anti-, and he is intolerant of pro-. Yet, I have him in mind to develop the articles that will reflect the ecumenic problem in reference not only to Romania, but (to expand them) also in general to Christianity. You know why? Because I can trust that when I present him one by one the arguments of the pro-ecumenic side, he won't dismiss them, but will introduce them in the articles, he even will help me source them. He can be trusted to present all arguments, fair and honest, even when it toutchs problems of a personally very sensitive nature. I trust that from doing this with Biruitorul, the presentation of the ro-ecumenic/anti-ecumenic questions would benefit the most: I will use his professionalism and dedication to achieve a more comeplete presentation. I am convinced that I am right because of logical soundness, likewise him. The best chance I have to "convert" him is in a scholarly discussion, likewise he has.

Being a convinced Romanian patriot, or nationalist, his sysopship, if it would happen, would have the most dreadful consequences upon the Romanian extremist editors, because he can say to them things others cann't, he can demolish not only their POV-ish edits, but also their self-confidence. When he'll see a tendencious edit in one article, he will know where to expect the next. Biruitorul is convinced in the soundness of his opinions, and he knows that the correctness and justice of something can be better revealed only when all opinions, all information are presented fair and equal, when the reader can make the logical conclusions for him/herself, when the reader is not told directly what is right and what is wrong.

The Romanian extremist editors whom Biru will be blocking are not convinced of the soundness of their opinions, they simply heared them from someone. When one says he believes A is right, but then continues, adds some utter non-sense, and becomes extremist, it is a clear sign that that person's belief could be anything, but logical soundness. Such people make extreme POV edits, are vandalizing. The best they can do is profit from the fact that WP is freely-editable to push a POV. The last thing they want is a person believeing A is right (without the extremist non-sense) telling them of the logical soundness and necessity of all oppinions to be presented. They feel idiots.

Biruitorul will not only prevent them from pushing POV. After being admonished by Biruitorul, they will know they are idiots and extremist, that WP can effectively defend against their idiotism and their extremism. They will be disappointed, and would be less likely to come back to WP. Similarly, it should be Irpen and Mikkalai who should do the same thing with Soviet nostalgic extremists (I mean the extremists, not Soviet nostalgics, which Irpen and Mikkalai are, and I see no problem with that.)

I hope I did not take too much of your time. Best regards, Dc76\^talk 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Chechnya

Keep an eye out for the POV attack the article is undergoing. --Kuban Cossack 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture, society and the battle between pianomakers for a place in royal palaces

Hi, Deacon,

My congratulations on your successful RfA.

Would you like to give your prospective on this rarely discussed topic: Competition for a place in royal palaces between high-end piano makers Blüthner, Bechstein, Bosendorfer, and Steinway, and how their rivalry contributed to improvements in piano industry. In 1885 Bechstein became the supplier of Queen Victoria. A gilded art-case piano was first delivered to the Buckingham Palace, then several more Bechstein pianos were delivered to the Windsor Castle and to other royal residences.

Piano makers has been wooing royalty and major stars, because public would be more interested in buying a piano that is associated with a celebrity.

Can you help with information/images of pianos at the Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and other royal residencies. Any information regarding Bechstein's property in London, including the Wigmore Hall, that was confiscated as "Enemy property" with accusations of "German spying" during WWI.

I also started discussions on talk pages for Blüthner, Bechstein, Bosendorfer, and Steinway.

Your contribution would be highly appreciated.

Steveshelokhonov 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aethelred's burial place

Hi -- I was wondering if you might know of a source for Bardney as the burial place of Æthelred of Mercia. An earlier editor gave "Stancliffe" as a source; presumably Clare Stancliffe, who I see referenced as an author in this area. I can't find a source, though. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it -- it's in the ASC, of all places; can't think why I didn't look there first. Well, third, after Bede and the Life of Wilfrid. Anyway, I have it now. Sorry to have bothered you! Mike Christie (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for raising your concerns. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skye comments

The comments on the WPSI template at Talk:Skye vanished. This is not an issue of any significance as I found a diff and replaced them at [[5]], but I am curious. I assume that the move confused the bot. From your, by now doubtless detailed, understanding of administrative procedures, do you know if that's likely to be true? If it's not what happened there may be a glitch somewhere else. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA - Toddst1

Hi Deacon of Pndapetzim, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop. Of course, special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since you moved the article

Perhaps you'd like to comment at Talk:Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania#Title. I believe the original shorter name, as used in 99% of sources, is better (no need for dashes one way or another :).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you said, it is out of line with existing articles like Holocaust in Poland and others. Should we move those? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also one more reason for why the article's name is not correct: in Lithuania, it could be argued, the Holocaust started before the Germans arrived and took firm control (and thus occupied the country). Ex: "In Lithuania, before the Nazis arrived, there were at least 40 pogroms in as many Jewish communities." True, that was just a small prelude, but as various sources I cited noted, at that time power was seized by the Lithuanian Nazi extrimists, who tried to 'look good' before the Germans arrived (hoping for their support for restoration of Lithuanian independence) and who started anti-Jewish riots before Germans took firm control; those actions are considered a part of the Holocaust (ex. Porat wrote: "After the first stage of indiscriminate murder by the Lithuanians in July 1941, the Germans established the police battalions and planned a second stage"). Further, limiting the scope of the article (as another editor did by "claryfing" in lead (in contradiction to all the sources) that the Holocaust took place not in Lithuania but in Generalbezirk Litauen - estabilished by Germans almost a month after the invasion, and when tens of thousands of Jews had already died) - is rather not helpful, to put it mildly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support changing the name of Holocaust in Poland article. The problem is that some foreigners foolishly believe that Poles were somehow behind the Polish Camp Auschwitz. BBC reported once "However, Polish officials have become unsettled by media references to Auschwitz as a "Polish concentration camp"". --Doopdoop (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I also don't care that much about the title; there are more important issues - such as attempts by some users to "whitewash" certain portions of this (and other) articles, which I believe deserve much more of our attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes please

Please delete the redirect and restore the original title. I have nothing against proper procedure and changing the title after Request for Move is made.--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Molobo (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zedla RfA

Sorry for the delay but just want to drop a quick note saying thanks for participating in my RfA which passed and closed earlier this week. Despite your opposition I'm keeping everyone's comments about rounding out my experience in mind -- it's certainly something I hope to be spending more time on. If you have any comments I'm always open to the counsel of others. Sincerely – Zedla (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DEA

Hey dude. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't personal in the reply to your commentary on DEA's RfA. I think you have a stellar point, which should be digested by the community in whole. And I applaud you for bravestakingly taking the first oppose spot. I just wanted to point out some things. Since seeing your opposition to Admins who don't contribute materially, I have taken it upon myself to add to and create articles. If you would please review some of my article creations at a later point, it would be greatly appreciated. You seem like an editor who knows the ropes.--InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RE - Maybe later? Right now I'm trying to get the article submission stuff down. You know I've always used Wiki on projects, but I never knew until recently about all this stuff. So, I'm just trying to be in good standing I guess. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFPP

Hiya - I've commented on your request. Just a quickie, but new requests go at the top of the page (the bot moves completed requests to the bottom of the page prior to archiving). Thanks! _GB^T/C 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

OK, well, I was looking for something a bit different to get my teeth into, and a dispute over a small Scottish island seems as good a place to start. Shall I offer my services as an informal mediator on the article's talk page to get this thing resolved? _GB^T/C 20:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice?

Hi, I have come to you for a bit of advice! I was checking out user boxes to put on my page and noticed the code for "I am associated with Scotland" was talks to socks which I find very insulting as it obviously means sweaty socks! I have stated on the discussion page that I will remove it unless the code is changed ( If I could I would do it myself!). Would I be breaking some kind of rule if did?--Jack forbes (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, I know you did not answer my question, but that does not matter. You may or may not have noticed the few edits I have made have been pro Scottish. I may sound POV at times though it is not intended. If you want to take the time to look at my userpage you will see where I come from politcally! I can't change my politics but will try to give opinions in a constructive and persuasive way rather than pushing it down peoples throats.(its not easy when a person is so fervant about their politics) but I will try! Anyway, I'm sure if I do someone will let me know!--Jack forbes (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

Hey man. I was just reverting vandalism, and this guy attacked me for inserting hidden text. I inserted it in an effort to stall the relentless acts on Pythagoras. The User said he was an admin/sysop. View the attack on my user talk page. Help if you can. Thanks. Oh, and could you watch Pythagoras? --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yo. And Glacier's a chick. Surprised me too. Just got huggle. A whole new world? --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Someone new just dropped a whole pile of text on Richard Aungerville and overwrote a bunch of stuff in the process. I'm hesitant to just wipe it out with rollback, because it's not vandalism, but I have no clue how to fix it. Help me Mr. Admin! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm too tired to be civil tonight! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re. Re:Comments on Twaz' talk page

Thanks for the trout. Next time, I think I'll have it with some Béchamel sauce! Cheers, Glacier Wolf 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, I was trying to make a joke. This is not meant in bad faith. :) Cheers, Glacier Wolf 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the Barnstar

Dear Deacon of Pndapetzim, I am an a little bit strange person when it comes to Barnstars, but since I just met you, obviously you did not know about this. I have a personal conviction against any kind of medals, etc that are assigned any other way than post-mortem. And barnstars do look like medals. In the past, I have never received, nor awarded any barnstar (with one truely exceptional case, in which I co-subscribed). However, receiving this from you, while it was very obvious to anyone we disagred so much in that RfA, is really remarkable. If you would allow me, I would like to keep it, but not as a barnstar (so that I do not brake my principle); I would like to keep it as a sign of sincerety on your part, if I may.

I hope very much that the debate on the RfA was a wrong start, and that you will have the chance to see in the future Biruitorul's qualities as a Wikipedian. I am convinced that if you would interact with him more, you would change your mind about trusting him. I am sure that like other editors I know, you also despise the idea that WPedians have to be split along ethno-political lines. No matter what ups-and-down await the EE/CE affairs in the future, you can definitevely consider this line of communication continuously open. I don't know how much influence I would have, but when there is any conflict, I would definitevely like to help prevent it from escalating. Best to you.Dc76\^talk 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:David,larry.JPG

The image was deleted from the Commons today by ABF on the grounds that it was a copyright violation. There's a robot operating there called CommonsDelinker which should go around and remove the image from enwiki soon. :-) east.718 at 22:39, March 17, 2008

[edit] Temp:Irrel

Honestly, I'm not sure how something where 9 of 14 expressed their opinion for delete can be "bizaare". Generally, templates such as that should not be around unless there is a strong reason to have them. We have very cluttered articles anyway when it comes to tags. So we need good reason to add new tags such as this one. And honestly, I just don't see it. It's much easier to handle things such as this on talk pages. Adding any tag that ends with "?" comes off as aggressive, so it could add to edit wars. I just don't see any very good reasons for it. There are just much better ways of handling such situations. Plus, as I said, 9 of 14 is a good rough consensus. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure if the IRC thing really should be that big of a consideration. The one thing you can say is that the users that chimed in on it are some of our most experienced users. Anyway, if you really feel like I'm in error here, you can go to deletion review. I'm not infallible. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your strong support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Yep, I intend to keep on writing while I'm an admin. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ya don't get a thanks for participating in my RfA

Naw, just kidding.

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the really tough question actually. I was certain of your oppose based on your comment to MoP, but I had to say what I felt anyways. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Hello Deacon. I'm growing concerned about that article. I've recently noticed that the European Map (at the top of the article) doesn't shade in the rest of the UK (as it does at England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles). This 'lack of shading' gives the impression that Scotland is independant. Nation was adopted by that article & now this questionable map, while AGF I fear for what will be next. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say, GD, but statements like "I fear for what will be next." are incredibly bad faith - indeed it is nothing but absolute FUD. SFC9394 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're right SFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go back to sticking to your advice Deacon. I'm staying away from the Scotland article. Apparently 'outsiders' aren't welcomed there. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess there for sure. They gave me a combination Chuck Norris/Charles Bronson treatment (karate chops & flying bullets), ouch. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is gradually turning into a Wiki tragedy, for all. PS- I agree with your protecting the article; I hope things don't get too personal at the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twice

Well, thats's twice I've been ignored! must be great being an admin! Farewell wikipedia!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted it!--Jack forbes (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a bit of an a*****e! You won't hear from me again but I will hang about wilepidia!--Jack forbes (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet holocaust

I'm concerned about your apparent early closure of the discussion and reasoning for deletion, particularly since redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, according to WP:RFD#KEEP, or why you would think usage of the term "holocaust" offensive in this context, since the term also has other meanings beyond the Shoah, such as "any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life" [6]. I also think that 55 Google book hits [7], 32 Google scholar hits [8] and 4670 Google web hits [9] shows that the term is sufficiently established to be a likely search term. I thought the proposal to re-target the redirect to the Great Purge was a reasonable one, and one other agreed. I even suggested creation of a disamb page may be a better approach, since a portion of the Google book hits seemed to be related to the Nazi perpetrated Holocaust on Soviet soil, while another portion seemed to be related to the period of the Great Purge. With only one concurring with the nominator for deletion, I don't see there was consensus for deletion. So do you think you should reconsider this, or shall I take it to deletion review? Martintg (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recusants

I recently undertook a GA review of Emery Molyneux - an excellent article. An unresolved conundrum remains you may be able to help with - or suggest someone who can. The text reads: "as part of measures to defend the south coast of England from recusants". I am assured that this is verifiable, but it isn't clear to me why the English coast needed to be defended from attack by the English recusants. Were there perhaps recusants in France plotting invasion? A happy Easter to you and yours. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elgin Cathedral

Thanks for putting the template on. Didn't know anything about the league of copy editors but I will put a few other articles on there now for a spring clean. (Looks as if Walter de Coventre is just about there). Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 13:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exactly

Hello,

I have tried to keep the discussion about Ukrainian Nationalism as focussed on that topic as possible. It seems to have become a hodge-podge of whatever anybody knows about history. Unfortunately, people who want to obfuscate East European history try to do it everywhere - I would hope to keep that discussion page as succinct as possible. Let's.

With respect to nationalism, I think that it is important to differentiate between the modern notion of the 'nation state' and the idea of allegiance to the land, an idea, or commonality. The feelings that have recently become known as nationalism have existed throughout history. People don't change much. I think it's important that the article reflect that Kyiv was the ancient capital up to which everybody in that part of the world looked. And that changed in 1240.

Sorry to use your talk page as a discussion, but this is not directly connected to the Ukrainian Nationalism article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To see why this thinking is a continuing problem on Wikipedia, please see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism and User:Moreschi/The Plague. Relata refero (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I am asking whether WP:IE should have a barnstar for members and ordinary users who contribute a lot to it. i have a design for the barnstar if it is created on my computer so all I ask is should I create this barnstar? Yours sincerely --Markreidyhp 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 How many do you think there should be???Markreidyhp 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ok but it's no good what so ever i'm not good at drawing.

Markreidyhp 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long story

You think I haven't tried? All I ever got in return were more insults. There was even an arbitration. Sanctions have been issued, and I believe they should be enforced. It's as simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Content creation? Do check over his contribs, and compare amount of content created to disruptive comments on talk. I hate wikidramu, and I would not have posted to AE if I did not think it was necessary for the good of the project. But yes, I prefer editors to be unblocked, everybody has a potential to help the project, and I would be quite satisfied with a simple warning and Lokyz showing remorse and promising not to be incivil in the future. Alas, I fear that the current result will only convince him his behavior is fully acceptable. After all, what is a warning every few months, if no block can be issued? In the end, warnings are too often just moot words, and nothing more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tech Tip

If you want a quick computer generated translation use "http://translate.google.com/translate_t". It does a reasonable(not perfect) Russian --> English translation. Good Luck Bobanni (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard de Linton

I did read somewhere that there were two Bernards who are sometimes mistaken for one another. I'm merely going by the resources I've read. I'll try and clarify. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to clarify and get some sources but I'm still confused. Bernard de Linton, Abbot of Arbroath was not the same as Bernard, Abbot of Kilwinning. But the same Bernard who was rector of the church of Mordington in 1296 is mentioned as the Chancellor of Scotland in 1307. I'm sorry I'm not an expert in the subject, just an interested reader. Can you tell me what needs to be changed or included in the article? Thanks. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated! ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question:

Are you the former User Calcagus ?--Molobo (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revolving FACs

I've removed your re-nomination of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre/archive1, made only hours after it was archived. The nomination had several serious opposes; please take time to address them before re-nominating, and pls be aware that reversing a premature nom takes a number of edits and a lot of time. There are some helpful tips about how to locate peer reviewers, and get an effective peer review at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing/archiving a FAC gives you an opportunity to address serious concerns raised and come back for a clean pass after you've consulted with opposers, addressed issues, and perhaps requested they visit a peer review to resolve concerns without time pressure. Re-opening a FAC within hours of it being archived may alienate and discourage reviewers from supporting, since they may have just put a lot of work into a critique of the article and feel their work was disrespected. Leaving nominations at the FAC page indefinitely just isn't practical, as other articles deserve equal time; when an article is archived, time should be taken to address the issues before bringing it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Deacon, it's a busy day what with April Fools mainpage and other vandalism, but I wanted to quickly catch up and say I hope you're feeling more optimistic today :-) Please do re-nom as soon as you've touched bases with the previous Opposers; I'm sure it will do fine. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki surprise

You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

APRIL FOOLSMarkreidyhp 07:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)