User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VIII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Irish articles assessments 2 I'm sorry 3 David I 4 Good break? 5 Boat sunk 6 Earls of March numbering 7 Did you know... 8 GA review of Davidian Revolution 9 Quotation 10 Inchkeith 11 Image:DavidianCumbria-en.svg 12 John Stewart, Duke of Albany 13 Did you know 14 Bishop and Pomona 15 Articles 16 Did you know 17 Kingdom of Scotland 18 Did you know 19 DYK 20 Scottish bishops 21 Lunch? 22 Thanks Irpen 23 Yay 24 DYK: Thomas de Dundee 25 An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Albin of Brechin, was selected for DYK! 26 DYK 27 award 28 M' Michael vs Mc Michael 29 Buckquoy spindle-whorl 29.1 "Orcadians are descended from the very earliest English inhabitants of the British Isles" 30 Fingon? 31 Scottish Islands project 32 Notes? 33 Perth, Western Australia 34 Abernethy 35 Barrow article 36 Imperial triple crown jewels 37 Lymphad 38 C[au|a|on|u][s][t]antín mac Áeda 39 Names of early British historical figures 40 Duff 41 Disputes 42 Long time no see 43 A note of appreciation 44 Civility 45 Hundason 46 Non english in talk pages 47 Compromise 48 Your attitude 49 Scottish kings 50 Move requests 51 Your comments 52 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MorayPicts.jpg 53 Scottish monarchs 54 Monarchs discussion 55 Clancy paper 56 Current proposal 57 The Wallace 58 Anglo-Saxon maps 59 Emperors 60 Ms 61 Absolute Noob question 62 Nicholas de Balmyle 63 Re: Albin of Brechin 64 Albin again 65 Re Dean of Moray 66 Thomas de Rossy 67 Gaelic and Irish 68 Andrew Forman 69 Block of User:An Siarach 70 Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill 71 Malcolm III 72 Sources 73 DYK 2008-01-23 74 Language stuff 75 Minor edits 76 Formats 77 Please stop 78 Numerals and Nicknames 79 Aed 80 Talk:British Isles 81 Suggested RMs 82 Scottish settlement naming 83 DYK 84 Your GA nomination of Thomas de Dundee 84.1 Your GA nomination of Thomas de Dundee 85 Your GA nomination of Thomas de Buittle 85.1 Your GA nomination of Thomas de Buittle 86 Your GA nomination of Nicholas de Balmyle 86.1 Your GA nomination of Nicholas de Balmyle 87 Renaming 88 From Benkenobi18 88.1 Roman Catholic Dioceses of Great Britain 88.2 Edits 88.3 Great Britain 89 Hear hear! 90 Discussion 91 Invitation to pass comment at Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 92 Aldfrith note 93 Alexander Bur 94 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg 95 Hello again 96 Fettes College 97 Talk British isles 98 Northampton

[edit] Irish articles assessments

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

• The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?

• The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?

• Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?

• As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.

• Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm sorry to hear you have given up on wikipedia for the most part. I certainly hope that our scuffle was a contributory factor. I am rather fed up of wikipedia myself. It was not my wish for you to be blocked, nor was it mine to be blocked myself twice in one day! No hard feelings I hope. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David I

Hi, now you have this image you can replace [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/David I|here]]. Bye! Kordas 11:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good break?

Good to see you back. I wondered who the Kinloss abbot would be. As you have noticed, I'm having a go at Dryburgh Abbey but I'm doing the rest of it off-line and will probably re-write what I've written todate - been image gathering but if you've got any, I'd appreciate you adding them. B Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 08:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boat sunk

I do hope you are back! Whilst I was not paying attention Image:McdonaldBoat.jpg has been deleted, so throwing the islands infobox into disarray. Any chance of a salvage job? Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earls of March numbering

Well I'm afraid that I would believe both Joseph Bain and Anderson before I'd believe someone called Fiona Watson (whoever she is) whether or not she managed an entry (out of millions) in the latest DNB. Anderson gives a very good and careful account of this family as does Bain. David Lauder 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

On 9 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas de Rossy, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Davidian Revolution

Hello there. I've just completed a review of your GA nomination for the article Davidian Revolution. As you'll see, I've placed the article on hold due to a series of style issues, which can be resolved in a relatively short period of time. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol · Talk 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind giving you extra time, but can I get a ballpark? The project prefers seven days in general. – Scartol · Talk 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

Davidian Revolution - "the towns and burghs of the Scottish realm are known o be inhabited by English". Assuming the 't' has been missed out? --Bill Reid | Talk 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have the images, thanks; need to expand some of the sections to get them to fit in. Working on that but also about to start a long wiki-break so I'll probably briefly return for that. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inchkeith

You've removed referenced material on this article (again). Please discuss this, and explain what makes this reference source invalid, something which you have yet to do. If you're not prepared to discuss this with the wikipedians who disagree with you, and explain why you insist on removing this material, then please stop removing it. Thanks. njan 23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to be resolved through continual reverting. There obviously isn't agreement here, and you can see for yourself that I'm not the only one who disagrees with you - two other users have posted concerns about the removal of this content from the Inchkeith article, and have reintroduced this referenced material.

I'm sure you value your time as much as I do - please stop wasting both of our time, and discuss this. I'm sure you and I, and the other contributors to the article, can come to an amicable agreement here regarding how this content is used. As mentioned, you have yet to explain on what basis you're removing this content, other than just telling us it's "trash". Please, use the article's talk page to discuss your changes and tell us why it's trash and how we can communicate this to wikipedia's readers. There has to be some sort of compromise here that provides the highest quality content. Thanks! njan 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've removed this content without discussing it or alleviating the concerns other wikipedians have. This is getting a little bit silly, and if this continues, I'm going to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion or similar, because this really is a waste of time.

I'd still love to resolve this amicably. All you have to do to allow this to happen is to reply on my talk page or on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance! njan 13:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted this again without any discussion, although I note that your comment in the edit summary is you're the only person who wants this trash in the article njan - I should point out that this is incorrect, and that at least one registered wikipedian and one anonymous user also have concerns regarding this material. I'm sorry if you were previously unaware of this - perhaps now you see why it's important to discuss this? I'm happy to participate if you do. njan 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DavidianCumbria-en.svg

Don't worry :) Is Scone in the right place now? I looked it up in google maps. Chabacano 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Stewart, Duke of Albany

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names. I think you'll find there is a convention of putting the succession number in whether disambiguation is needed or not. Also see Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland for a clear example. Can you please explain why you think this gentleman should be an exception? He inherited his title, he was the 2nd Duke, he hasn't been given the prefix "Prince" and therefore does not fall within the remit of royal titles, ergo he should be given the number in the article title for consistency with pretty much every other similar article. -- Necrothesp 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 4 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ingram de Ketenis , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop and Pomona

Good day sir. I noticed that you amended my WPSI rating of Bishop of the Isles from 'A' to 'Start'. Let me explain my reasoning: I assumed it was a list. As an article it is clearly deficient. If the intention is to improve it in the latter format, fair enough. You are of course very welcome to join the islands project and make further such re-assessments if you so desire. However, I have been saving this intro up until I had something more useful to say - and this concerns 'Pomona' aka Mainland, Orkney.

A statement about the derivation of the former had a fact tag on it. I put in a couple of references purporting to show it came from a 16th century mistranslation of the latin (including "Pomona or Mainland?"). Only afterwards did I notice the following remark on the talk page:

I have in front of me a copy of John of Fordun's (d. c.1384) Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, in Chapter XI of Book II he describes the Orkneys and clearly states: "the Main island, called Pomona, or Orcadia" and then goes on to name the rest of the islands. Brendandh

As the vanquisher of dodgy historical references I wonder if you could comment on this or pass me along to someone who might? Ta muchly. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Your articles are great, I'm just asking why you leave hello in the edit summary? Phgao 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are leaving Wikipedia? Um, well ok it is easier, but would you consider changing it to reflect more on the article, ie change it to church, as when I see hello, I think vandalism/ test page. This would help those patrolling new pages. Thanks. Phgao 01:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 7 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Couper (bishop), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Scotland

As far as I can see the parameter p1 for Predecessor is not used by the infobox Former Country, so you could put Winnie-the-Pooh in there for all the difference it would make. Or am I missing something? -- Ian Dalziel 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 7 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reinald Macer , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 9 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Sinclair (bishop), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish bishops

Hi Calgacus, were medieval Scottish dioceses suffragans of the Archbishop of York, prior to the elevation of St. Andrews and Glasgow? I'm working on the List of religious leaders in 1220 (for some crazy reason) and I stuck them all under York. The articles seem to imply that, but I wanted to make sure. Adam Bishop 07:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Bishop 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunch?

Hello. Did you see my email? There really is such a thing as a free lunch. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Irpen

Dear Irpen. Thanks for your generous assistance and wise counsel. I have been sticking to content editing to see how that works, and it seems to have been the right thing, and so I've decided finally not to leave wiki ... at least not for a good wee bit. Do let me know if I can ever help you with anything. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, I am so pleased that you decided to return! While it might have been difficult for you to put the sad event of your abusive block behind, I congratulate you with being able to do that. Please don't allow such nonsense to affect your wiki-life. Cheers, --Irpen 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yay

Hi there, more articles! Great work! Phgao 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's great as you have your special field which Wikipedia needs as there are not many i believe specialised editors! Phgao 02:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Thomas de Dundee

On 19 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas de Dundee, 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.

--PFHLai 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Albin of Brechin, was selected for DYK!

On October 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albin of Brechin, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 23 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laurence de Ergadia, 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.

--Carabinieri 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] award

		The DYK Medal
		Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M' Michael vs Mc Michael

BTW, my copy of the article is buried away somewhere ... it is dated and only useful for names and citations ... so I can't say what name the article has, but it is McMichael on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. M'Michael looks like one of those curious antiquated spellings that seem to come only from Galloway these days. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lord_of_Liddesdale"

I have the article in front of me. The author uses the name M'Michael so I think we should use that spelling.Inver471ness 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckquoy spindle-whorl

Hi. The academic reference to the likely importance of the Buckquoy spindle-whorl keeps getting removed from the Orkney article. Was it you who put it there in the first place? Have you got any more to add? --Mais oui! 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta for that. I really appreciate the time you took to provide a comprehensive reply. I am just going to slightly Wikify the actual BSW article.

Worth keeping a 'Watch' on the Orkney and History of Orkney articles for this well-known pattern of vandalism. It seems that some people will just never be happy until Wikipedia states categorically that Orkney is, and always has been, Norse, way back to the Creation. Quite why certain Orcadians take such pride in what they fondly imagine to be the total ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Pictish population is quite beyond me. --Mais oui! 07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Orcadians are descended from the very earliest English inhabitants of the British Isles"

Further removal of the BSW ref, but this time accompanied by:

===Anglo-Saxon settlement=== There is linguistic and documentary evidence that Anglo-Saxons settled in Orkney at least a century before they colonised what is now England, but being a minority group they were ultimately subsumed into the Norwegian population (see below). So among the already rich ethnic heritage of every Orcadian (George Mackay-Brown’s “fine mixter-maxter”) can now be counted a few early English genes. Orcadians are descended from the very earliest English inhabitants of the British Isles. <ref>Graeme Davis, The Early English Settlement of Orkney and Shetland, John Donald Publishers Ltd, ISBN 085976687X </ref>

--Mais oui! 08:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[]

[edit] Fingon?

Hi Deacon, i was reading about the MacKinnons on the net and page after page mention a Fingon, Abbot of Iona, in 966. Though nothing else is written about him. He doesn't show up in Abbot of Iona, did he exist as an abbot? Do you know?--Celtus 09:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Islands project

I thought from your edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. --MacRusgail 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Deacon would be most welcome, although I fear he may be too busy - but watch out MacRusgail, for he is hot on your trail at 239th. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Deacon's joined. Thanks and welcome. I'm sure you'll be a worthwhile addition. --MacRusgail 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. I must get to bed.

[edit] Notes?

I saw your outraged remark whereby you felt that citations should not be in references but under a heading called Notes. Why is that? Surely they are indeed very clear references. Where does the word "notes" enter into this? Just thought I'd ask. Regards, David Lauder 12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perth, Western Australia

I have reverted your edit about the origin of Perth, Western Australia's name. While I agree that it is obviously named for the place in Scotland, it has attracted quite a bit of discussion on the article talk page. Any thoughts, etc. that you may have on the topic are welcome there. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abernethy

I just left it for now: what a wimp. It's a pain in the arse really, but evidently something that will be an annual occurrence. I still haven't got my Woolf book. First people I ordered it from have got it into their heads that it isn't available, so I had to reorder it. What a to-do!

I don't suppose you'll have seen any reviews of Hudson's newer books (Irish Sea Studies; Viking Pirates and Christian Princes) or heard anything about Clare Downam's book (Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland)? I treated myself to a big pile of Irish books (2nd hand, much more reasonable prices than the ridiculous nonsense Amazon want for Four Courts Books), and hope to get a complete set of Anderson's Early Sources (at the moment I have only got volume one) if they haven't been sold already. That lot and the Woolf book should keep me busy until the Oram and Fraser books appear! Hope you're well! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have Bartlett's book on my must-read list. My Woolf book arrived at last. Just as well I never got very far with Sigurd the Stout! And Gofraid mac Fergusa will need torn up - I emailed the great O Corrain about something else, and asked him about Gofraid in passing. He said the same as Woolf does. I'm not sure the Scaldingi entirely convince me, but I'm delighted by the approach to the Sagas. Oh well, lots to do! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrow article

I wondered if you had had sight of this lengthy article: Barrow, Geoffrey W.S., Some Problems in 12th and 13th century Scottish History - a Genealogical Approach, in The Scottish Genealogist, Vol.XXV, no.4, December 1978, pps: 97 - 111. ISSN 0300-337X Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial triple crown jewels

Your Imperial Majesty, I learned a lot about Scotland while reading your contributions. Excellent work! Durova^Charge! 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lymphad

You may recall the dialogue about Image:Mcdonald Lymphad.jpg back in September here. It has been deleted again, with the claim that the "image was originally from here: A Closer Look at West Highland Heraldry" (made at Template talk:Infobox Scottish island#Image. This is somewhat frustrating and I apologise for having to return to the issue. Assuming it is kosher I wonder if you would re-load it, perhaps with a suitable explanation here or on the Template talk page? Many thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) PS Lovely jewels btw.

[edit] C[au|a|on|u][s][t]antín mac Áeda

Hello! Hope you're relaxing in style. I was quite set on Custantín, but Constantín is what Woolf used, and I am slave to fashion. Would you have five (or ten) minutes to look Constantine II of Scotland over? I compared it against Broun's ODNB piece, which I didn't see until I'd got to Brunanburh, and it seemed like me and DB were on the same track, more or less. At 47k I probably need to hack it down a bit, but if you could let me know if there's anything egregious I'd be much obliged. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of early British historical figures

Based on your contributions to some of the related articles, you may be interested in this discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, I see you're conversing with Michael in a couple of places. Would you also add a summary of your opinion to this discussion as he has done? I'd like to accumulate opinions in there in the hope of reaching a consensus. Mike Christie (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duff

Okay, so moderately respected encyclopaedia vs...playing cards. Hmm, know which I'm going with. Michael Sanders 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence for not using Duff is that whilst a moderate quality source uses it, a worse source doesn't? Hell, I might change my mind, then.

Seriously, though. The page name stands at Dub, so for now (and forever, if you can present compelling evidence of 'Dub' or variants being the most common name) that is his name in terms of common interlinks. However, his accepted English name is Duff - so links (piped or otherwise) are acceptable - since readers are likely to understand to whom the name refers. Michael Sanders 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My burden of proof is already assured. The article names of the relevant persons are at the anglicised forms, and it would appear that this is due to the articles originally being standard English forms, before Angus and a few others turned up, Gaelicised them, and tried to move them to Scottish names; which was indignantly rebuffed by the majority of interested editors, who moved them back (and insisted on English usage where appropriate within the articles. Apparently that slipped through the cracks somewhere). In other words - Wikipedia already uses "Constantine II of Scotland", so my usage of that name is not radical. The usage of the Scottish forms, however, goes against conventions such as Use English, Common Name and Names and Titles. Michael Sanders 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that you haven't replied to my point on Constantine II. If your justification for Gaelicising Malcolm IV but not Alexander I is that Alexander is not a native Gaelic name, how do you justify using several Gaelicisations of the Latin "Constantine"? Michael Sanders 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Constantine I" etc seems an acceptable Disambiguation method, regardless of whether it's rubbing against patronymical persons who have no commonly used Anglicised name; it also allows those not familiar with such methods of disambiguation to absorb more of the article details without confusion. As it is, it reeks of double standards that you can protest that Gaelic forms of some monarchs should be used because there are alternate anglicisations...whilst apparently favouring the Gaelicisation of the straight-forward Anglo-Latin "Constantine" into several Gaelic forms (I think each Scottish King, plus Caustantin of the Picts, has a different form). Michael Sanders 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be no agreement on the spelling of "Mail/Mael C(h)olu(i)m". Unlike the agreement in the spelling of "Malcolm". Regnal numbers and consistent names appear to be more helpful than the patronymics which were confusing even at the time. Furthermore, we are not meant to be rewriting history or historiography - of course it's more complicated than "Kenneth I was the first King of Scots", and that absolutely should be referenced in the articles, but established historiography considers them "X I of Scotland", and that can't be chucked out of the window because of personal opinions or feelings. Michael Sanders 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary of First Names gives it as "Mael Colum", "Devotee of Colum(ba)". Where is your source for "Mael Coluim"? Michael Sanders 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My source would be a product of one of the most respected dictionaries in the country. Do you have a source? Michael Sanders 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't given a source... Michael Sanders 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

Deacon, its important to stay calm in the several current content disputes. I knew that eventually they would erupt. I'm a Scot (although you and I differ as to when my family arrived here) but I resent having Gaelic imposed on all things Scottish when everything has been Anglicised for at least 800 years in most of Scotland, especially the Lowlands. I know we don't agree on some things, but thats life and you must give and take a little. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no see

Good to see you around. I'm sorry to hear that things haven't been going well. I hope 2008 turns out better. The only other FA was done was boring old Eardwulf of Northumbria. Next up, I think, is either Aldfrith or Cerball mac Dúnlainge. After that, spring-cleaning. Lots of articles need Woolf stuff incorporated, especially the Uí Ímair where I'll also have Hudson and Downham stuff to add. That should keep me busy for a while: maybe there's an FA waiting to be written on Amlaíb Cuarán. I'm off to Scotland tomorrow to visit my mother. I spent a rather dull Xmas here, so I hope yours was better. Best wishes for the New Year, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it'll be a long while before I get to Clontarf period and later kings, but thanks for the pointer! Downham's book has a handy appendix: "Prosopography of Viking-leaders named in Irish Chronicles to A.D. 1014", so that'll make writing about the C9th/10th kings rather easier. I think I'll need to start with tidying up the various Viking king-lists: King of Mann and the Isles, Kings of Dublin, Kings of Jórvík. Maybe one list of Viking kings in Britain and Ireland would be easier. As for the styles and lists and template, what can I say? Bizarre stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note of appreciation

Deacon, I haven't worked with you on any articles that I'm aware of, but I just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for your thoughtful, detailed, scholarly and restrained comments on the current naming discussion. It's a pleasure to read your posts; thanks for having the patience to put them together. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This will be the last warning you get from me. I suggest you step away, settle down, and come back later with a cooler head. Kafziel ^Talk 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hundason

That's one reason - as I have repeatedly said, readers are going to be far more familiar with the Anglicised forms - when they are presented with a (not even linked!) name, they are not necessarily going to know who is being referred to (and sticking "Duncan I)" in brackets is clumsy - if you are having to do that, you are recognising that the Gaelic name alone isn't necessarily recognisable). As for the reference in general - well, what is Skene's suggestion? Let's have a little more explanation. Michael Sanders 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non english in talk pages

Your intent may have been educational by using Gaelic names, however it's easier for a fellow to have the English version (rather then running to the article, to find the translation). I can live with the Gaelic at the List of Scottish monarchs (as long as it's secondary to the English names), but prefer English at the talk pages (unless you need to show Gaelic for demonstrative reasons). GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Umbertos: The English language as usual, tends to be inconsistant - past Spanish monarchs have their names in english, where as today we've got Juan Carlos I not 'John Charles I'. Thus English common usage tends to get inconsistant results. Very frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I want to compromise, but only to a reasonable degree. You flat out reverted a lot of my work without warning, and without support. When another editor reverted you, you did it again, and you had to be pushed to the 3rr limit before you stopped. That is not 'reasonable compromise', and when you behave like that to me I see no reason why I should give you any more respect. You are furthermore standing in an unreasonable position - you favour names that are not commonly used, and when it is pointed out that the names you dislike are commonly used, you claim that they still shouldn't be used because "they reduce articles to the level of the lowest common denominator". Any 'equal' compromise here, as you tested in Macbeth, still stands as a betrayal of the principles of wikipedia, and a slap in the face to the vast majority of readers who use the common, Anglicised forms. Look at other foreign monarchical articles with common English name-forms. They reference the native forms - but, unless that form is most common (as in the case of Charlemagne), they limit that reference to a short reference in the lead. I did better than that - I actually also favoured showing the native form in the top bar of the infobox, where it would be highly visible, which is not a standard feature in such articles. However, you still favour using forms which most readers would not expect, and continue to push your own POV about the Kingdom of Scotland re. its origins, its beginnings, and when the use of Anglicised names should begin. That is an unacceptable position for you to take, and until you are prepared to face up to the fact that you and Angus are not the only users or readers of wikipedia, and that your beliefs in what constitutes acceptable naming practice does not constitute that of wikipedia as a whole, I doubt compromise will be possible. I've asked an admin if she'll mediate - I don't know if she will, but I know her well enough on here to know that she's fair, since she mediated in a dispute on Royal descent in the past. But seriously? You need to recognise that your idea of what is acceptable is not that of everyone. Michael Sanders 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind ask the admin, she's not neutral in this case, apparently. Michael Sanders 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your attitude

"Yeah, you've got me. It's all nationalism. Free Pictland (Pictish: fdwsahfhewjfhrew hjhfkas)! I hope I can attend your classes on the Picts when you run them. Clearly years of reading and 2 years of studying and researching them full time hasn't got me up to anywhere near your level"

I thought, from your post at the Use English page, that you were actually being reasonable, and willing to discuss these issues like an adult. Clearly I was wrong. Michael Sanders 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish kings

I'm pleased to see that you've begun putting the compromise into operation, and I'll continue that. I'm also very grateful that you were willing to make the sacrifices that you did make, and I hope that once we're past the current difficuties of the styles and monarchs articles, we can get on better and work well together. Michael Sanders 20:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing this discussion out to me, but these days I'm extremely disillusioned with Wikipedia and can see very little point in my getting involved. Sorry. Lianachan (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move requests

I know it doesn't: if the articles are moved, then I will honour the compromise, and allow the anglicised usages to be relegated to just a bracketed form in the lead (and an italicised form in the top of the infobox). However, I've already expressed my opposition on Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland, and I have to say I'm not very impressed by the quiet manner in which this was done, without discussion on your part. Michael Sanders 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with you...I've made attempts to move titles to what I think are more 'correct' in the past (e.g. Marie Antoinette), but I've come to the conclusion that it is unfair to readers to use titles or name-forms that they can't be depended on to know (or, rather, that they are more likely to know in a different form: obviously it would be wrong to anglicise "Mael Coluim mac Alexandair" as "Malcolm Sanders", because the anglicisation would be correct but unheard of; whereas everyone who has heard of Kenneth MacAlpin or Malcolm Canmore outside Scotland has heard of them in the English forms). Kenneth I may not be 'correct', but it is well-used. We can inform the readers of historical realities inside the articles, but it is unfair on them to rig article titles to favour only a minority of the informed. Michael Sanders 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon. I can only speak for myself on this topic, but here goes. I don't understand Gaelic, I can't read it or pronounce it; from a layman perspective (I'm a layman, believe me), these Gaelic changes are decorative, but above my head. It's making these articles too complexed. I'm not a cranky anglophone, just a concern layman. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

It's disappointing to hear a fellow wikipedian being so unnecessarily rude and offensive. I was starting to think you'd mellowed when you made that compromise suggestion, but I see you haven't yet understood what this project is all about. Quite what you think qualifies you to be the arbiter of correctness in this field (or any other) is unclear, but one thing is abundantly clear - you need to tone it down a bit and try to curb your aggressive tendencies. I've been here since 2002 and when I arrived there were no articles at all on many of the British monarchs, and only a couple of sentences on the rest. I don't need your approval for the work I've done, but I resent you implying - from a position of complete ignorance - that I have "suddenly" developed an interest in the British monarchy (I write books on the subject, for pity's sake!). I don't boast about my contributions, because I know so many other people have also worked hard and done a good job. That includes John Kenney and Michael Sanders, and it also includes Angus. He seems to be doing the sensible thing by withdrawing from the debate and not responding to what he considers provocation, and he will emerge stronger from the experience. You'd be well advised to emulate his example. Deb (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not interested in your respect. Common courtesy would be nice, but since you're apparently not capable of it, forget I said anything. Deb (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MorayPicts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MorayPicts.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish monarchs

I don't see the problem with the births column - it is useful for those monarchs post-dating David I, who have solid birthdates, and any spurious dates can be removed. As for the modern Gaelic - are their names in Modern Gaelic even used? If so, then that opens up the question of whether we should be using the Mediaeval or Modern Gaelic versions as the 'main form' in the articles themselves; if not, it doesn't seem worth filling up space in a list which can be used more productively. Michael Sanders 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchs discussion

Had a read through and it seems to be the usual tired objections. Yeah I recall commenting on the topic some time back but it’s the ceaseless arguing against shoddy thinking/POV (which I know frustrates you at least as much as it did me) which made me throw in the towel a few months back so im not going to bother getting involved in this discussion. Seeing as im no longer a meaningful contributor I don’t think I could justify taking part votes while not doing adding anything constructive to articles themselves.

I was, however, very tempted to respond to this (wonderfully typical) piece of nonsense:

“Moving those articles to Gaelic names is too much. It's decorative, but unreadable”

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the English only brigade tend to be of languages and the relationships between them. Of course if (as suggested) English existed in some kind of vacuum, absolutely distinct and incompatible from all other languages we wouldn’t actually have any anglicisations at all be they of Gaelic names - Domhnall ; Donald, Somhairle ; Sorley etc – German placenames like München; Munich, Österreich; Austria – or whatever.

The reality is of course that people are perfectly capable of reading and recognising (if not always understanding) names and words from other languages. If they were not then any map of Scotland would be remarkably lacking in detail given that the vast majority of historical place names are from Gaelic or other non-English languages which should, according to some, be totally incomprehensible to the poor English monoglot. siarach (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh! that's my quote you're thrashing Siarach, ouch. Anyways, I've a discussion at Charles II of England concerning Charlie's Scottish reign; you're both invited to take a peek & give your thoughts. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

According to his User and Talk Page siarach has left Wikipedia. It is a pity he seems unable to understand that most Scots would not agree with him. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"No true Scotsman ..."? I'd never seen that before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see No true Scotsman is currently locked. I must go and see what it has been attracting? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatabout the Charles II article? Help, they're walking out on me. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"most Scots would not agree with him" - Not agree with what exactly?(not that it matters, most Scots know bugger all about history let alone linguistics) That they are capable of comprehending place names and words from other languages? Obviously thats the case. As you say, most Scots wander around not knowing what the hell the town/region they live in is called seeing as most Scots live in places with non-English names and (as you suggest) they are naturally incapable of comprehending anything that isnt in English. To quote the Big Yin: "Where are we? I wish some explorer would come and tell us where we are." ;) siarach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.121 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are exceptionally rude. David Lauder (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clancy paper

No, I haven't seen "Iona in the kingdom of the Picts" yes. But there's plenty of time! At the current rate of progress I'll still be doing Óláfr Sigtryggsson come Easter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an article. Not listed at Kings of Dublin or King of Mann and the Isles. We don't have any of Sigtrygg Óláfsson's sons. They're on my list (I must read that Gruffyd ap Cynan book, but there's enough in Hudson's Viking Pirates to do something, even though the indexer missed him out!) On my list!

Mac Congail appears as son of Fingal (d. 1079) son of Godred (d. c. 1070) son of ?Sihtric son of Glúniairn son of Amlaíb Cúarán in figure 3 of Hudson's book (p. 83). The sum and substance of what he has to say (p. 172) is: "Fingal's family might have retired to southwestern Scotland. An entry in the Annals of the Four Masters notes the death of a king of the Rhinns named Mac Congail in 1094; these Rhinns have been demonstrated to be the Rhinns of Galloway. [fn 49: Byrne "Na Renna", p. 267, in Peritia, vol 1.] The names Fingal and Congal could be confused. This region had been ruled by Eachmarcach after his defeat on Man in 1061. Unknown is whether Mac Congail was in independent king of a subordinate of Godred Crovan." Very (un)illuminating! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current proposal

As you know, we are not in agreement on the blanket proposal you've made on early monarchs. However, you might have greater success on individuals. For instance, I have no obections at all to Kenneth MacAlpin as opposed to Kenneth I of Scotland, the former being widely acknowledged. Also, my own studies had led me to believe that the correct legal terminology for our monarchs was King of the Scots not of Scotland. Is that not so? And if they were not Kings of all Scots they shouldn't be flagged up as such. Regards,David Lauder (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wallace

Rather than edit-war, I'd appreciate an explanation of your objection to my comment:

One very prominent error is the depiction of Wallace as a kilted Gael rather than the Anglophonic lowlander that he was (the 'nationalisation' of Gaelic culture and popular generalisation that Scotland as a whole is 'Celtic' date from the eighteenth century).^[1][2]

I consider the cultural inaccuracies of Bravecobblers to be worth noting, am puzzled by your objection (which in itself violates the WP 'verifiability, not truth' rule) & am perfectly happy to consider reworkings of my point, just so long as it gets made. As for developments in the C18th, the only worthwhile objection I can see is that I used 'Celtic' where I perhaps ought to have specified 'Gaelic' in case my ref to the medieval/modern phenomenon 'Scotland' was taken to mean 'northern Britain since time immemorial'. The point is verifiable by reference to a respected academic work (albeit one by someone to whom I'm generally reluctant to give any credit for anything) & is worth including if any mention is to be made of the film's depiction of Wallace's culture & ethnicity, which I think it should be.80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon maps

Deacon, I noticed you deleted an inaccurate map from a few articles. I thought I'd drop you a note to say that I am trying to keep track of useful Anglo-Saxon maps at User:Mike_Christie/Anglo-Saxon_research_resources#Maps; if you know of other maps that can be useful in multiple articles, please drop me a note or feel free to add one yourself. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed notes on Aldfrith -- those will be a great help. In fact the existing article is largely Angus's work; he told me a while back that he didn't have enough time to take Eardwulf or Aldfrith to FA, and asked if I'd be interested. We got Eardwulf there late last year, and I'm about to have a crack at Aldfrith. As you say, it's in very good shape already; just needs a little work and it can go to FAC. I may ping you again if I have specific questions about sources you mention that I don't have; I have a bit less coverage on Northumbria than I'd like though I plan to plug some holes soon. Thanks again -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some time on it this week. My typical approach is to dig through Stenton, Kirby and Yorke to start with and see what they have to say, then use some other sources such as the Blackwell Encyclopedia, or Campbell's "The Anglo-Saxons" and see what other nuggets they have. I have much more on Mercia and somewhat more on Wessex than I do on Northumbria, but I think Angus can make up for any deficiencies. Are you interested in working on the article together? I was going to conominate it with Angus but I'd be very glad to make it a three-way conomination. And I'm also happy to delay, if you or Angus (or both) think that waiting for another source to arrive would improve the article. I bet it can be made FA-worthy without it, though. As you say it's close already. Mike Christie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing anything you can add. On co-nominations, just so you know, WP:WBFAN draws its data from this page and others like it. As you can see there, you can edit that page to credit conominees, so both get credit. I will certainly be ensuring that Angus gets a credit for Aldfrith; he got one for Eardwulf. Your point about having not too many people managing the nomination is a good one too -- with Eardwulf I took primary responsibility at FAC, though Angus chipped in when he had time. Anyway, I look forward to the help. (I may end up delaying Aldfrith a little if you and Angus do any more work on it; I am also working on Offa, so I could take that one to FAC instead.)

On the separate topic of what name forms to use for the early Scottish kings (etc.), I'd suggest that in the long term, the only way to permanently resolve that is going to be to collect data on what forms get used. I feel confident that modern secondary sources would support the non-Anglicized names, but if you're ever going to definitively win that argument, a long list of reference works with datas, reliability, and what form they use is the data you'll need to make the debate more than just assertion and counter-assertion. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the AS map, stop by Talk:Mercia#Map if you get a chance -- Yorkshirian is participating and I think others agree that his map is not the best choice. I'd like to try to get his agreement before reverting him again. BTW, can you give me a source for the Scottish kingdom names and locations? I'd like to add that to the image file itself; the names I used ("Northern Picts", "Southern Picts") came from Peter Hunter Blair, so I should probably have a source if I'm going to change that. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emperors

I agree that this is probably unwise, when unnecessary. For a couple of the early emperors, there's no other good way to refer to them - I'm not sure how else to disambiguate Louis II except by including a title, and I'm not sure what other title we can use. But I think most of them have obvious alternate names, and it's probably better to use them. john k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what john k says. I did not revert Michael's moves b/c it seemed to minor an issue to get into, especially considering the hard-to-avoid Louis II title. But the exact term "Holy Roman Emperor" is rare with these figures because it is not at all current. Historiography accepts it to a degree, but its usage is deprecated before Otto I. I can allow Louis II and even Lothair I (since that alone is a bit nondescript and perhaps therefore "surprising"), but for Guy, Lambert, and Berengar it seems pedantic. I liked "Berengar I of Italy" because I knew that the article about him was going to focus not on his Friulian mandate but his quest for a kingdom and to keep it, same for Berengar of Ivrea (which I had moved to B. II of Italy). So I leave it up to others what form is best. I'd revert for the Spoletans and Berengar if it were up to me, but I'd probaby let Lothair I slide. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that the moves were uncalled for. Guy and Lambert were best designated as "of Spoleto", even if they were Emperors - in the list of Emperors I tend to think of them as "Guy of Spoleto" and "Lambert of Spoleto". The latter's imperial is anyway very marginal (one wonder why gets no "in pretense" box ;-)) - and Berengar is definitely more notable as King of Italy, though Berengar of Friul would work as well. (As for anachronistic, the "Holy" in Holy Roman Empire is anachronistic for all pre-Staufen rulers.) Str1977 ^(talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ms

Yes, I saw the Moluag paper, but the part about Magnus and Máel Coluim and Mortlach is in Pictland to Alba (269-270). Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Noob question

Im trying to get three versions (Anglicised Gaelic,Gaelic and English) of a piece of verse from the Fernaig manusript placed side by side in the article. I notice youve done something along these lines here: Scotland_in_the_High_Middle_Ages#Christianity_and_the_Church with a poem showing in both latin and alongside it the English translation. Ive tried copying and pasting what youve got there and fiddling with it to get a third section so i can use the template but try as i might i cant figure it out - these flashy wikipedia features seem to be quite beyond me. Do you know how i could expand it into a template that will accommodate the three pieces of verse i have on the Fernaig manuscript article? Cheers. siarach (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks that looks a hell of a lot better. siarach (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Of course i have absolutely no knowledge on the topic beyond the popular but i am quite fascinated by the various types of orthography used in written Gaelic through the ages. siarach (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas de Balmyle

On 11 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas de Balmyle, 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) 05:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Albin of Brechin

I'm so sorry about that. I didn't know that you had said something on my talk page (no new message sign, strange...). Anyway, I'm done now. :) Green caterpillar (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albin again

Hi, Deacon. Looks good. Fixed a few commas here and there. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Dean of Moray

Excellent. I've now linked to it as main article. Many thanks. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas de Rossy

I'm flattered to be asked - I'm afraid my knowledge of these worthy gents goes little further than my surprise at the discovery of Walter and Co.'s bones - but could you be a little more specific? Are we talking GA/FA for example? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm visiting Tinto this weekend but I'll have a gander asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hill walking? I think you must be confusing me with Ben Brown of the Ramblers' Association. I have created a stub in honour of my short visit, but in call candour I find the Lanarkshire countryside a shade bleak.

Re young Thomas, He's quite character, and I don't think is in urgent need of any significant extra background - it's all there via the links so far as I can see. I have a few minor suggestions below, but I was definitely left wanting to know more about his background. Is it conceivable that a man of this learning and self-confidence in 14th C Scotland was not from the nobility? More on this later...

Possible tweaks:

'uncertain' rather than 'unclear' in lead?

early years - His name indicates a family origin from Rossie, perhaps from either the Rossie in Gowrie or in Angus. ?

Pre-episcopal career - first two sentences both start with Thomas

baccatarius Sententiarum - upper case 'B'?

Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that Thomas "received a gift of £10 from the King of the Scots". I may be wide of the mark, but this sounds a little like a favour to a relative. I had a surf and this web page notes the existence of ' William of Rossie' aka William Lindsay who is a great grandson of Walter Stewart. This William of Rossie is younger than, but alive at the same time as Thomas. However the trail went cold and I can't see anything that suggests a more tangible connection. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaelic and Irish

Quite frankly im fed up of seeing the historical forms of Gaelic (Old Irish, Middle Irish, Early Modern Irish) misleadingly referred to as Irish. I was about to set up some votes/discussions on moving them to more accurate titles but tbh i can forsee a horde of various types arguing in favour of maintaining "Irish" in favour of Gaelic be it because of chauvinistic preferences or simply the usual tired argument in favour of maintaining the standards aimed at the LCD. Do you reckon theres any chance of getting the articles moved to the more correct, if less (except in more modern works) common, nomenclature or would it be a waste of time putting it to a vote? siarach (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye i thought as much. As irritating as Old and Middle Irish are they, at least, are the most frequently used terms (albeit increasingly being replaced by Old/Middle Gaelic) but there is absolutely no reason for the article on Classical Gaelic being stuck under the ludicrous "Early Modern Irish" when there is ample evidence for prominent use of the more correct Classical/Common/Early Modern/Hiberno-Scottish Gaelic by various reputable institutions and works. Indeed the entire article is laughably Hibernocentric in tone atm. If Angr truly hasnt come across any other name i can only assume that for some queer reason "Early Modern Irish" is be the term used by every obscure linguistics book published. I on the other hand have never come across a publication which doesnt refer to the written standard as something along the lines of Classical/Common Gaelic. siarach (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And cheers for the e-book, looks very interesting. siarach (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Forman

I'm well advanced on expanding this one but there is a daughter Beatrix mentioned in the article who married John Moncreiff but I can't find a reference to this anywhere. You wouldn't have a citation I could use by any chance? Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There was an un-named sister who was the mother of John Roul, Forman's successor at Priory of May. He also wrote a letter in which he mentions a lot of relations and friends. First on the list is Jonet Forman, prioress of Eccles who may have been a daughter or more likely a sister. It contains a lot of Formans and Blacaders which kinda backs up that his mother was indeed Jonet Blackadder. Anyway thanks again. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 10:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Jane (Jhane) was definitely a daughter who married Sir Alexander Oliphant. I think the prioress was most likely a sister, but no way of telling. Was Jane a name on its own or was it a variation of Janet/Jonet? BTW, the existing article mentions Thomas as a brother but I haven't been able to corroborate this; do you have anything on that? Bill Reid | Talk 10:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Notice that Micro$oft seems to have pulled books.live.com which is a pity. Bill Reid | Talk 11:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, got these brothers and I think Nicholas may be an older brother as I have (somewhere) that Forman was brought up by Lord Home suggesting that his parents may have been dead early in his life. Bill Reid | Talk 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you believe it but my local library has managed to lose their one and only copy of Medieval Houses. But I have used their single copy of Fasti so I'll have a look. Co-incidentally I've got Watt's Medieval Church Councils in Scotland coming from Amazon and hope its got some good info; I'll let you know. I'm using a couple of decent books that I got from books.live.com when it was working called The Church of Scotland: The Church from the Reign of Malcolm Canmore to the Reformation, 1910, James Rankin and another called Ancient Parochial and Collegiate Churches of Scorland by Muir (not complete this one). I'm going to press on next week and get them all done and maybe if you've got time you could check for accuracy and add info that I haven't got. Before I go too far, though, could the table do with any tweaking? Bill Reid | Talk 16:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll give the table a tweak. Yes I think they all deserve a stub and a few could certainly be beefed up. There are 7 articles already but the existing list actually gives cathedrals as well! there are 43 churches in total so I'll make a start. Thanks again. Bill Reid | Talk 18:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:An Siarach

Since you and An Siarach have come to me about this so ardently, I have taken another look at An Siarach's edits to Middle Irish. And it would appear that the first "revert" was a misinterpretation on my part, so I am sorry; the language issues in the article are a bit complicated, and you may agree. An Siarach has been unblocked. Otherwise, 24 hours is fairly common for a 3RR violation, AFAIK.

The other issue that you brought up was notifying An Siarach, which I forgot. 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. Please forgive this oversight. --Merovingian (T, C) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad this could be settled peaceably. Cheers. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill

On 19 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill, 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) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm III

Would you really argue that he falls into the category of Pictish kings? From my early studies on Scottish history I understood the Picts were virtually wiped out long before Malcolm by the more savage Scots. Has this too be turned on its head? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Saw your comment. An 1883 well-known book by fairly accredited scholars you may not like but it is an acceptable source under WP criteria. Neither you nor I know whether they looked at primary sources so you should not pronounce upon them as you have. Sorry, but we need to be very clear on this. Put an alternative POV certainly (sourced of course) but don't make that sort of remark when other Users are following the guidelines just because you don't agree. Thats not how WP works. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, David. I even went through my own contrib history to try and work it out, but no luck. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See the 'History' tab on Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, David, that was August last year. I couldn't be expected to know what you were talking about there. As to the source, any source with 1883 isn't gonna be considered good, but when a guy called "Burke" did it you've got problems. I guess it's accetable material because you use the word "perhaps". It kinda violates a trend though. It'd mean that all the Bruces except that one named their eldest son Robert. Does Burke cite anything himself that can be verified? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the date. You're right, August is a while back. The Burke's are famous scholars and to deny that is silly. (I'm not saying that they, as with modern scholars, didn't make the odd mistake here and there.) Many of the old publications didn't list their sources so both you and I just don't know. Neither of us can pronounce upon their sources. As for talking about them saying "perhaps" you are in a position of being a hypocrite here as I could cite you countless books on your 'approved lists' such as Duncan, Barrow, et al which have this word on every page as well as phrases like "it appears" or "probably" etc. So why is it OK for today's authors to use these words and phrases and not yesterdays? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to be getting on better? You've misunderstood on the "perhaps"; my point is that because you have used "perhaps" there's less necessity to revert you. As for citations, guys like Skene and Balfour Paul cite when they use sources. For pre-14th and certainly pre-12th century, I'm very cagey about using any historian's (including modern ones') claims when they don't give citations. Balfour Paul is outdated in a lot of things, but people still use him because he cites stuff and it can therefore be verified. The thing with Burke and all those peerage people is that they aren't particularly interested in nor competent to do the earlier more difficult stuff, but they still do it; they are all but absolutely useless for writing about that kind of thing in this day and age. Robert II de Brus may well have been a second son, but this Burke fellow's word isn't good enough to state this as fact; if it is the case that he happens to be correct, then it should be easy enough to find the source. If you're a historian, you cite your sources, because you might as well not be writing otherwise. That new book, Brus Family in England and Scotland, 1100-1295, may have something on it, but Barrow says he was the eldest son, so I remain doubtful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope we are getting on a bit better. Maybe I was a bit blunt after seeing the comment I first mentioned. I can't really agree with you on this. Historians and genealogists vary greatly. Tytler certainly does not cite all his sources (although he cites some) and Hill Burton likewise. The style of books which Burke's are leaves their sources aside and expects us to rely upon their expertise. That is mirrored by a lot of other earlier writers (Nesbit, for instance). Yes, they are concerned mainly with genealogy, but to get the genealogy correct (as far as that is possible) a great amount of research is required, otherwise if too many loony statements are made and exposed as crap their publications would be totally discredited, whereas they remain highly regarded. Of course, there are always the critics, and I would say that on balance Balfour Paul possibly has a few more than the Burkes. I always rigorously check anything he cites which I want to rely absolutely upon. His transcriptions are sometimes a bit wanting. But the WP guidelines just ask us for verifiable sources and all these books we cite as sources are available either by call-up through the UK library system or at the National and university libraries. One last thing, "of that Ilk" and "no issue" are definitely not "archaic" terms. They are as accepted and widely used today as they were five hundred years ago. I was surprised to see your comment. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK 2008-01-23

On 23 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Domhnall mac Raghnaill, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language stuff

Hello there, we briefly met on the 'Scots language' page few month back.

You seem to be quite knowledgable on the subject of the old languages of Britain, so if it's ok wi you i'd like to ask a few questions ?! Gazh (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, erm, well the passing thought i'm having recently is about the three (or four) main languages being used in Scotland during X period until X period (i'm crap with dates). English in the east, Gaelic in the west, Pictish (really interested in knowing more about this one) up there and ofcourse being squeezed inbetween these areas the old British language.

Now, i know i really should ask him, but the fella in the flat across from me is from Eyemouth (just over the border on the eastcoast) and we were cracking on a bit at a New Years Party, you know, the standard jokes, I'll go and get my armour and you get your Claymore etc anyway during conversation he stated he was quite interested in learning Gaelic, which struck me as odd as i'm quite sure Eyemouth (or surrounding areas) was English speaking from quite early on, and even before that it possibly was never Gaelic speaking (apologies if i'm wrong) anyway, it was probably British speaking, aye?

So, Deacon, I find it a tad odd that many individuals that claim a strong Scottish heritage would cling to Gaelic, surely there must be as much British or (the unknown) Pictish influence in Scotland? ..or is Gaelic just the cool one? Whats your thoughts on that? Gazh (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you have been holding up several conversations at once so please be in no rush to respond.

Anyway regarding English being the intrusive element, if we could speak to a British speaker now i'm quite sure depending of geographics they would say the Gaels were equally damaging, naw? Gazh (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Hi - I've noticed that recently you've made a lot of minor edits such as only removing whitespace or repositioning a stub tag. Please don't use AWB to do this (in fact, don't make such minor edits at all) unless they're accompanying some more substantial edits. The rules of use for AWB specifically state that AWB is not to be used for such edits; they just add to the load on the database servers to no significant benefit. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formats

I thought there was consensus that monarchs on Wikipedia were called not as commonly known with nicknames etc., but simply, X of Somewhere. I can't find the wretched page with this guideline but I see the Poles now want their Kings called by their popular names. I left a remark there. Sounds like an approach to anarchy to me. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Five test cases is enough; and quoting half our present policy in an effort to gain apparent consensus for altering the other half is disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more visible means of dispute resolution. (I intend, btw, to support the move of the Williams, since there is a reasonable argument that they should be moved under present conditions, but I shall change my !vote if this proves to be an exercise in WP:POINT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numerals and Nicknames

Hello Deacon, I like your idea of having 'surveys' on the royal bio articles individually. It helps give a clearer picture, compared to the chaos at the related guideline page (which has 3 proposoals being voted on simultaneously) - cheers. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Project page of somekind, that has all the Move Requests listed. The only way I can find these 'surveys' is by checking your contributions. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Deacon, PS- I've invited TharkunColl and G2bambino to these page movement surveys. Please note, I've no clue what they'll support. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm in the extreme minority on all those surveys. Oh well, if/when those article are moved, I shall respect it (I won't revert, see my personal page). At least there'll be re-directs & mentioning of the numerals within those articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aed

Really? The book I was looking at had it as annother name for Aed of Scotland, with Albanach meaning Of Alba or somesuch? I havn't really looked at this period of scottish history too much until these debates come up, so I defer to your more extensive knowledge. Narson (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, much obliged for the education :) Back to fiddling with thingmen for me. Narson (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:British Isles

I see your comment on the article talkpage. For technical reasons I can't reply there so I'm here to assure that whatever Irish friends told you that "British" was now an acceptable appellation for Ireland were seriously misleading you. This has nothing to do with being "dynamic" or anything else. Are the Germans backward-looking because they'd object to being referred to as the New Reich? Sarah777 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Deacon - sorry to butt in, but this is my particular pet hate. It's surprising, I know, for many, but the political meaning of "British" as we know it today predates (only just, 16th century) use of the term "British Isles" (1621 according to OED). There were earlier cognates in Greek and Latin, but these went through 1,500 years of non-use after the Roman conquest of Britain before coming into English, at which time the original meaning of the Latin and Greek terms had flipped around and thus the term itself was confused to the point of being concocted (e.g. "Britain" had originally referred to the entire archipelago, which then was taken to include Iceland also, but shortly after the Roman conquest came to refer solely to the area under conquest and then later to denote the island we today call Britain, at that time known as Albion, that name in turn contracting to refer to the area that had not been under conquest, thus Scotland is known as Alba today in the Celtic languages). The apparent coiner of the term in English is quite open that he is calquing it from Latin, giving his reasons for doing so, and quite aware of the changes that had occurred in these terms and of the political meaning of "British" that had come about during his lifetime. Opinion today is that this was a deliberate and political act (see here).

With regards to changes in Ireland, yes they are many, but oddly the Northern peace process has brought this particular gripe closer to the fore. Agreement on a common "language" was necessary under that process, and what to call these islands was a stickler. The result appears to be a stalemate of sorts, thus you will consistently hear the euphemism "these islands" in place of an actually name. This isn't so bad - contrary to popular belief it is not necessary to be able to call an archipelago by name. Corsica and Sardinia unquestionable form an archipelago, what is it called? Even more surprising is that archipelagos can lose shape and meaning over time. A point at hand might be to name, or even imagine, the archipelago once formed by the islands today known as Britain, Iceland and Ireland - the archipelago that the Greeks and Romans called the Britannica Insulas. The archipelago once known in English as the "British Isles", undoubtedly still exists. It's talked about. It's leaders refer to at as "these islands", indicating that they imagine a relationship between them, but they struggle to name (maybe needing to rediscover?) what that relationship is today. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"... the Irish making an issue of it won't come across to most as respectable, as most won't understand Irish issues empathetically ..." - in my experience, people of all nationalities understand the issue naturally. In real life, that is, not on Wikipedia where the issue is exaggerated by having to use the term (at least sometimes) for the sake of writing an encyclopedia, and where the process of collaborative writing between strangers means that someone changing one phrasing to another draws mutual suspicion of bias and counter-bias. In real life, other phrasings are at least just as common, if not preferred (e.g. Britain and Ireland, UK and Ireland, etc.), and "correcting" someone is usually unnecessary, more nuanced or at least less open to drawing attention to "obvious" IRA membership or secretly harboured and untethered imperialist ambitions.

"... I've failed to discover what unites the English with the Scots and Welsh but divides from them Irish ..." - to be glib, about 220km of salt water. It's a practical difference not enjoyed (or otherwise) by the Scots or Welsh. One of my favourite finds on Wikipedia is the quote by Daniel O'Connell in the West Briton article. The aspect of Irish history that O'Connell faught against, not shared by the Scots or Welsh, and what O'Connell has to say about it there, may also just as relevant. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for sure, but it's much easier to build a common myth of self if you all share the same land-mass; and much easier to build a myth of difference if you do not. All of these things are imagined. On a good day you can see Calais from Dover, yet Ireland is supposed to be closer to England than France? I used to live in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and was shocked the first time that I saw an advertisement for a Eurolines ticket from there to London - €10, when the same journey from Cork was €20. Of course a quick look at a map shows that Eindhoven is a lot closer to London than Cork - yet no-one speaks about "Dutch peculiarity".

Why, when the political link (and with it people, and with them langauge) between Ireland and England is the oldest of all of the ties between the nations of the UK, is Ireland least integrated? The Scottish and English crowns unified in 1603, and immediately the building of a myth of there being a "Great Britain" got underway with an excited pace. The England and Irish crowns had been in union (de facto at least) since 1199, but it was by accident, against everyone's best intentions, and there was no great effort build on it. Even the union of 1801 had more to do with a calculated effort to have better government in Ireland than to unite two peoples because they shared something in common. The common name for the state resulting from the union of Ireland and Great Britain was ... "Great Britain"? The new state was an amalgamation of people called "Irish" and people called "British", and the name given to the people of the new state was ... "British"? Now does that sound fair to you? The union didn't change the identity of Great Britain, although it made in-roads at changing the identity of Ireland, but why would you imagine that that would be acceptable? It was a marriage of convenience, within 30 years we wanted out, and within 80 you'd given up as well. Neither of us bought into the myth of it. If it wasn't for the House of Lords, this whole affair would have been sorted in 1884, instead it dragged on for another 40 by which time the religious question (which I was referring to with O'Donnell) had taken on a new character leading to partition.

This doesn't mean that there are no shared myths between Ireland and the inhabitants of Britain - obvious and long common myths shared with Scotland, even an attempt at "Greater Scotia" with the Bruce brothers; a sympathy, returned or otherwise, with the Welsh; and (saving Northern Ireland) no hard feelings with the English. But this whole "British" thing has a bad smell to it and is eventually meaningless. It's a nice idea, we don't entirely buy out of it, but the word refers to a state on the other island. If you can think of another word to take us all in, then it will be more than welcome. If you can slap "Isles" at the end of it, then all the better. --sony-youth^pléigh 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested RMs

Ivan IV the Terrible. Catherine the Great. Peter the Great. John Lackland. Those are the non-Polish ones I can think from the top of my head (and that don't have RMs yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The point you miss entirely is that this is the English-language Wikipedia designed for the English-speaking world. The four monarchs you mention above are known throughout the English-speaking world as just that. So to portray them on Wikipedia as something else would be silly. Every schoolboy knows them under those appellations. However, when it comes to other countries in Europe which hardly figure in general curriculums (like it or not) it would be wrong for the English-language Wikipedia to be adopting national appelations overwhelmingly unknown in our world. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that those monarchs are overwhelmingly unknown in "your" world in any case. So we may as well use the more informative version, one that is more recognizable to some people familir with non-English literature (which do frequent the international en wiki).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we who have been born and bred in Britain have a better idea of what is known in "our" world than any foreigners. (No offence meant.) Even people whose history knowledge is almost zero here have heard of Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great, Frederick The Great, and Louis, The 'Sun King'. They wouldn't have the faintest idea of what sequence they came in (and if I were honest I'd say they probably could not tell you why any of these people were designated 'great'). In fact most have heard of Wilhelm II although they would probably just think of him as 'The Kaiser'. Wikipedia has numerous foreign language Wikis and I would expect them to carry article headings which are most commonly understood by those speakers. This is the English-speaking world's edition and it should reflect that. David Lauder (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish settlement naming

Hi. You sound surprisingly defensive in this edit to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Existing practice. I had not been following the discussion, but am happy to be involved. I read through it and felt it might be helpful to clarify the choices to help focus the discussion. I have an opinion, but tried not to expose it in my summary of what I saw as the current situation and what can or should be done about it. I'm from the other side of the world, and don't edit Scottish articles much (I spent about a week there a few years ago, and will probably return sometime), so my opinion has a very different perspective than yours. The fact is, there has been some level of consensus (evidenced by there not being continuous pagemove wars before this month). I identified that the convention can be left unwritten, it can be written up, or it can be changed (and the new version written up). I can't think of any other option. I think you prefer changing it to some particular alternative, some others prefer documenting the current practice, and another group have a different preferred change. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 28 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seon Carsuel, 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.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Thomas de Dundee

The article Thomas de Dundee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thomas de Dundee for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Thomas de Dundee

The article Thomas de Dundee you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Thomas de Dundee for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Thomas de Buittle

The article Thomas de Buittle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thomas de Buittle for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Thomas de Buittle

The article Thomas de Buittle you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Thomas de Buittle for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Nicholas de Balmyle

The article Nicholas de Balmyle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Nicholas de Balmyle for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Nicholas de Balmyle

The article Nicholas de Balmyle you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Nicholas de Balmyle for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

What levels of success are being made in your renaming of monarchs exersizes? I have been surprised by some of the odd comments. For instance, if I asked anyone in the world who Richard The Lionheart was they'd all know. If I asked them who Richard 1st was they'd be vacant. So there is no explaining the way people on Wikipedia think, is there? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Benkenobi18

[edit] Roman Catholic Dioceses of Great Britain

Ok, I looked over what you did.

1. There are diocese articles for both the Church of England, Scotland and the Roman Catholics. Both use the episcopal structure, so that the names overlap. Also, the Church of England took over many of the Roman Catholic dioceses. From the perspective of the Catholic church, there is just one diocese, the one originally founded, and that the dioceses have been restored. From the anglican perspective, they are the only diocese in the area. My concern is with the Roman Catholic diocese articles. I think it is important that it is not titled 'modern diocese', that is offensive to Catholics. The original dioceses were Catholic regardless of revisionism. I would like to see separate articles (stubs at least) for every single Catholic diocese that is currently present. They need to retain the "Roman Catholic" label and not just diocese to distinguish them from the Anglican dioceses.

2. The category "Great Britain" is important, because the Roman Catholic church does not care about the division between Scotland and England, to the degree that the "Church of Scotland" does. Don't impose divisions that aren't meaningful in a Catholic context. I have left your subdivision, but I have also restored the category you emptied. The reason for not using the UK is because I am unaware of any Catholic diocese of Northern Ireland, (which is another political issue).

The template issue I'm not sure what to do about. I don't think it's fair to split them in the template, but that we can discuss there. I would have greatly appreciated it had you asked me prior to making these huge changes and we could have discussed things. It would have saved me a considerable amount of time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

You have a problem with notifying people before you delete their work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Roman_Catholic_dioceses_in_Great_Britain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_dioceses_in_Great_Britain

If you wish to change things, discuss first. Your nominations for speedy are ridiculous, the category still had two subcategories. Your edits destroyed the category structure of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_dioceses_in_Europe and have now been fixed.

I'd like to work with you, I improved your template. I guess you didn't notice that.

[edit] Great Britain

Sorry, I just saw your other post on my board, didn't realise you replied to me in two places. First off, the common sources, Giga catholic, Catholic heirarchy all use the term. You would have seen this if you bothered to read the sources on List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/gb.html. It's not my creation or invention, the category has existed, or if you had checked it's history before you deleted for 5 years now on wikipedia. All I did was reorganise things so that they were easier to find. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hear hear!

"Many such guidelines are written by a tiny number of people on obscure pages who push their little coups through with usually no discussion and thereafter attempt to subvert community dialogue by forwarding them as a fait accompli."

I totally agree, and it is good to hear other people think so. I have recently been trying to get a page semi-protected, and the hoops you have to jump through just to find the instructions on how to request the thing are offputting. Many people on wikipedia, myself included perhaps, have too much time on their hands and some of those are trying to construct a kind of bureaucracy which only they understand, and have the time to deal with. I'm more concerned about vandal proofing, since there has been some idiotic vandalism on a number of pages, including Barra and Fettes College. Some people, as you know, have also pursued a petty agenda of Briticising various pages, removing references to people being Scottish, English or Welsh etc... which is a particular nonsense, since it is usually only the most hardcore Unionists would ever hesistate to style themselves as one of these - I don't think Gordon Brown or Neil Kinnock would ever deny being Scottish or Welsh, even if they would put their British identity first. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hello. User:Benkenobi18 recently brought it to our attention that you guys are in an edit dispute over Template:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. He feels that you are unwilling to discuss it with him; I was wondering if you guys could reach a compromise. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to pass comment at Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move

Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldfrith note

Thanks for the note on my talk page -- that's very helpful, and I'll have a go at something like that, and let you know when I've done it. I appreciate you not opposing, but I really wouldn't mind if you did -- in my book the article shouldn't make FA till it's right. Mike Christie (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Bur

Deacon, I'm looking at the 2003 edition of Fasti and about his consecration, it says that in the Moray Reg., he was consecrated at Avignon on 17 December 1362 while Dowden has him consecrated 4/9 Jan. x 7 Feb. 1363. Scope for widening the likely consecration dates to 17 Dec. 1362 x 7 Feb. 1363? Bill Reid | Talk 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Didn't appreciate that the new Fasti was so inaccurate but that explains why you always use the 1969 2nd draft version! Cheers, Bill Reid | Talk 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

As you have stopped obfuscating filibusters on the Kyiv talk page, I see no reason to continue any discussion with you. Please, however, refrain from comments like "overwhelmingly an import produced by misguided political correctness", "That kind of paranoia is typical of idealogical radicalization distorting a person's perspective", or "nonsense like that won't distract anyone". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fettes College

Hello, I was wandering why you moved the "Eton of the North" section further down the page? Fettes has long been known as the Eton of the North, particularly down south, as it allows comparisons to be made to English schools. I personally feel, it is a great complement to a school which will always be dogged by educating Messr Blair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Province (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk British isles

I did post asking for the discussion to be carried out some where else , as has User:Waggers both of which has been ignored , striking out the discussion ,is a fair way not to delete the text but to show this conversation is in the incorrect place but i am not going to force the issue Gnevin (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"The British-Irish dichotomy is a recent creation of Irish cultural movements which systematically devalued the place of the English in Irish heritage" - This is a little disingenuous, don't you think? As you cannot talk fairly about "British" until relatively recent, and cannot talk fairly about Ireland being "British" until the decades immediately prior to the Irish cultural movements (a cause for them?). That time was long after the Ireland-Scotland shared Gaelic era, which is anything but forgotten in Ireland, as I feel you believe. Neither have the old or new English settlements been forgotten or erased from history, or treated as always "foreign". Fitzgerald is not a name that is thought of as foreign in Ireland - in fact anything but! What is incorrect is to believe that those English could come and remain somehow "pure" in Ireland. To in some way imagine that the English could change Ireland, but Ireland could not change the English. To imagine the English as colonisers bringing a culture to Ireland, but not to imagine that it would be the English would be colonised and a culturally changed by it. It is for the English that we have one of the oldest phrases (the oldest? can you think of an older one?) that marks our shared relationship, to become "more Irish than the Irish themselves" and it was to prevent the English going native that we had the Statutes of Kilkenny and Poynings' Law, both of which were ineffective at their intended task.

I do feel, however, that a lot of the trouble over this word ("British") stems from the differing meaning over what it means between the two islands. On Britain (after which it is named), it's a nice warm fluffy thing - or at least intended it be. On Ireland, it is explicitly political. I feel too that the difference arises from how the term came to apply to each island. On Britain, it arising 'naturally' and being the 'reason' for the 1707 union. On Ireland, it being at best a matter of law, the result of the 1801 act of union. (Those Irish with close ethnic links to the larger island in modern times are/were properly termed Anglo-Irish and Scots-Irish, only very recently calling themselves, "British", in reaction to the Toubles since 1969 and amateur attempts to redefine "Irish" in monolithic terms. Although these attempts have failed they have caused a great deal of harm that needs to be undone.)

"How are the two contradictions?"

- Fair point. The difference I would feel lies in how explicitly a term is understood as political. Like you point out, "Irish" identity owes much to the processes of politics, as does "Scottish", but for the most part those processes go unnoticed.

"As far as I understand, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where British identity is the first identity of the majority of people."

And the reasons why are explicitly political and go anything but unnoticed. It is on similar terms that most Irish people, in my opinion, understand "British". Hence dislike, or a noxious favour, for the term 'British Isles', and outright rejection, or outright assertion, of "British" as an identity. Hence too the casual use of "British" to refer to English involvement in Ireland, because let's fact facts, "British" politics is English politics.

"You are suffering here from the process I outlined."

- We all suffer from processes. My apologies for mine.

"Gael" certainly hasn't lost its meaning in Scotland.

- That's good to know. I must say that on reading that I do recall a number of conversations with some Scots that while they didn't hit a brick wall ran aground quicker than they should have. They certainly make a lot more sense now. Many Irish would probably feel self-conscious and lacking vocabulary in the same situation. I did, though I think like me it's more a sense of silliness that stopped me, a kind of shy "wondering if you feel the same way". The links with Scotland are certainly mentioned and well know, but it seems more like not-our-place rather than a denial that anything on that island has anything to do with us. I am a little disappointed that the devolved government in Scotland have not broached stronger or more obvious ties with Ireland, though I can understand that politically that may not be the wisest and so respect it.

"You seem to have understood precisely the opposite of what I meant ...'

- I was replying to the second part of what you wrote ("That certainly isn't something ... the Irish nationalists of the 19th and early 20th would have assaulted me for saying it.") Many of those Irish nationalists who you describe as being shocked that the Anglo-Irish would have contributed positively to Ireland were themselves Anglo-Irish. Good taste prevents me from remarking on the ramshackle economics and self-serving politics presided over by other members of the Anglo-Irish, who certainly cannot be described as the "people who really made modern Ireland" in any positive sense. All of the people of Ireland are a mixed bag, and all have contributed in equal measure to create the Ireland of today.

(Incidentally, I'm not going to reply to your post on the B.I. page because I'm just going to avoid it for a while, but on Edward I and Henry II being monarchs of all the B.I.s, true.) --sony-youth^pléigh 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northampton

Well you wouldn't have been there if I hadn't deleted the wrong category when i was alst trying to sort that aspect out. I've emailed benkenob to try and persuade him to come back. Properly sorting out the categories would be good, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand the complexities of national identity in the United Kingdom, and the complications casued by ireland still being oragnised on an all-Ireland basis. I've asked a couple of other users, user:Lima (who appears to have a good grasp of high-level church "politics") and User:Philip Trueman, who's an english catholic (I assume from your user page that you're a scot?). The one real use from teh GB cat that I can see is potentially for the Bishopric of the Forces, which covers RC military personnel wherever they are, and the Ukranian Exarchy, which does cover the whole of Great Britain (although it's part of the E&W bishops' conference). David Underdown (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

well having at as a super-cat is also uesful in the sense that it maks it clear to thoe who don't know that the level is actually not too menaingful, and points them down to where to find what they are looking for, and having some sort of super-category (whether named UK or GB)makes the general picture across Europe more manageable. For the moment I'll wait and see if either user does chip in, and see if Benkenobi makes any response to my email. David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)