User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Articles created

If you're looking for an automagically generated list of all the articles you created (but only until the middle of January this year) http://tools.wikimedia.de/~escaladix/larticles/ is your man. Because it's working on an ancient replica of the database, you have to use your old username. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stakhanovite! I don't think I've got over 250 new articles yet, and most of those are miserable stubs. I can move the Strathclyde monarchs right enough, I'll make a revised king list for you to comment on before I bugger anything up. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finn 2nd

I take it you are the Calgalus who recently posted on Finn Bjørklids discussion page - if so, read on. If not, you will probably read on anyway, but most likely don't understand anything. I read Finn B.s discussion page whenever somebody posts something - it is by far more interresting than reading my own (started contributing to wiki in february, nobody asks me about anything... ). Finn was right in his prophecy that another norwegian Finn would be tracing his steps through scottish history, but my (small) contributions to no:wiki has so far been within irish history.

I'm writing to you with two requests. Firstly, could you have a look at Talk:Scotland in the High Middle Ages concerning a link to the wrong places. Secondly, I just translated an article about an irish medieval battle from norwegian to english (sort of the wrong way but I could not find an english article when I tried to set up interwiki links), and I need someone to check the categories and if possible leave a tag that this article needs language-improvement. It's Battle of Tara Yours, Finnrind 23:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Sorry for the belated answer but I did reply to your question at my talk. --Irpen 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battles of Tara

Sorry to bother you again... When creating Battle of Tara I was not aware of Battle of Tara Hill (1798-battle). As it is now, these to battles are separated by Tara/ Tara Hill - I suppose both of them should be renamed so that the titles could reflect which battle each article really is about. Could you look at this or pass it on to someone? Best regards Finnrind 11:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:3RR

You are clearly unaware of the 3RR rules. So, to quote from WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." We both made 3 reverts to the article, no more. Therefore, neither of us has violated the rule. However, since you do not appear to understand the rule, or comprehend your culpability, I suggest you look in the article history to see your own edits, and look at WP:3RR. Michael Sanders 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I edited the page (I'd say corrected, but let's stick to the facts). You reverted it (1). I reverted it (1). You reverted it (2). I reverted it (2). You reverted it (3). I reverted it (3).
Look more carefully next time. Michael Sanders 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, very clever. Okay, then, let's try to sort this out instead of poking each other. Michael Sanders 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Churchman's Copyright

Dear Deacon, Taking time out from the battle of Template infobox, I wonder if I could ask you to clarify a small matter for me as I can't find a clear answer in the help files? If I see a picture of a Reverend gent such as yourself who lived in the 19th Century, in a book from the late twentieth century, do you know if I am at liberty to make a copy of it and post it to Commons on the grounds that the original work of art is well past its copyright date? Yrs etc, Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response. If you see St Kilda appearing as a GA candidate at WP:SCOWNB and it has any old b&w photos you can presume success on this front. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar mess

Deacon, some anon put the second Hero of Russia barnstar on your userpage and signed it by my name [1]. I admire your contributions but I have a policy not to give the same barnstar to any user twice (so in a way it is more rare than the original of Russian Government) and I do not like impostors so I have to revert his or her changes. Please do not consider it in any way as a criticism of your work that I admire. Sorry for the mess Alex Bakharev 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

Hello. Please cast a glance at my effort:

I'm sure you can give it your own inimitable brush-up :) Ta. --Mais oui! 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Andrew's Cathedral

Forgive my ignorance O Great One , but is your article St Andrews Cathedral Priory about the same site/building as St Andrew's Cathedral, St Andrews? If it is, perhaps they should be merged; if not, their relationship clarified, the Priory included on the disambiguation page, etc., etc. Thanks! Disambiguator 12:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margotssons

As far as I am aware this was the practice to differentiate the offspring of Malcolm III and St. Margaret from the sons of Duncan II, the Meic Uilleim, all MacMalcolms. I do have hard copy somewhere, just where? I'll try and dig it out. The spelling is my own, but is also a correct form amongst two or three others... that is if there was such a thing as correct form then! Brendandh 10:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good hols?

Did you have a nice holiday? I can't say I've done much since you went away, just some Northumbrian odds and sods. I've been busy testing out my new admin superpowers, deleting stuff. And the bastards who pay me have kept me very busy as well, particularly inconsiderate this weekend since it's real summer weather. Margaretsons, wasn't that Michael Lynch's coinage? Archie Duncan dismisses it in Kingship of the Scots. Need to get back to work otherwise I'll be up all night finishing this nonsense. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fergananim (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford DNB

Hi, I saw you wrote Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale‎ based an article from Oxford DNB. I'm interested in having a copy of this article, since this is the first time I read that his ancestor Robert de Bruis never existed (I had doubts for sure). A more globally question: is there a way (any kind of way) to access an article of the DNB freely ? Thanks for your answers ! --PurpleHz 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any free way. And sadly it is very expensive, but will be free if you're part of an institution that subscribes to it (e.g. a university). Email me with your user address and I'll send you the article if you like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposition, can you email me the article at purplehz at gmail dot com ? I'll try to find a french fellow with an access to it then. Thanks again. Regards. --PurpleHz 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot ! :-) PurpleHz 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Stewart (d. 1501)

Hello. I leave you this message to congratulate you on your recently created article, Andrew Stewart (d. 1501). May I ask, what Wikiproject(s) does it belong to? Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hepburn

I think James Hepburn should probably be a disambiguation page. john k 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moray Bishops

Phew! Excellent work on the bishops and on PH. I think I have a clearer armorial of PH which is on the Bishops House near the cathedral so I'll check it out. Agree about Bur, he needs a decent article which was on my eventual list, so I'll wait for yours. I've just started work on the Wolf (off line) so anything I have on Bur will be in that. Thanks regarding Elgin Cathedral - I'm till picking away at it and need to sort out a few things, though. Best rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 07:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Paterson (archbishop), 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VII, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coldingham Priory

I've loaded an image. Regards, David Lauder 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage

Thanks for the heads up. One down, eight to go. --Bill Reid | Talk 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Diocese of Moray — is that Maradona's Hand of God on the infobox image? Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 07:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes I took Keith's Bishops down along with The Records of Elgin and Shaws 3 vols on The History of Moray and a few others. Amazing images in some of them. I couldn't get a copy of Oram's article so I e-mailed him and he came back to me immediately to say he unfortunately couldn't help but advised that there is a good piece in D E R Watt’s Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Graduates to 1410. I haven't checked this out yet - my library only has a reference copy - but you may have it yourself. I've been searching for Bur's seal but no luck so far. Anyway, I will be taking a break from this place in a couple of weeks so I can't see me doing much for a while. Thanks again for the info. Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Douglas

I realise that that is the case. I put the tags on this article, to serve as a disclaimer until I can find the time to sit down and seriously rework it. There is some good information in there, but trying to extricate it is quite complicated amongst the mire of disinformation. I am of two minds whether to rewrite the whole thing or do it section by section, I think the former. Cheers Brendandh 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be right there. However I might do a rejig in my sandbox. What's the form with writing an informed history under another title such as the House of Douglas or some such like? Obviously there would be a certain amount of overlap but less complete codswallop. I see what you mean about Clan Kennedy, the first three lines say it all! Brendandh 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a possibility would be leave Clan Douglas well alone and write a more authoritative piece as you suggest, and then redirect any relevant links to the Clan Douglas page to the new article. I know that the borderers are referred to as clans but is not the more correct term Grayne or Greyne? Brendandh 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright expired

Excellent set of resources on the project page. Big clap on the back. Do you know of any online Fordun? I've only got Skene's Vol I, which only goes as far as book V chapter XX. and the death of Malcolm III. Cheers Brendandh 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nomination

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, William Carrick, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 22 where you can improve it if you see fit. MeegsC | Talk 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Bur

Just to advise that I hope to create a stub for Bur to get rid of a red link in the next week or so, unless you're already working on something in the meantime. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 09:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of de Rossi’s in Italy, was he Italian? I’ll look in Keith’s. I know there’s a seal of Murdoch’s in Scran, but I’m not sure about copyright – can you use these images? I will have a search and see what I can find on Robert Albany and his old man. Now, you really have me puzzled here – Mar? did I say I was going to do anything on a Mar earl? Presumably Buchan’s son? A good subject mind you. I could get a photo of his armorial easy enough instead of the rubbing that I put onto his article. I will have a think! Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 20:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think you may have bundled all the references on Supplications into the one book. I'll check. David Lauder 12:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you had not noticed that I cited two books of Supplications. I have corrected it now. Regards, David Lauder 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Carrick

Hello. With hindsight it would have been better if I'd moved "Earl of Carrick" to "Earl of Carrick (Scotland)". I didn't realise this was such a problem (however, that this move has broken hundreds of links is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration). My idea was that it would be better to separate the Irish earldom from the Scottish earldoms, as, although they share the same title, they are completely unrelated (the page would also have become rather long and cluttered).

I believe it's better if Earl of Carrick redirects to the disambiguation you created. Although the Scottish title is still extant the title is never used and to my knowledge has not been used for centuries. The Irish earldom is a substantive title and any reference to the Earl of Carrick in today's society would probably be to this earldom. There are now to options available: 1) I set up a request to move Earl of Carrick to Earl of Carrick (Scotland) or 2) I move the information from Earl of Carrick (Ireland) back to Earl of Carrick. As I mentioned above I don't think the current situation where you have to find your way to the Irish earldom though a notice on the Earl of Carrick page is very good. Please let me know your thoughts as to the best way forward. It's absolutely no big deal for me and you might very well have have the final say. Regards, Tryde 16:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a small change at the top of the "Earl of Carrick" page so that the link to "Earl of Carrick (Ireland)" is clearer. In my mind this is a good solution. I actually don't know how to check how many wikilinks there are to Earl of Carrick so you have to find that out for yourself. Regards, Tryde 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop of Argyll

Very pleased to see that you have material on George Lauder also. It took me all day just to dig up those references and then write the article (plus fix all my errors! David Lauder 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 28 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Carrick, 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.

--Smee 10:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lookup request

I see you've made use of Kirby's "The Earliest English Kings" in your article on Trumwine of Abercorn, and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to check something in that book. A user has added a list of children to Charles the Younger, son of Charlemagne, by a daughter of Offa of Mercia, sourced to that book; however, the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy [2] references Kirby as saying that such a marriage never took place. I suspect the user who added the list of being a banned user, obsessed with his supposed descent from Charlemagne (based on some rubbish Victorian genealogy); could you check and see whether Kirby in fact supplies information on the supposed children of Charles? Yours, Choess 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inchkeith

You've just removed a substantial amount of referenced material from the article on Inchkeith Island, with no mention of it on the talk page or to any of the editors. If you have decided that the majority of my article is, as you've put it, "mostly fictional material added by Njan", I'd request that you provide some explanation for why you've done it, and some references for your assertions. If you seriously believe that the entirity of the article is a work of fiction, I'd request you start a discussion about this on the talk page for the article; an accusation of that severity won't really fit into edit summaries and this'll otherwise just turn into an edit war. njan 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your reply; dialogue is good. :)
You said: "Njan, the burden of proof does not lie with those seeking to remove fanciful material from wikipedia, and removing such material is not vandalism (see WP:Vandalism for how the people who edit that page define vandalism)."
The issue isn't the removal of bogus material. My principal concern with your initial edits is that rather than identifying and removing specifically incorrect material, you reverted any edit by one person whose edits you decided you didn't like. This included a large amount of material relating to post-14thC use of the island, including a substantial amount about the island in the 20thC which, aside from being something I'm fairly sure is correct, you haven't specifically objected to in any way. (In fact, in terms of wordcount, the material you removed that you haven't specifically objected to is greater than that that you did.)
I actually have a couple of concerns and/or suggestions in response to your second round of (more conservative) edits, but I'll address them on the article and its talk page, rather than here.
Whilst removing bogus material is a worthy goal, picking people whose contributions you dislike and removing their edits isn't. However, I see that you have gone back and revisited your edits and been slightly more judicious about what you removed - something for which you're to be commended.
You said: "This is pure fiction. There were no Norman-style families like that until more than a century after the reign of Mael Coluim mac Cinaeda. "Keith" is simply a specific placename element from which the later Keith family derived their locative surname."
Is it? Why? What's your source? I haven't made up any of the above; like you point out later, I've simply gleaned it through research from other sources. The source of this piece of information (all of which you removed) is inline with the text, in fact - the sentence itself starting as it does with "The Scottish Gazeteer records that.. ". This isn't original material of mine of any sort, so if you have objections to this material I presume you're objecting to the use of this source. If this is your concern, please say so - you haven't supplied any basis for your criticisms of this, and to take you at your literal word I would have to assume that what you're saying amounts to "The Scottish Gazeteer didn't say [these things]". Since you're obviously abreast of wikipedia policy, you're no doubt familiar with wikipedia's views on original research, references, and neutral points of view, and I won't patronise you by pointing out how they impact this, other than by making you aware of the fact that I understand them too. :)
You said: "But let me go on. The following consists of little but historical fiction [...] Francis Hindes Groome, in his Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland, notes that [a variety of things]"
Again, we run into the same problems. There is nothing fictional about stating that someone said something - what it seems you're objecting to here is what Frances Hindes Groome has to say on the subject, something which (again) we have nothing to rely upon but your word. Again, why is this fiction? What's your source? What specifically do you object to about this reference source?
You said: "From that, it is clear that you are not competent to be adding content to wikipedia. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth. In fairness, maybe the websites are to blame for some of those falsehoods, but even that is generous interpretation, and still leaves the conclusion that you yourself are unable to distinguish truth from fiction"
I'm not going to bother responding to any of this, or much of the following paragraph, because it has no place in a discussion about encyclopedic content. Please address the subject matter, and don't direct attacks against specific wikipedians.
You said: "if you insist on reinstating such material, I'll simply bring it to the attention of a wider audience in the hope that they will sacrifice their time to make up for your errors.".
I'd be more than happy for any article I've participated in to benefit from more community attention. I'm taking this not as a threat, but as a valuble offer of assistance for wikipedia - If you are in contact with others who're happy to sacrifice time to peer review and have expertise in this sort of material, please feel quite free to direct them towards the Inchkeith article. I'd be quite happy to supply further articles in need of attention, and feel no need to make your attempts to cause others to improve the content here contingent upon any actions of mine - if this is something you want to, or feel able to do, please go right ahead. :)
I've never stated my intention "insist on reinstating such material", either - after reverting your edits, I did what I feel should always happen when individuals disagree and tried to open up a reasonable dialogue. Again, I won't patronise you by lecturing you on wikipedia policy other than to make you aware that I am aware (as are you, no doubt) of wikipedia's views on the subject of consensus.
As a polite suggestion, intended to be well-received, I'd suggest that if you have such large objections to others content in future, you be more open, more discursive, and less abrasive about the process of acting upon those objections. One might even go so far as to say "Remember, being nice would make your mother happy!". Regards. njan 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You've removed more referenced content from the Inchkeith article without providing a reason or discussing it on the topic open on the talk page. This isn't good practice, and it makes it very difficult to build consensus and improve the article. Youmay have good reasons for removing this referenced content, but so far you haven't provided any - you've just removed them based on your opinions and unreferenced knowledge. Please provide them and discuss this before turning this into an edit war. Thanks. njan 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you find this issue "boring", but that isn't an excuse for not following wikipedia policy. Please discuss your edits or drop the issue - I can't work this out with you if you refuse to engage in any dialog about the edits you're making and persist in making changes that aren't referenced and are solely based on things that only you know and refuse to share. njan 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You're continuing to remove content without providing any justification for your removals, and in ignorance of multiple messages here, and a message on the article's talk page. You have yet to reply to any of my messages about this with the exception of the very first. Please engage in discussion on this issue - I'd like to resolve this as amicably and reasonably as possible. Thanks. njan 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for actually replying. Since you've bothered to, I've left the article as-is with your changes intact in the hope that we can in fact discuss this.
In response to your reply, you say "The source is of little importance, and its speculation is historical nonsense". Why? Because you say so? This sounds a lot like original research, or simply your opinion, and ultimately, is the crux of the matter. Why are you disqualifying this source? njan 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Dear Deacon, I notice we are playing 'good cop, bad cop' over yonder. Incidentally, I too was under the misapprehension that somehow the loss of the dearly beloved Scotalnd Infobox was as the result of a 'vote' that I had been pretty confident of being a 'no consensus'. I was fair scunnered when the result was announced. I contacted the admin concerned and the result of our dialogue is to be found at User talk:Nick/Archive7#Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place. 'One live and learn' as Ebenezer would say. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hi there. I've been looking for a suitable infobox for Saint Mary's Haddington, but no joy. The Medieval Cathedral, and Monastery ones don't really fit, as it was never episcopal see, and it was a collegium of canons, rather than monks. I don't suppose you know of anything useable? At a push I could emend one of the above to fit, i'd value any suggestions as to the parameters within it though. Regards Brendandh 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aed Finliath

Could you please have a look at this one? It might have been a bit to bold to replace the excisitng stub with this translation (of my own article in norwegian), but I really felt that this version would be better, despite wrong spelling and broken english etc etc Finnrind 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Comyn, jure uxoris Earl of Buchan

Hello, I have been editing William Comyn, jure uxoris Earl of Buchan to which I noticed you have been the main contributer. I wondered if you knew anything about a "Comyn son who drowned"? I have dated all his children bar William Comyn Jr. who I suspect was the one who died, but I just don't know. I am mainly working on Castle of Rattray and this is a potentially important piece of the puzzle I need to find information about. Bobbacon 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iona, name thereof, and its derivation

I left a short note for you at Talk:Iona#Name of island regarding truth, verifiability etc. that you may you not have seen. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More questions about Domhnall of Islay, Lord of the Isles

I have some more questions about Domhnall of Islay, Lord of the Isles on its talk page --AW 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyiv, not Kiev

Hello, what exactly is wikipolicy about kiev? There are discussions about various things, but nothing seems to be decided. Various people point out google hits, then forget about those, then talk about media, but there is nothing really decided at the end.

However, it seems that most people who actively take part in keeping the name as Kiev happen to reside in or are from Russia.

Why is it such a big issue for everybody else? Governments are now changing the name, so anybody who is on a government site and may want information about it will look for Kyiv. Most news agencies, with the notable exception of CNN, but we won't go there, have changed it to Kyiv. Same there with the redirects. I think that will confuse people more.

Honestly, I think most people in the English speaking world don't care either way. Both of the words are just as difficult to pronounce, and if you took a random sample of people off the street (as an ESL teacher, I have a lot of experience talking to many people of various backgrounds) most people wouldn't really care.

Changes are happening in Ukraine now, and with the coming soccer championships scheduled to take place there, more and more people are looking for Kyiv. A redirect to Kiev will just confuse them.

The change will cost you nothing. Why not?

Horlo

[edit] Epithets

Nice update to the Scottish monarchs list. Do you have a reference for Robert III being called "John Faranyear"? I thought I did, but it must be in Boardman's Early Stewart Kings, and my copy is in Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Monarchs list

It all seems fine to me. Very nice update. siarach 14:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ì Chaluim Cille

Id understand it as meaning "Island" although thats no reason not to change, or at least demand some kind of etymological reference, for the bit in the Iona article which states that is actually what it means. Obviously the fact that people nowadays think of it as having this meaning has no bearing on whether or not that is what it means or meant historically which is your area of expertise. siarach 07:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to move to Kyiv

Hello,

I have set up a request to move the page Kiev to Kyiv.

I have outlined four key reasons for doing so in the discussion section of the page.

Looking through the archives, I saw that you had contributed to this page earlier. I would like to hear what you have to say on this topic.

Thank you

Horlo 04:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo

Hello, I am an English speaking Ukrainian born in the U.S who is not understanding why a seemingly intelligent person like yourself would stand in the way of providing correct and updated information to the users of Wikipedia. I am refering to the usage of the correct, updated, Ukrainian,non-Soviet spelling of the capital of Ukraine - KYIV. According to the archives,the the usage of Kyiv instead of Kiev has more valid backing than you and your comrads are willing to recognize. All the American/Ukrainian and Ukrainian/American organizations,newspapers,schools,churches have stopped using the old Soviet spelling (Kiev). Ukraine is not part of the Soviet Union any more, hence,the reason for updating the spelling to Kyiv. Ignoring and making fun of this issue is an insult to the Ukrainian English speaking/reading communities in all countries. Wikipedia.org is providing a disservice to its users by not correcting and updating the information found on its site. Please post my comments on the discussion page Bosska 06:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)bosska

[edit] Washington Police

Methinks you are confusing me for Rossami. >Radiant< 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A word on sockpuppets

Hello,

I would just like to clear up a misunderstanding that took place when I first started this discussion.

The first time that I started editing Kyiv was from a different computer. That computer did not have the password saved on it and unfortunately I had forgotten it, so instead of spending an hour trying to figure it out, I created a new account.

Since I started using my other computer, I have only used the horlo account.

There just seem to be more people who think like I do in the world.

Thanks, Horlo 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elgin Cathedral

Just got back from watching Aberdeen only getting a draw against Hearts and got another surprise; noticed you put the Lantern up for GA. I've been promising myself that I would do it for a while now but now its there so we'll see what happens. Anyway thanks for forcing the issue. Best Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for Bur too. Cheers --Bill Reid | Talk 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aldfrith

I left a note on the article but thought I'd drop you a line: I noticed you've put Aldfrith of Northumbria up for GA. There are a couple of paragraphs that aren't cited, so it's likely to fail quickly. I am willing to help find citations, but I suggest withdrawing it till they're done. Then I think it could go straight to FA; it's in pretty good shape. Either way I'd be happy to help with the article if you'd like a hand. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Nice to hear from you. Frankly, I'm confused each time I stumble upon your new name. How "Pndapetzim" is supposed to be pronounced? --Ghirla-трёп- 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Hawes

Thanks for your comments on the FA nomination of Richard Hawes. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, and I hope Jayron32 will eventually support the article without my removing the cites, as he has mentioned that it meets the other criteria. Regardless of the outcome of the citation issue, I hope you will review the article and be able to support its promotion to FA status. The fact that its subject is a rather low-profile individual may make it difficult to garner opinions either way. If you find ways to improve the article, please leave those as well. It needs to be as good as possible, as its next stop if promoted will be inclusion in a featured topic nomination. Thanks again! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] naming guidelines

I can see how this might be frustrating. I don't think I have any good answers. Threatening on the talk page to go ahead and do stuff if nobody says anything would probably get the objectors out, but it wouldn't actually lead to any consensus, I suspect. I'm not sure what happened back in November - the main problem looks to me as though the main problem is that Noel McFerran proposed the change, but then kind of left, and it kind of withered amidst some vague discussion of ramifications. At this point, the only way forward might be to have a new poll about it. You might also want to contact people who voted on the original proposal on their talk pages, to let them know you're bringing it up again. That might be the best way to get some attention for it. Anyway, as I said at the time, my support for the change is cautious. In general, I like it better than the current guideline, but I think it needs to be fully elaborated on before we start moving things, since there really are a ridiculous number of articles which would have to be moved. Anyway, let me mull it over a bit. BTW, why the new user name? john k 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Vintagekits

Hi Deacon, thanks for your msg. See my reply at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Block_of_Vintagekits ( like to keep discussions in on place, because it makes them much easier to follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at Scotland

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Scotland. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Stemonitis 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Administrator has made a mistake. No 3RR occurred. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "What do you base that assertion on? I also reviewed the report and counted 4 reverts per the diffs. Please explain why you believe you have not reverted more than 3 times? The policy is at WP:3RR — Spartaz Humbug! 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Because I only edited that article three times in the last day ... nay last fortnight. I'd post a screenshot if I could. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You are correct - I confused you with the other participant in the edit war because Stemontis used the same template on both pages and I had just looked at it. Bear with me while I look at this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, its possible that Stemontis blocked you for revert warring generally as you don't actually need 4 reverts to break the 3RR. I need to clarify that before I consider the unblock. I have left him a message on his talk page. Hopefully he is still around to pick it up. Please feel free to put up another unblock template in the meantime in case this drags on. The earlier template does not count towards the count of 2 unblock requests a day as a result of my error. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

Please see Stemontis' response. You may wish to put up another unblock request informed on their comments. Spartaz Humbug! 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what does it matter?! Not being able to edit wikipedia for 12 hours is hardly a big deal. I was proud of having a blockless record maintained despite my long history of trying to adhere to and enforce WP:NPOV, and now my record is permanently stained; whether by accident of an admin, or by whim. After writing nearly 700 articles and 4 FAs, I can be blocked with so little effort or consideration. Not even worthy of of a truthful explanation on my talk page. I see the blocking admin's comments. Doesn't matter to me. I'm now a bothersome misbehaving child to any and all of the hundreds who get past the request for admin vote. If I can be blocked by mistake, with a whimsical retrospective justification following admission of said mistake, what am I supposed to think about it? Am I supposed to respect that? Too many things bother me about wikipedia nowadays, everything from events like this and admins like that to the POV pushing I was reverting on Scotland, to Talk:Lauder to a variety of other things I shall not bore you or anyone else with. I see the person who actually broke 3RR is now unblocked. Says it all. Wikipedia is supposed to be a co-operative community, yet one person can stain my record with such ease and with such little justification. I have no role in a community which doesn't respect me. All I was trying to was prevent an ideologically motivated user inserting fiction into an article. Maybe I'll change my mind, but for now wikipedia and I are history. I've just had enough. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're unblocked. No 3rr violation, and hard to see how you could be edit warring on Scotland given the number of edits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Better add the template:

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

Commandments concerning 3rr or edit warring not obviously broken.

Request handled by: ~~~~

Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Angus. Would thank you on your own page, but Stemontis also blocked a bunch of IP addresses, so can't. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have unfortunately decided to leave wikipedia. The bad things have finally gotten the better of my spirit. Maybe the desire to write an article on an abbot of Kinloss will bring me back, but I can only speak for the moment.

But thanks a lot to all the great and wonderful people here who've made it fun!!! :D To all the good contributors, continue the good work!

[edit] Best wishes

Well said that man!!! I could not possibly have put it any better myself. You are a credit to your alma mater and to your country. All the best in what I earnestly hope is only a temporary wikibreak. I have recently taken some time out myself, and my goodness, what a pleasure it is to be out there in the real world!! Wikipedia really does have its head up its own arse, and the longer you hang around the more it dawns on you that the lunatics really are the ones running the asylum. Sláinte! --Mais oui! 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Echo what Mais oui! has just said but the quality of Scottish medieval articles will be all the poorer. Have a good break and get the Kinloss Abbot going — I certainly hope so. All the best, --Bill Reid | Talk 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just another example of good editors leaving because of an inability of the rules to be applied. The fact that you got 3RR blocked is quite frankly an absolute joke. The definition of consensus seems to have become meaningless now - instead anybody can just career about doing as they wish - and if established knowledgeable editors dare to call a spade a spade then they get banned. It is a bloody disgrace. Good luck for the future - hopefully you will return one day - your long contribs indicate exactly the type of person wikipedia needs, adding high quality content - but instead you have been driven away by people who appear to be acting out the Stanford Experiment. SFC9394 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry to see this, you are an editor whose contributions I have come to have great respect for. I sincerely hope this will only be a wikibreak (had one my self just recently, did a lot of good ;) Regards, Finnrind 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I laughed when i first saw that youd been blocked for 3RR - i didnt think any example of admin/bureaucratic nonsense could surprise me on wikipedia anymore but i was quite mistaken it seems. Ive been toying with the idea of leaving for good myself for some months now having become quite worn down with the incompetence of admins and how frequently determined pushers of POV, well, push their POV. If wikipedia is to maintain any kind of reputation it needs editors of your quality and it is a great loss to the Scottish wikiproject and Wikipedia as a whole for us to lose you. siarach 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The worst thing is that inveterate revert-warriors are not blocked for 4RR and 5RR (as was shown in the thread that is still on WP:AN) while long-standing contributors are blocked for 2RR. That's what anarchy is about. Our rules are applied at random, if applied at all. Perhaps we should start a separate thread on the administrators' noticeboard to discuss this particular incident and its implications for the community. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should start a separate thread on the administrators' noticeboard to discuss this particular incident and its implications for the community." - ive been thinking along similar lines. siarach 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, what was done to you is the prime example of what's wrong with Wikipedia's admin culture. But please do not give up on it. Things now are still much better than they were a year ago. There will always be self-righteous non-writing admins, there will always be unfair blocks of good editors followed by non-apologetic patronizing ridiculous lecturing. I've been through this as well as most article writers I know.

Ironically, this was done to you in the immediate aftermath of your post to ANI wrt to the issue of artbitrary blocking. Same happened to me a long time ago and even the sequence of events was identical (See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive52#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators.) At the time I felt grossly offended. I even started an RfC but abandoned it once I realized that it is not worth it. The so called "admin culture" won't change, so we have to deal with it calmly and trying to minimize our stress.

Your pristine block log now blemished by the irresponsible admin is much less of a deal really than it may seem, especially since you have no intention to run for adminship and see Wikipedia as the place of content writing unlike much of the adminfolk. You are well-known enough so that blocking you will always remain a very serious matter with or without that stupid line in your log. So, you won't be blocked without a very serious consideration by most of admins and for the blockloving ones like this here, the log, clean or stained, won't matter anyway once they see they have an excuse to block. Regardless of your block log you posts to Wikipedia-space boards will continue making a much stronger impact than posts of some admins because of your overall reputation of the superb editor.

You may wish to write an admin RfC as this may help remove some stress from your soul, but in the long run it may be not worse an effort. It is pretty clear here who is who without an RfC. Besides, neither the fellow, nor the admin culture will change. Some faction of admins will always retain the arrogant attitude.

So, please use as much time as you need to get over this but do come back to help us develop a better knowledge and pay less attention to the unencyclopedic users, admins or not. In the meanwhile, we will miss you and your work. Please make a break short or even come back at once if you can now feel that you can put this silliness behind.

Cheers, --Irpen 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)