User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Kirkcaldy article
hello
since you are involved with wikiProject Scotland, if you wouldn't mind looking at this Kirkcaldy revamp (Phase 1) and see if you approve with my plan to revamp the Kirkcaldy article. i will upload four other phases in the near future. this is what is it looking like at the moment, Kirkcaldy the article desperately needs a new introduction and history section as well as more book references in particular, of which i'm planning to do all the work for (which after then, others can change bits or therefore)
i have been concerned over the state of this article for a while and feel it is not going to get sorted, if i don't do something about it. i would like my work to be presented as i have worked hard to ensure that this is both worthy and decent.
P.S. i intend to revise the info in phase I, probably later on, so it would be better to view them, if you don't mind. Kilnburn (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Germanic peoples
Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim. I suggest that List of Germanic peoples be renamed to List of Ancient Germanic peoples. Please direct your objections to the talkpage YET AGAIN. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thank-spam
Thankyou Deacon :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
Watchlisted :) Good call. Pedro : Chat 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bloody Hell, you've taken my breath away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks!
 |
RfA: Many thanks | |
| Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Differences
Deacon, In my opinion there is a distinction between Scotland, Ireland, and England! If Sarah wants to make this distinction she has every right to! If there where none, why did Ireland gain their independence and why do so many people want the same for Scotland? I don't feel British, (though I can't deny the political reality of it) I feel Scottish, which immediately makes me distinct from English people. I don't presume to tell you how you should feel, but there are many with my opinion in Scotland. This does not make me anti-English, it makes me Pro- Scottish. Jack forbes (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! Jack forbes (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] missed
Cheers - a bit of both really although mostly because ive been variously in the states/changing jobs/moving house over the last few months hence my absence. I've been sucked back in over the last week or so though il probably only stick around until the next idiotic edit war/argument kicks off and irritates me into leaving for another couple of months. Glad to see your possession of a vaguely rational mind and appreciation for facts over wishful thinking hasnt yet seen you kicked out of the admins club ;). siarach (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stuff
With Wikipedia, there's thousands of editors with thousands of PoVs (which is normal). Sarah kinda mistrusts Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Great Britain and Ireland
Hi, I reverted your revert of GB&I. With respect, the original proposal was to merge the article with the "List of islands in the British Isles" article, and redirect this page to "British Isles". At that time, I agreed that it was not obvious why the article existed (only as a POV fork), but since that proposal, I've added to the article (and bear in mind that the article is still a stub). The article is now already covering different material that is not covered by either "British Isles" or "List of", and I intend to add more along the lines of geology, etc. In other words, to keep the article as a geographic term (no political/historic stuff except to refer to other articles). I've asked Batsun (as the original proposer) to take a look. I posted this on the Talk page before your revert. I'd also obviously appreciate if you take a look and see the gist of where the article is going. --Bardcom (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Religious houses
Thanks for doing the changes. I'm sort of thinking the article itself would be the place to do this with a work in progress tag. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of 750?
Experience tells me that I'm sure you're the man who would know of a certain Pictish battle during the year 750, that "supposedly" occured in Strathblane. It seems to be the event in which Talorgan son of Fergus, (brother of Óengus I of the Picts) was slain. You wouldn't happen to know the name of the battle or any details about this event would you? I'm looking at expanding the Strathblane article and found a breif note about this battle in a book. --Jza84 | Talk 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Super stuff! Yes the book mentions a, or rather the "Welsh Chronicle" (which is a deadlink here on Wikipedia - one I'll probably fix with a redirect to Annales Cambriae in a moment). This all seems to match up nicely. Thanks! You seem to be an encyclopedia in your own right when it comes to Medieval Scotland! --Jza84 | Talk 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pl revert your edit-warring
Please revert your move of the Great Britain and Ireland article. It is clear that the discussion had not been closed. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: from my talk
I'm not entirely sure I plan to, but I won't discount it. I'm familiar with the reasons to block and as I've said, I might possibly go there from time to time and help out if it has become so backlogged that I am needed there. Thank you for popping over on my talk though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from blocking, protecting, dispute resolution (not to mention the specific 3RR policy), what else would you suggest I have to know before entering into WP:AN3? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then its a good thing I never asked you to believe it. I only said block, because its what I believe is the most likely outcome to filing a 3rr report (given its not a frivolous report), and protect per a WP:RPP request, and delete per a CSD request, etc. I didn't mention my familiarity with the other policies, because I had assumed you had read my entire RfA. But anyhow, thank you for your comments, I will indeed reflect upon them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Finns are back
My esteemed collegue at wikipedia in Norwegian Finn Bjorklid (here appearing as FinnWiki has translated Abbot of Iona to Norwegian bokmål. Reading over the translated and English version I was puzzled by "During that abbacies of Diarmait and Indrechtach, almost certainly because of Viking attacks, the relics of Columba and perhaps even the position of Columban comarba, were moved to Kells and Dunkeld" According to AU the relics came to Ireland in 878 (AU 878.9), quite a while after Indretach. This is also quoted by O Corrain (Vikings in S&I). Are there contradicting sources here, or may the relics first have gone to Dunkeld before coming to Ireland (Kells).
You wrote your parts of the article (which seem to be more or less all of it) i 2006, so I don't expect you to remember - but if there are other sources it would be good to know as I rewrote the Norw. version in accordance with AU. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Irish Finn (Rindahl) has made me aware that you are in fact my old colleague from Scottish history. I am sorry I didn't understand it first. Anyway, do you know if we (wiki-folks) have a picture of the beautiful Pictish stone, Brough of Birsay? The stone is rather remarkeable and it would be a pity if we can't use it as a illustration. --FinnWiki (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the Irish Finn really, he's more Cool than me;) Deacon, you're not the first to be confused by two Norwegian Finns editing articles about the history of the northwestern part of those islands surrounding Man. Your (and Angus) answers at both Finntalks are appreciated. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
for your vote of confidence on my RFA! Quoting Dr. Phil is not a habit of mine and I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future, I promise ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Karkonosze to Giant Mountains
Why do have closed both move proposals on Talk:Karkonosze as no consensus, not only the one to "Karkonosze/Krkonoše"? Did you only count support/oppose votes? Please read Talk:Karkonosze#Requested_move_to_Giant_Mountains again and see that Giant Mountains is well supported by sources, while the current name Karkonosze is the worst choice, less significant than Krkonoše, and of course the English name. Those opposing the move can can only cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I strongly urge you to reconsider as Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Where is evidence (and consensus) for the current name? The article has been created under that name, and while always a bunch of users showed up to filibuster a move request, they could not provide evidence for preferred use by scholars. As stated, the scientific journal Opera Corcontica is focussing on this very mountain range, and its international authors, mainly Czech and Polish, clearly favor the use of Giant Mountains [1], examples
- Clear identification of the Giant Mountains (Krkonoše in Czech, Karkonosze in Polish) among Central European elevations ...
- Surfaces of tourist routes in the Giant Mountains (Karkonosze in Polish)
How can this be "no consensus"? Please move the article to Giant Mountains. -- Matthead Discuß 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I second Matthead's request; none of the oppose !votes presented sources contradicting the proposed moves, simply their personal opinions, which aren't valid arguments. Please re-review the move proposal and associated discussion. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Deacon of Pndapetzim, you confirmed on my talk that you had read the discussion and saw my arguments. Hopefully you saw the arguments of others, too. I urge you to explain your decision, or, if you choose not to do so, to revert your closure and let others decide. Until now, you gave no reason at all except stating "no consensus". There are 10 supporters for the move, with good reasons, while 9 oppose, in highly doubtful manner. -- Matthead Discuß 04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
- From User talk:Daniel. 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Daniel, I tried to remove the superfluous commentary added to the logs of this page, but certain users didn't like it. I've seen this a few times ... the comments invite further comments, inviting a whole discussion in the log, which it isn't supposed to be about. The block was reasonable and lenient, that Betacommand didn't like it is hardly noteworthy (his complaints in any case concern some editors he was reverting, though I blocked him for personal attacks, one of which was directed against an editor entirely uninvolved in that particular revert war). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully this will solve the problem of making all the facts available without presenting interpretations of fact. I agree that the section is not designed to be used a forum to note the blockee's continued objection to the block, and thanks for raising it on my talk page so I could resolve it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nikola Žigić
Please explain why you moved Nikola Zigic to Nikola Žigić because AFAICT it is clearly against both policy and guidelines (see WP:SOURCES, WP:NC and WP:UE). If it is not, I would appreciate it if you would explain which guidelines you think justify the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur in finding this deplorable; the arguments for the move were largely WP:WELIKEIT and the (largely meaningless) "It's correct in Serbian". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You wrote on User talk:Pmanderson "I think you both know the vast majority of admins would have closed it as I did, but thanks for your concern nonetheless." No I don't, and I would have closed it the other way, because I would follow the current naming convention guidelines (not talk pages or essays) which are based on the policy WP:V and it states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (in this case the other two content polices are only very marginally involved). Therefore if the references or the vast majority of other reliable sources were using "Nikola Žigić" then that is were the name should be, but in this case they were the other way round so the name should have remained at Nikola Zigic. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Back in the USSR
Please reconsider. I agree that this is a case which may well fall outside the existing guidelines - indeed I raised it on WT:UE; but (aside from Prohibit Onions' ultimately neutral comment) there was consensus to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- In case you are having trouble finding this, it is Talk:Снова в СССР, which should at least be moved out of its present condition of mistaken Cyrillic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sock concern
Regarding this concern. I am aware of the owner of the account that concerns you and believe it to be policy compliant. If you have further concerns, feel free to email me and I will elaborate. Rockpocket 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:RM
Thanks for the help clearing out the backlog at WP:RM recently. For a time there, we were down to merely two items in the backlog, which is by far a low point for 2008. Hope to see you around again if things get out of hand. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scottish monarchs' family tree
You deleted the first tree on this page (up to the end of the Dunkeld Dynasty); I have put it back, but with an additional disclaimer. I agree that the early part of the tree is unreliable, and that elements of it are patently inaccurate (for example, Edmund son of Malcolm III is not generally regarded as a monarch, and regnal dates are given for him which overlap with those of Donalbain), but I thought that as it is in the main accurate, it is still a useful tool. I think that it would be far better to correct the thing than to simply discard it. Much more irritating than the errors (I have had to work it out from other pages) is that the family trees don't explain the ancestry of the Bruces or the Balliols (i.e. their descent from David I). I don't know who formats the wiki family trees, but as your user page appears to suggest that you are some sort of wiki-deity in relation to Scottish history (I in comparison am a relative novice), your input would be much appreciated. BartBassist (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 260 in Ireland
I quite agree that primary sources for remote periods, particularly when of uncertain reliability, need to be treated with care. However the sources do verifiably exist. Material from such sources should certainly not be treated as plain fact, but neitgher should it be dismissed out of hand. It should be able to be inclded in WP, with a suitable explanation of its credibility. Single year articles are certainly the wrong approach, but 3rd century in Ireland covering all (alleged events) reamins a possibility. I am not offering to deal with this as I manage Latin but not Celtic languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I note that 3rd century in Ireland has now been deleted. I suspect that this was not the best solution, since some one will one day recreate it all and we will have the same problem again. However, since it has gone, that is to my mind the end of the matter for the moment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Lewis
Hello Deacon, I have come to you because you are an admin. Matt Lewis has constantly been aggressive to me over the last few days and I believe it has come to a head. It started on the British Isles page where he said I was using pro-nationalist POV and ended with him telling me to f**k off on his talk page. On the whole I have tried to remain civil with him apart from telling him to grow up. Could you please take a look at it, Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFA Thanks
Deacon, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA. having been watching RFA for some time now, I see that you are careful and diligent !voter thus I am humbled to have your support. you may be interested in checking out and commenting on my in-depth RFA analysis. i've also left some templated thank-spam for you below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bloomfield
Hi there, remember you asked me once about Black Ruthenia and biases behind it? Well, this AfD might give some more insight. Best, Renata (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sarah777
Thanks for the support, it's appreciated. :) Alison and I have been having long talks about the situation, and I am hoping that we will find a compromise soon. We're almost there, but are taking a break due to real-life issues and will resume later. Could I make one request of you in the meantime? In your most recent comment, would you be willing to rework it to avoid the T-word? I am concerned that in the tense atmosphere of that page, it might escalate things more than necessary. Up to you though! Thanks, Elonka 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
