User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 4

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

June 2006 to August 2006

Transwiki-ing fr/de.wikipedia images to Commons[edit]

There isn't a more "proper" way than what've you've mentioned. Just download the image from the Wikipedia, then upload it to Commons and lastly, I think you'll have to inform the sysops at the Wikipedia to delete their copy of the image so that the Commons one is shown there as well as other Wikipedias. Here we do it by slapping {{NowCommonsThis}} on the local copy of the image, but I'm not sure how you'd do it elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-Up Regarding Your 'Lost' Vote[edit]

The closing admin closed it in favor of keeping it, despite six delete votes, one merge/delete vote, one keep vote, and one transwiki vote. The matter is up for deletion review here and the article has been nominated for a second time here. As you were involved in the original process, I wanted to alert you so you could take action as you saw appropriate. I will not be adding your response to my watchlist, so please respond either to my talk page or to one of the two venues this is being discussed. — Mike • 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TharkunColl_and_Lord_Loxley[edit]

User:JW1805 has made himself a useful idiot (a Tool reference). I'm popping their bubbles all over the place, but they refuse to gain composure and accept that there are things they overlook. Lord Loxley 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson[edit]

we have a clear letter. If you want davidson to be removed you are the one who should come up with a proper document. not with doubts and suspicion. neurobio 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do as you wish. it only gives us a clear idea about your good will. neurobio 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a treat it is a discription of what you are doing. as you said we need a lot of inprovement in the article. what I dont get is although there are endless weasel words and Pov in this article why are you obsesively removing davidsons name despite the letter.neurobio 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the edit. I welcome it. just a remark.

about "Based on studies of the the Ottoman census by Justin McCarthy and others, it is said that far fewer than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the relevant areas before the War."

it is not only ottoman census also = ludovic de costenson (1913)= 1.400.000, prof david magie (1914)= 1.479.000. English estimates=1.600.000, And in lousanne treaty Prof magies numbers were used. So it is not only ottoman figures. ottoman figure is 1.294.000. (also the article says in the beginning there were 2 mil. armenians which is beyond the unrecognised (by allies) 1.915.000 number of the patriach.) So i propose the line to be "Based on studies of the the Ottoman census and offically recognised estimates of the era by Justin McCarthy and others, it is said that (far deleted) fewer than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the relevant areas before the War."neurobio 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding that whois is not nice at all.neurobio 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right I realised it later. sorryneurobio 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Swindells[edit]

Thank you for the article cleanup! Stev0 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists[edit]

Hey Angus, I believe everyone there, with the obvious exception of Charles Martel, were either French naval or defense ministers. I would think Charles Martel is pretty straightforward. He was a very famous military commander.UberCryxic 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Michelet is listed as a Minister of National Defense from November 21, 1945 to to June 24, 1946. Yeah so far I've added them manually....UberCryxic 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainville[edit]

I know it's not much, but I came across it when I was adding entries from the Probert Encyclopaedia. [1] --M e rovingian {T C @} 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. If it happens that you just can't get much, you're more than welcome to propose it for deletion. --M e rovingian {T C @} 02:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

With little hope of success, I requested a move on Talk:Scots language (to Lowland Scots). I invite you to contribute. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Moroccan rulers[edit]

I can't find that I have any source for these names in English. That said, the forms used look about the best they could be for an English encyclopaedia. I'll probably start on some translation soon if I have time. Srnec 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish footballers and religion[edit]

Despite their links with Celtic, Murdo MacLeoud, David Moyes, and Gordon Strachan are not Roman Catholics. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was you who had added religion to all of these players, on closer inspection it was My name is Gianmaria Framarin, I was born in Terracina, Italy on the 22d of July, 1973 and currently reside in the same town., and you reclassified the entries. Sorry again. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Óengus II of the Picts[edit]

You have done marvelous work on this article. Thanks for your contributions. Nesbit 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far too kind, but thanks very much ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Ta. --Mais oui! 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections on History of France subpages[edit]

Angusmclellan - There is discussion underway on the order of sections in the History of France subpages. I'd appreciate your input, if you have a chance. Go to Talk:History of France#Sections in sub articles. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement for Armenian Genocide page.[edit]

Hi, Angus. I saw you were involved on the Armenian Genocide page. As you may have noticed, Fadix is a key contributor to the article and has done much to maintain the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Following a dispute with an administrator named InShaneee, he is considering leaving Wikipedia. It involved a report of minor incivility against him, after which, from what I understand, he criticized InShaneee on his talk page and was blocked for 3 days. I think it was too harsh, but at any rate, the Armenian Genocide page will have a great loss with Fadix' departure. If he leaves permanently, it is necessary to find a replacement for the article--someone neutral and knowledgable who will be actively involved in the article. If you can help in that regard, it would be a major service to the article and to Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 04:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward and Donald[edit]

Hello! I intend to expand the existing account of the life of Edward Balliol (and to write a seperate article on the Second War of Scottish Independence). I note that you (and others I assume) have been referring to Donald of Mar as 'Domhnall'. I have never come across this Gaelic form of his name in any of the written sources-all English admittedly-and I would personally choose to follow the convention of using the English form, unless, of course, you can direct me to some contemporary reference? Donald's earldom may have been Gaelic but he was very anglicised in politics and outlook. A personal friend of Edward II, who lived for a considerable period in the English court, he was even suspected of treason by his fellow Scots. Is the Gaelic usage a modern form of linguistic/cultural/political correctness? Should we start referring to King Seamus instead of King James? I hope you do not consider this too trivial but I would like to get this point straight to avoid any confusion in editing and cross-referencing.Rcpaterson 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re 130th Brigade[edit]

Thanks for the offer on OOB, i might take you up on that. As far as adding WWI and post WWII histories to the Brigades of WWII i think thats a great idea as i cannot find any histories on british brigades other than at the WWII list. 130th Brigade is looking better for your edit. Nice one. Tristan benedict 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

halacoglu[edit]

what kind of documents do you want? I have now 2 books of halacoglu in my hands and I can cite them. Do you want an active internet link in english? If its ok I will rewrite it properly and post it. But no doubt it will be reverted in an instant.neurobio 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

..for showing me a new section of documentation. :) re: WP:VSCA

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the aloof NPOV education of fellow editors Ste4k 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an urge to vote...[edit]

But since we are on the topic of Vanispamcruftisement I thought you would at least enjoy reading this one :)

Link

Ste4k 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding a user[edit]

hi Angusmclellan , I see you have been having some dealings with User:Marrtel and the unilateral moving of pages without any prior discussion and the creation of double and triple redirects. Please let me know if you require any assistance in direct dealings with Marrtel. with kind regards Gryffindor 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Saint Mungo article)[edit]

Thanks for the info re: categories in the St. Mungo article. I didn't realize (though I should have) that the Saint subcategories *were* actually subcategories of the Saint category! Dumb, yes, but there you have it. So, what you said makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the common sense. =) Isoxyl 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norsewomen[edit]

I've replied to your query on my talk page. Haukur 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article should use Ingeborg in its name. No reason to have different spellings for persons having essentially the same name. If I may criticize your past edits, it seems you are introducing inconsistent namings into English Wikipedia, and very odd variants of names (better suited in explanatory parts of the article itself), and too much non-English forms. This of course is kin with all diacritics-disputes and so forth. Based on your tendencies in edits, I regard you divert quite much from the policy Use English. Marrtel 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could continue discussion about her at Talk: Ingeborg of Austraat. Marrtel 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

halacoglu[edit]

i have sent you an e mail asking if you want some articles of halacoglu and others. if you reply i can send them.neurobio 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is in your mailneurobio 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my latest adit is fair since it is not only turkish goverment but several historians too. and indeed the core of the event is a matter of discussion. is it a genocide or not. are you willing to do any thing about halacogluneurobio 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

angus I really believed in your good will. but I have to ask once again why are you obsesively reverting Turk contributions while the article contains so much weasel words, a forged (at leased miss presented, doubious) picture and POV even a propaganda advertisement. please! I agree that prominent is a problematic word but is it really "the problem" in the article that you can see.neurobio 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About a certain editor...[edit]

I have noticed that you have had certain recent run-ins with User:Rex Germanus over similar things as are currently occupying my time. For example, you reverted an edit of his to Old Low Franconian and I had to revert it again. You reversed his additions of History of the Netherlands to various Merovingian monarchs. There are currently ongoing disputes at Charlemagne (again) and I don't know what the proper method is for solving disputes of this nature with an editor who seems hell-bent on pushing a certain POV and using Wikipedia to "make a point." His primary claim that we cannot speak of Germany before 1871 has been refuted so many times that I'm at a loss as to how to deal with this. If you know how issues like this are to be dealt with, I'd appreciate your input, if you wish to stay out of it, I understand. Srnec 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:About[edit]

Actually I unprotected it, but forgot to take off the template. I've re-sprotecteded it though, it gets tons of vandalism. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD/AFD/CSD[edit]

Thanks for the pointers WilyD 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union of the Crowns.[edit]

I would be grateful for your help. I rewrote the Union of the Crowns because the previous piece was so dire. It's now being sabotaged by an eccentric User:Lord Loxley. I have no intention of entering into an editing war with this character. Can you suggest a course of action? I've alerted others to this problem. RegardsRcpaterson 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Paterson...perhaps you've got this idea that only your favoured perception of history is right or even important enough to discuss. The ability to write a book and have it published in the annals of history, doesn't make you invincible with all that you attempted to cover in the subject-matter. Other people are going to come at things from other perspectives. It's life. Lord Loxley 07:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kven redirect[edit]

In the future, please at least explain redirects, and preferrably discuss first. In this case, the redirect resulted in blanking of an entire article, which some might see as vandalism. Also be advised that the difference between historical and contemporary Kvens has been a source of quite a bit of controversy in Wikipedia. The Kven (historical) article needs quite a bit of work, but I think it would be courteous to those who did the research on it to at least not delete what they did. --Leifern 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about it. I am new here. Please tell my how long I will be blocked. In fact I would say I do not deserve to be blocked. You can check it yourself. I am blocked by admin Inshanee and he is often criticized by his aggressive blocking policy. This is my last unauthorized post as Soktateskerem. Please do not block me further. I am waiting your message in my talk page. Thanks

User : Sokrateskerem

Now I am unblocked, sorry for what happened. But I have a question. How can I report an admin if I believe that he is unfairly using his controls over people and insult them ? --Sokrateskerem 05:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Western Scholars in the AG article[edit]

Karl Meier unilaterally changed the consensus we've reached [2], [3] (the one you came up [4]) and he's edit waring. I'd appreciate if you can you help restoring it. 24.211.192.250 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Links in Armenian Genocide article[edit]

I reverted your edit for links not because I disagreed with you, but to give others a chance to raise their opinions before going forward. I agree with you the links include many rubbish websites which needs to be eliminated. But I don't think Dr Laciner's article is one of them. I also agree that we should not have more than one link to the same web site / person. 24.211.192.250 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new picture[edit]

Fadix removed the first picture because of its obvious suspicious situation. now I aded a picture showing deportees. Will you back me on this or the page will be a "awfully massacreds" album instead of having pictures helping the description of the topic.neurobio 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re edit AG[edit]

ok I see what you are trying to aim for, thanks for clarifying lutherian 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło[edit]

I notice you've not voted in Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. I dunno how much longer it will run for, so just giving you heads up. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Wapnick[edit]

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your reviewing my comment at the bottom of this AfD. Thanks. Ste4k 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising (1794)[edit]

The article has been significantly revised and resubmitted for GA - your comments would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

The announced mediation, concerning the Charlemagne article, will take place soon, you are invited to participate. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Rex 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish language[edit]

Hi Angus, thanks for the welcome! I agree that the sequence of citations should reflect their cronology, so I have moved the Lockwood stuff up. Nannus 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks![edit]

No problems, glad they finally got into your hands. Those articles sound good; atm, when I have time I'm gonna toddle on with the bishops (and abbots), and maybe do some Pictish stones too, although I know I need more books on the topic to do it properly. :) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium[edit]

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Angus for the timely save. Firefox is acting up again. Dr.K. 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Boston Tea Party[edit]

Angus: I see that you've removed the "speedy deletion" request on Boston Tea Party (United States). Thanks for giving the article a chance to prove itself. I'll do my best to build on it as it merits (and only as it merits), and hope that its "relevance quotient" will become more apparent as time goes on. Regards, Tom Knapp.

ree Necessary evil[edit]

I've added a see also which should give enough material for a Wikipedia article worth keeping. i'm deleting the notice.

The Maid of Norway[edit]

It seems to me that for such a list, the "dead hand of tertiary sources," as you put it, should be dominant. Perhaps a note should be added saying that she was never crowned, and might not be considered queen. But every list of Scottish monarchs I've ever seen includes her, and a list of monarchs should on wikipedia should base itself on the traditional list, not on whether she was actually queen. Note that on the English side of the list, we include a lot of people who aren't on the traditional list - Sweyn Forkbeard, Edgar the Atheling, Matilda, and Jane Grey, as well as someone like Edward V who was never actually crowned. The only questionable king of England not included is Louis VIII of France, who has recently been proposed for inclusion. On the Scottish side, we include Edward Balliol, Lulach, and the aforementioned Amlaig, who I've never heard of before. Why on earth should we include all these people and not include Margaret, who is included in every list I've ever seen? For consistency's sake she should be included. If you'd like to leave a note saying that whether she was actually queen is disputable, since she was never crowned (or whatever), feel free, but she should remain in the list unless we come to an agreement that all the questionable monarchs should go. john k 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eadwulf of Northumbria[edit]

Hi ... Just a note about the opening paragraph of this article. I believe that the introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. I am aware that the link goes to the correct place, but an "unfamiliar reader" should not really be expected to navigate away from the page, in order to find where Northumbria is. Please reply to my talk page and let me know what you think to my reasoning. Thanks !!! DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so promptly, but I do think there is a precedence for ancient titles of countries ... see Gaul and Britannia for example. The article about Britannia has the opening line Britannia was originally the Latin name that the Roman Empire gave to the island of Great Britain and its possessions thereupon. It has since become a national personification of the United Kingdom., so maybe the Dál Riata articles are correct. I know that these are geography articles, but it seems to me to be the correct way of dealing with names of ancient countries. DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages listed on Categories for deletion[edit]

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why it needs to be subdivided! And subdividing by regions (especially by cities) seems to be the eminently sensible way to do it. These cats are all vital components of their respective cat hierarchies. "They are empty" seems a pretty lame argument: it equates with "we are too lazy to populate them". --Mais oui! 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clans[edit]

Nope. But try User:Canaen, he just created the (not quite properly formated) {{clan stub}}. --Mais oui! 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still people who think that history is static, such as yourself. It may surprise you to discover that an article is never complete if you can't have some understanding of why a person does what they do. So keep your frigid article, and leave the real man to the rest of us. My information was verifiable, and solid. See the article bibliography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anastacia Prisbrey (talk • contribs) .

IQ Clubs[edit]

Hi - I noticed that you weighed in on the AfDs for the Triple Nine Society, The Ultranet and Mega Foundation. I am wondering why your tone was so different regarding such similar groups. Both articles were undoubtedly started by a member of each of these groups, but they seem to be neutral articles. The Ultranet and Mega Foundation have far more in the way of press notifications, yet you label them as vanity-spam (offering no constructive feedback) and tell Triple Nine that if they come up with one additional source (to total 2), you will remove the AfD. I can see the sense of merging The Ultranet with Mega Foundation and it may have been moving in that direction. Note that an inclusion of a link to this AfD from a non-related AfD seems to have caused an influx of negativity. Do you have any comment or helpful advice? Blizzard of One 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim[edit]

Thanks for your support of my position at the above FAC. When I first submitted it I wasn't too sure if I was making an issue out of nothing, but it is now clear that sources from so few authors all from the same background is a significant problem. --Oldak Quill 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jogaila[edit]

Hey Angus. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf of Badenoch[edit]

Angus, do you have that article by Grant on the Wolf of Badenoch? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yeah, he and his son badly need bigger/better articles. I was thinking of doing it, but if you have plans, I'll just leave it. What is the article's general jist? I mean, I have the excellent Boardman book Early Stewart Kings which gives him some good coverage, but he was citing Grant alot, so it would probably be stupid to invest too much effort in the article without Grant's work. Anyway, hope all is well with you. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional counties" of Scotland[edit]

The County Watch and ABC are at it yet again: trying to claim that Scotland has "traditional counties". We knocked that myth on the head last year, when we merged the Traditional counties of Scotland article with the Administrative counties of Scotland article. Well now they are trying to say that the situation in Scotland and England is equivalent, see Template_talk:Scotland_counties#Merger. It is not. I am sick to the back teeth of this. Can you please keep an eye on the situation? --Mais oui! 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

It kinda was and it kinda wasn't. Do you perceive that scholars have agreed on that form? BTW, I'm doing work on David I; it might be a while. I'm just saying to avoid two new articles been written by two people. :) If you feel it necessary, feel free to add comments on what you see on the talk page. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. I figured that was a mistake or you were just being modest. BTW, does Duncan say anything about the eldest son of David. Oram writes that David had only one son, but Orderic Vitalis reports the death of an oldest son, s.a. 1124. The page for Maud, 2nd Countess of Huntingdon gives the name as Malcolm, but Orderic doesn't name him. I'm baffled why Oram doesn't appear to mention it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I shall add that in the footnote. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people[edit]

They can't delete/rename the Category:Anti-Semitic people so they are trying another tactic !

Your vote is requested: [5]

Hi, Angus ![edit]

Thanks for sorting out James. I tidied up the article on him as well. What it needed was defragging. I hope I didn't lose bits. It's not really my subject.

--Amandajm 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euroamerocentrism[edit]

Indeed. But what do you expect? People involved in these kind of things are, I assume, all westerners.

Anyway, is it really such a problem? The West has, in a way, won the battle of history thus far, and, as conquerors, we have the prerogative to re-write it as we see fit. N'est ce pas? Or at least to shine the light on the people that helped to found the western world, which is to say in reality, the modern world. --Mais oui! 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland[edit]

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:David[edit]

Hey. I just had a little skim read, there are more typos and badly constructed sentences than I supposed. And I've still to add another bunch paragraphs, and add more illustrations. It may take longer than I thought it would. And it's too long now. Think I could get away with 70 kilobytes (currently 56)? Good work on Máel Coluim IV btw. What's next? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD[edit]

hi i notice you also believe that the article is suitable for speedy. If i wished to speedy it, should i just change the tag to db-bio or change vote on AfD? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. ;) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Christianity[edit]

In essence I do agree with you. This article and similar articles have been hijacked by fundies. However the Celts did make their contribution, and that contribution should be noted, regards ClemMcGann 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This and That[edit]

Dear Angus; I'm touched that you would still consider asking for my advise. Sincerest apologiest if my **** YOU! post offended, but it WAS meant with delight, as I was so glad to see even one such bio up and running. Sadly, its worse I'm getting. Anyway ...

Regarding orthography; I stuck by that used in Volume 9 of "A New History of Ireland" when compiling lists such as Kings of Connacht, Kings of Leinster. Therefore if you can find reference to either candidate in any of these lists then use the form listed because, while differences occour wholesale, in vol. 9 they are at least given in a definitve version (I really better complete and source all such lists).

Both Frank and Daibhi's books are must-reads, but I agree with you in that there should be more. The G&McM books are okay but better has since being written. Will you give me a few days to see what I can come up with? There are two very servicable bios of Brian Boru and Diarmiat MacMurrough in print, plus a host of really brilliant articles dealing partly with them. If you have an email you may wish to give me I will even be able to send you some of the smaller ones as attachements. Its good to know that there is someone like you working away at this. Is mise le meas mor, Fergananim 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions[edit]

Would it be helpful if we concentrated on just a few especially significant kings? My own taste would lean towards the High Kings and aspirats from Mael Sechlainn II to Ruairi O Conchobhair. If we could agree upon a reasonable small list of such kings, especially ones who overlap, we may be able to get a great deal done. Can't find the Brian book. Fergananim 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Barbara Yorke[edit]

Thank you for telling me this. I wasn't even aware of this book's existence. I must go and order it. Is the Scottish stuff of good quality btw? BTW, just got Brendan Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland, 900-1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change; it has some really good articles by the likes of Alfred Smyth, Maire Herbert, Dauvit Broun, Robert Bartlett and others. I'd recommend it. They're conference papers, and so each article is easily digestable in short 1 hour readings, but they're still well referenced. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African footy articles[edit]

Thanks for helping me fill in some extra information on football clubs in various countries. I'm currently trying to do an basic stub article on as many top division football clubs as I can. Sometimes, even basic information can be difficult to find. Thanks again! Patken4 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc[edit]

On July 9 you posted some comments to Talk:Joan of Arc. I was particularly impressed with the astuteness and scholarship of your observations. Bearing in mind your comments and others, I have updated the Visions section of that article. Would you take a few moments and evaluate the new changes? I value your feedback. Respectfully, Durova 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]