User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI

Archives
ARCHIVE I ARCHIVE II ARCHIVE III ARCHIVE IV ARCHIVE V Wikimood [purge] [edit]

Jogaila

I think I'll leave your replies as they are now, because your objections have been addressed to an extent, and the Meyendorff view is available in the notes (I've still to change the map). I'm not at all interested in winning arguments, just making a better article.

My (OR) belief is that if there could be such a thing as a half-Christian, such were Jogaila, Vytautas, and even Algirdas and Gediminas. How could Jogaila not have been brought up as a Christian, when his mother was one? (And she'd be much more likely to call him by a Christian than a pagan name, in private, I'm sure.) On the other hand, I believe it served these grand dukes to use paganism as a bargaining tool: look what they gained from the promise of baptism and rebaptism (Vytautas in particular) over the years. So I never thought Meyendorff was wrong: in fact, I pounced on that quote as a great addition.

Many thanks for your stimulating input. You are the first person to address the substance of the article, which comes as a relief. qp10qp 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

North of the Humber

I stopped at Ecgberht II of Northumbria. Brian Gotts and I were going to try and tidy up the Kings of York. The Earls of Bamburgh aren't too bad, and I thought to name them X, Earl of Bamburgh. I don't think Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Danish Earls of Northumbria/York need disambiguation. There's only one Tostig, or Morcar, or Erik Haakonsson, of any importance. Same goes for Anglo-Norman Earls: they have unambiguous names. No need for "Earl of X". I have no idea what the Earldom should be called in David's time. Does this come close to answering your question? I suspect not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the names are effectively identical, but Northumberland is usually confined to the county and the earls from the Percys. You'd certainly never get away with renaming "Earls of Northumberland" to "Earls of Northumbria"! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma

FYI - This user is at it again with reverting constantly... HERE. Rarelibra 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What about when he continues to be rude, as on my talk page? Calling someone illiterate and such certainly is not in good taste with Wiki protocols at all. Rarelibra 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And now he continues to revert on Constantinople page. Rarelibra 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've notified two admins, and if you want to back me up, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma is the RFC. Rarelibra 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Glad to see you onboard! I look forward to the debate.  :) --Elonka 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to the conflict? No. However, I've been involved in other mediation efforts where everyone went into the process in a spirit of enmity, but came out with a grudging respect for each other, and an agreed compromise. That, in my opinion, would be a result well worth the effort.  :) --Elonka 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Carricks and Tyrones

V. interesting. I've never read Barrow's R1 book, so if I eventually a copy it will be the all-new and improved version. Seems perfectly reasonable given R's personal links to the de Burghs and interest in Ireland. Any new "Robert the Bruce" theory is likely to get a going over in print soon enough... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have a correspondent who thinks that irony forms part of a series with steely, tinny, and brassy. Nice! I've search high and low on google for pictures from WBH's mural, but never had any luck. I'll let you know if I have a change of fortune. The Barrow book will be all new to me, even if nothing is changed. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scotland in the High Middle Ages was more than 80K, but that did get a few grumps and moans on the basis of its size. I'd think 60-70K shouldn't be a problem. I'm a bit depressed! I'd been hoping to get a "Did you know?" thing I wrote or nominated on the front page every day for a week, but I've missed out. Still, I might manage six days in seven. Enough chat! I need to get back to Flann Sinna I'm meaning to stick it up for peer review when referencised. Then I'll get on with MIII. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up, Calgacus. There has being some speculation towards this for a while, and it is'nt at all implausible. Will do what I can, but at present I'm only good for stubs, small revisions and related minor work. Fergananim 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"lesser English dialects"

Re you user box supporting American English and suggesting so called "lesser English dialects" be dropped. What do you define as a lesser English dialect? Natalieduerinckx 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that the English can't spell properly and that American hegemony should extend to Wikipedia. I do not correct 'errors' of spelling in American articles much as I am tempted to! Natalieduerinckx 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also wondering what you mean by lesser English and how the term can be justified, in a manner other than that American English is the most widespread form of the language? Bobbacon 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And ...

Would apprecieat if you let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style? Fergananim 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks!Fergananim 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1348 in Ireland Hope you think this is an improvement. Fergananim 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Calgacus, my thanks. Always good to get feedback; as an author myself, I am mindful of copyright misuses. I don't have any particular interest in those years; its just that my health no longer permits me to do much in-depth work. Fergananim 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid its worse I have being getting these past number of years; Wikipedia has being a good outlet for my strangled ambitions, and has kept me going in many ways. I agree that we have terrible problems with our collective medieval eras, but its simply that few Irish or Scottish wikis are interested in anything prior to their generation or century. I'd prefer not to say what I've had published as I'd like to stay anononymous; what I will state is that I have being unable to complete no less that four books because of my illness, and its now unlikely that they will ever be completed or published. Lastly, I would urge you and other good editors on Wikipeida to seriously consider the proposals I made at the village pump a few days back, as I am furious to learn that yet another good Wikipedian, Djegan, is leaving due to abuse and vandalism. Wikipedia must deal decisivly with this problem or we might as well erase the entire project right now. Fergananim 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been up to my eyes in work the last couple of days. I skimmed David I and all the other stuff. Fantastic! I don't think it's too long at all. Anyway, I'll read it carefully later today when I have some time. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I've mentioned this on the Village Pump, however I'm posting here as well to make sure you see it, as it is quite important.

The Three Revert Rule does not apply to obvious abuse. Specifically, it does not apply to (from WP:3RR):

• Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. For other vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);
• Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libellous material;
• Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space.

In these cases, you may revert as many times as necessary.

Thanks – Qxz 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

David 1 FAC

You got me in the middle of typing a response on the page :D More in depth there, but basically you should take all my suggestions in your best judgement. I have no expertise in the matter, so feel free to explain why I'm talking rubbish. And my apologies, I was a bit blunt in my first comment. A little work and this should be fine. Trebor 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Both (well, sort of). The article length I can live with if you think summarising it any further would start omitting useful content. It's a little on the long side, but there's a lot to say. The paragraph length is a matter of personal preference, so I'd see if others have any opinions. I find it hard to follow longer paragraphs but that might just be a personal quirk. Trebor 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've pruned a whole 1.3% so far. It's hard going finding verbiage that can be trimmed back without changing the sense of things. Anyway, I'll keep plodding on tomorrow. Thanks again for the stuff you sent me. Like I said, I've been unreasonably busy, so I haven't done anything with it. I feel like I could sleep for a month! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A good Sabbath morn to you Calgacus. I have posted a few comments on the review, which I hope are helpful. Some further points not mentioned there. Firstly, I accept your claims about Image:SCOTLANG1100.PNG but I couldn't help wondering about its provenance. Is it from an old text book? Are there rules about using images from old books? If so I might have a few (non-historical) ones that could be useful. Secondly, I think it would be helpful to have some kind of 'family tree' to refer to. However, as I don't know how to create an image of one, I didn't want to burden you with it.

Forgive my almost total lack of historical knowledge. "Saint Margaret, a myth" You seem to be making an unequivocal statement that the idea of Lallans culture having its origins from this marriage is a 'myth'. It is not clear if the source in footnote 95 promotes or denies the 'myth'. I was mildly curious.

I note that you do not mention which languages David himself may have spoken. "his kingship became more Celtic" hints at interesting complexities here, but let us discuss this on another and more leisurely occasion.

I made a tactless comment about "native Scottish language", which on reflection I amended. I think you are perhaps being unkind to the purveyors of 'Scottish English'?

Shouldn't David: The King Who Made Scotland be a primary source?

The "Hagiography of Exoticism" - where can I buy a copy!? Regards Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Calgacus,

How are you? I am following up on our exchange from a month ago regarding the Ohio Wesleyan article. I am considering nominating the article for FAC and wanted to get more opinions before I do so. Do you have a few minutes to take a look and give me your opinion? Thank you so much! I appreciate it! LaSaltarella 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Dunkeld

According to Keith, he doesn't give a bishop between Lindsay and Haliburton so maybe the position lay unfilled for sometime. Keith's book is a google book and contains a lot of info that you would find useful. I've certainly used it quite a bit. You will get all the Scottish Diocese info. Regards, --Bill Reid | Talk 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you can get The Scots Peerage at google books but Debrett's Peerage of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1825 is there. The thing with google books is that the pdf files are really jpg images so you can't cut and paste any snippits to your notes. Still, there's a lot of good stuff there. Regards --Bill Reid | Talk 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Coldingham Priory

Started this one, then realised David Lauder had worked on it for a while minus priory and had done some good work and I obtained a bit of a red face!. What do do you think? big house , used to run the economy of Scotland between North Berwick and the Aln for 400 years, (ie north Bernicia). I've been looking into Land ownership round this neck of the woods, majority of land stolen from the priory that then went to the localyokels, this house then became a Collegiate church. The pseudo-templars now claim it as an holy place. Please stick an oar in. Brendandh 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, long history of a very old and newsworthy place. It is however known as the priory, and I think should continue in that form, still keeping a seperate village article. I'd like to try to make this article a good worthy historic Scots religious article, and get yourself, david lauder and others in to fiddle with it and make it very pretty. There are loads of records out there to play with. Cheers. Brendandh 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John de Ralston, was selected for DYK!

On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John de Ralston, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On February 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Crichton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

. Thanks again for all the theological history Calgacus - This one kindly nominated by GeeJo. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert de Moravia

I’m presently digging around for information on Gilbert de Moravia and noticed you had given his father as “son of one Muiredach, son of Alexander de Moravia”. Can you give me the reference you got for that as it kinda conflicts with my stuff. (Great work on David I, BTW). Regards, --Bill Reid | Talk 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. Like you say, a person from Moray going to say, Caithness, may well have been called “the Moravian” or “of Moray”. In Moray, though, there would have been no point in adopting that name unless the family had good reason and judging by the amount of land the de Moravias held in Moray I think this must be the reason. Yes I was going to add a little to the Gilbert article (well as much as I know) part of which was to tie him into the Freskyn line but your Muiredach, if it was well sourced would have thrown a huge spanner in the works, but I think you are right about genealogy of the Sutherlands. I think that Barbara Crawford was alluding to Sir Robert Gordon's history of the Sutherland family which contains quite a few inaccuracies and inventions. Regards, --Bill Reid | Talk 10:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh

Just after finishing extensive revising of the above article. I aim to keep on at it over the coming weeks and submit it for peer review. Would very much appreciate your thoughts. Fergananim 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, still in progress; what you see is c.75% of the finished article. Just going to add sources, a few more links, and tidy it up. Hope to have photos as well. Cheers! Fergananim 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nollaig Ó Muraíle

No article on Mac Fhirbhisigh would be complete without one on Nollaig. We're not short on good historians here in Ireland, but for my money Nollaig is head and shoulders above many. Besides citing a few more of his works, and maybe adding a photo, this article is nearly complete. Fergananim 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Campbell (abbot), 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) 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan de St Edmund, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry le Chen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Elgin Cathedral

Marvellous, could you upload them to Commons? I'm doing a bit on the cathedral ATM so pics on the effigies would complete the image side of things. Regards --Bill Reid | Talk 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I’ll stick with brother of Domnhall not son. Couldn’t help noticing the Kinclaith post below. I’ve used a pdf file and remembered it mentioned Kinclaith so here it is: http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/scottishstudies/charters/Glasgow.pdf. Also http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=47761 and http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=47790. Don’t know if it helps, though. Regards, Bill Reid | Talk 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Civil War

Hi, I'm not happy with the moving ofthis page to Scotland in the War of hte Three Kingdoms. Two reasons, one, all the links are to Scottish Civil War. Two, in histories of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the conflict in Scotland of in always called the "Scottish Civil War". "Scotland in the Wars of the Three kingdoms" is the neologism here.

Admittedly though, the later phase of the conflict, the English invasion of 1648 and sits rather awkwardly with this title. I appreciate there were other civil wars in Scotland, as well, but this is not an English term transplanted onto Scottish history. I'm wnot fgoing to move it back right away, but I'd appreciate it if you would consider the matter.

Jdorney 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not necessarily true. Scotland was very divided in the 1640s, between the Highlands and the lowlands, between episcopalians, catholics and presbyterians, between Royalists and Covenanters. It was also a very bloody episode, with 28,000 combat deaths in Scotland itself and many through disease etc. Comparing the intensity with other conflicts is a bit pointless. You could argue forever with no conclusion. The point here is the terminology. "Scottish Cvil War" is a widely used term (for the war) in the context of the civil Wars. It was not invented on wikipedia.

However, I wouldn't be that upset over the title (the term War of the Three Kingdoms is itself a neoligism, coined in the 1990s) if all the links didn't go to Scottish Civil War. It seems reasonable to me that if you want to redirect the article you should also go to the trouble of changing the links.

Jdorney 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, well that's the question sorted then. Thanks for your hard work in changing all the links. This was my main concern.

In fact the new title has advantages, in that it allows exploration of the Scots contribution to the conflcit in Ireland and England as well as the internal war of.

Regards, Jdorney 10:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elgin Cathedral

I've used your John Winchester and that should do me. Thanks --Bill Reid | Talk 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Infobox Medieval Scottish Diocese is pretty comprehensive and see anything I would change. The usual problem with IE and Firefox rendering the table slightly differently. Different topic — discovered yesterday that if you use {{reflist|2}} instead of <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;"> <references /></div> does exactly the same thing but less typing. Regards, Bill Reid | Talk 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Going over the bit in Elgin Cathedral re the Lord of the Isles and Oram says that it was Alexander, the son, who attacked Elgin (Oram: Moray and Badenoch, 1996, p. 93) and in the Domnall article, it was Alexander, the brother, who did the deed. Could you check you’re (more recent) Oram source when you can so I can properly reference that bit. Thanks and regards, Bill Reid | Talk 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow Green

Yeah, I looked at your source on the other article. Am I reading this correctly, "confirms the consent of his brother David to the bishopric of Glasgow Kinclaith". You think the park had a bishop?

Seriously, Kinclaith was the name for an area of land that became part of Glasgow Green. Similarly there used to be a piece of land called "Flesher's Haugh" that became part of Glasgow Green. None of the sources I have, mention Kinclaith as alternate name for Glasgow Green. AlistairMcMillan 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blah'd'blah. Part of the Green. The area of land currently called Glasgow Green was not called Kinclaith. AlistairMcMillan 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to anyone else aside from Barrow who thinks Kinclaith and Glasgow Green are the same thing? The only books I can find that even mention Kinclaith are either talking about whisky or written by Barrow. AlistairMcMillan 17:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu

Your man Manopingo has a certain je ne sais quoi about him that brings back memories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so that you know, the checkuser data that's available only goes back 6-8 weeks, so comparing someone active now with someone from last summer is not really possible. Boo! Hiss! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AI 1094.5? I hate to disappoint you, but you're over-rating my grasp of things. I had to Google for "Na Renna". I see what you mean though. Do Congal and his son appear anywhere else? [This is where a computerfied Prosopography like the Anglo-Saxon and Byzantine ones is really a must-have. If I actually lived in Scotland I'd write to my MSP and complain.] Apparently Na Renna is mentioned by Marianus. I assume you already know what Marianus says, so I won't bother checking unless you say that you don't. Have you seen Byrne's "Onomastica 2: Na Renna" (Peritia vol. 1)? It's cited by Hudson's "Cnut and the Scottish Kings" (available on JSTOR). The New History of Ireland, vol. IX, p. 466, reckons that the kings of Na Renna were the kings of the Isles, or Man, but there's no Congal or his son in the usual lists. Nor, to be honest, is there room for one on Man anyway. The list of kings seems plausibly complete, and this surely can't be a mangled reference to Godred Crovan because other, presumably better informed, sources say he died of plague. Is the position in the annal significant?

It seems like you should be writing this up for the Scottish Historical Review's notes & queries bit. The vast amount they'd pay you would probably about cover the set lunch at the Balmoral (which is very good, if you've never tried it, but probably not worth the best part of twenty quid). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oui, deja vu ici, aussi. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish mythology

Why don't you make a seperate section for SM. I know there is a cross between IM and SM. What happened in the last 1000 (or so) years. Where are the Picts? They are not the same. Manopingo 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was guessing how long that Gael edit would last;) actually you are doing a great dis-service to Scotland's great history by clouding everything in the medieval past in some nebulous Gaelic mist, that quite frankly means quite nothing at all. Why not use the term Old Scottish to define medieval Scottish Gaels. Same for Ireland, Old Irish to define medieval Irish Gaels. Everything just gets misty blurred with the WP approach. You may not appreciate it, but I am on your side, and believe that this WP blur is doing a dis-service to the great history. My approach would add crystal clarity, instead of this woolliness. And everyone is a winner! Manopingo 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine Calgacus, my thoughts about Gales and nomenclature is not original research by any means. Maybe some of my books are too old for WP, the term Old Irish wasn't just a language, and I assumed the term Old Scottish existed too as a term for Scottish people pre Norman-belligerence. See your points, will take on board. Manopingo 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I can only go by reading material. I'll try and get the book shortly, and have some refs that can be looked at. My substantive point that there should have been separate sections. I had no intention of dictating as to what went into the different sections. Manopingo 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing my substantive point, see last 2 sentences above. I am trying to get you pages and source, please be patient. This wasn't the initial issue, but have good source on that too. 86.42.135.221 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Calgacus - I've asked Manopingo to hold off the revert war for a second and explain himself on the talk page. Can we all just step back and let him have his say until we come to some resolution on this? - Alison^☺ 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Dear Calgacus,

Thank you for the comments that you provided regarding the Ohio Wesleyan University article at the end of last month. I have carefully taken them into consideration and edited the OWU article accordingly. Thank you so much! They were very helpful! I nominated the page and have already received positive feedback in the FAC process. Feel free to provide your opinion and feedback, if time allows it. Thank you once again! LaSaltarella 20:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)