User talk:Angusmclellan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:08, 14 May 2008

Offa

Your second Offa reference doesn't mention the charters at all. TharkunColl (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says there was more than one king in England, which is rather the point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, its about whether Offa claimed that title. TharkunColl (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And p. 111 says of the rex Anglorum charters, "Both of these charters are suspect ...". Still two, although from the evidentiary point of view Wormald's comment on p. 101 is more relevant to whether Offa was king of England or not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google "offa" with "king of the english" and you'll find tens of thousands of references, including some very respectable ones. If the best second reference you can find merely uses the word "suspect" then it is not a very strong case at all - and certainly not strong enough to report it in the article as if it were established fact. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the source for Offa being king of England is "teh internets"? Paint me underwhelmed. Charlemagne thought Offa was "king of the Mercians" and said so in a letter to Offa. Pope Hadrian thought Offa was "king of the people of the Angles" and said so in a letter to Charlemagne. [Both quoted by Nelson, "Carolingian Contacts", in Brown & Carr (eds), Mercia] The report of the papal legates George of Ostia and Theophylact of Todi says "Journeying from [Canterbury], we arrived at the court of Offa, king of the Mercians." [Quoted by Zalukckyj, Mercia, p. 155] But this really the wrong way round. It's up to you to find sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was still King of the Mercians, so it is no surprise you can find references fpr that. I notice though that Pope Hadrian regarded him as King of the Angles. If you want another reference, try the royal website, which specifically mentions his Rex Anglorum title. TharkunColl (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "another" reference, it's no reference. Any idiot can write a website. Without a signature this is just more anonymous bollocks on the internet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offa x2

Thank you for your recent edit regarding Offa. Do you think we ought perhaps to have a !vote on the talk page as to whether Offa ought to be included at all? I think it could be a good idea as many are uncertain as to whether he even belongs on the page. Even the Her Majesties website does not list him! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. As I pointed out immediately above, the royal website does list him [1] - go to the drop down menu at the top for the list (his own page is here [2]). TharkunColl (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular and light-weight books which say Offa was king of England/the English are two a penny, so we ought not to banish him without an explanation. Coenwulf of Mercia should be on the list too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we should mention Bretwaldas along with the Mercians? I appreciate there's a school of thought that says "List of Xs" should only include Xs, but I feel we ought to include sometimes-confused-with-Xs as well. If you see what I mean. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should. All the Bretwaldas, plus all the Mercians who held overlordship. TharkunColl (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the list is going to get very long...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Thanks for the 'pase' link, I didnt have that one. I was planning on using anglo-saxons.net! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Image:DilophosaurusByPhilKonstantin.jpg" deletion & moved to Commons

I can only guess you "re-filed" my photo for some Wikipedia reason. Whatever...

You changed some of the info in the description which is inappropriate.

You eliminated the Location = Red Fleet Dinosaur Tracks Park, Utah

You changed my name from Phil Konstantin to Philkon.

Please return the location field and return my name to my rightful name: Phil Konstantin. Had I wanted it listed as Philkon, I would have listed it that way. Phil Konstantin (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit image conscious is our Phil - he he! :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have donated my photos for free. I would appreciate my name being spelled correctly. If that is beng image conscious, then I am. My daughter's name is Sarah. She doesn't like it when people spell it Sara. I guess it runs in the family.

Phil Konstantin (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. When I get a minute I'll transfer the rest of your pictures over to Commons so that this doesn't happen again. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK now. Phil Phil Konstantin (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High kings after mael sechnaill

While I do realise that the term "high king" is not very precise, and most of the time does not denote real overkingship of the whole island of Ireland, we should do something about some inconsistencies here at wikipedia. List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland lists Donnchad mac Briain after Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, followed by (or in competition with) Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó and Toirdelbach Ua Briain. The Mael Sechnaill stub has Toirdelbach as his successor, while in the Toirdelbach-stub Donnchad is listet as his precedessor. To add to the confusion Template:Kings_of_Ireland does not include Donnchad at all (neither does your article about him claim any high kingship or include successionboxes). And finally, you've just written that Flaithbertach Ua Néill was "the leading king in Ireland" following Mael Sechnaills death (and his son Aedh m. Flaithbertach is referred to as ridomna Erenn in AU 1033.10). Sorting all of this out is probably very difficult, and would require interpretations of the various sources coming close to "original research", but we should at least have those succession-boxes in harmony (or removed).

Sorry for leaving this at your doorstep, but you're the only one I know around here who may have a chance of straithening this out. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have this stuff at the very top of my to-do list. I have barely started Donnchad and Flaithbertach, and haven't done anything with Diarmait, Toirdelbach and Muirchertach, and Máel Sechnaill, never mind all those O'Connors. We've done a fair bit on earlier kings, but from Máel Sechnaill and Brian onwards everything is still to be started really. There's not so much in the usual books on these people, so most of these will have to be based on the Oxford DNB stuff. As for the lists, Byrne doesn't have anyone between Brian and Toirdelbach Ua Briain, but the DNB article on Diarmait starts: "Diarmait mac Máel na mBó (d. 1072), king of Leinster and claimant to the high-kingship of Ireland, ...", perhaps he should stay, but Donnchad shouldn't. I'll get it fixed eventually! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the succession box so that it sticks with Byrne, but a better solution (when you get around to it) is probably to add something like the note on Feidlimid in the list of high kings, and either scrap the successionboxes after Maelsechnaill as far as high kingship is concerned or to list the various competitors in paralell. I admire your work greatly, and try to read each new article - even if it's been a while since I translated any to Norwegian. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, and pending more work, I've toned down the lead of Flaithbertach a little. It's about as done as I can manage until I get some more books (I have a heap of them waiting for me in Scotland). I usually avoid succession boxes, but there's always somebody comes along and adds one. Onwards and upwards! Toirdelbach Ua Briain next I think, because that's the worst of the rest. I'll not be aiming very high with these. Near enough will do for a start. Thanks for the kind encouragement! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Griffitts, born in County Cork or City Cork?

Just wondering: what made you think that "Cork, Ireland" meant "County Cork, Ireland" rather than "Cork (city), Ireland"?--BillFlis (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't know which, I picked the larger of the two. In 1746 Cork (city) was part of County Cork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardoso

Thanks. I just figured out that there is already a page on Cardoso (variant name) How do I eliminate the page I was in the process of creating? Elan26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elan26 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Elan26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elan26 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flaithbertach Ua Néill

Angus, I added a few more categorys to the above. Hope you don't mind. Great article! Fergananim (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Killer

You'll be hearing a lot of this over the next few days, but in a discussion where the tally was about 43 to 12 in favor of keep, this is of course a surprising outcome. I just had to mention that. I'll leave it to others to take this to DRV. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly considering opening the DRV. Can you give me a policy-covered reason for the deletion? Corvus cornix_talk 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I mean, the tally isn't supposed to be the deciding factor, but it should at least be a factor... You're brave, I'll give you that. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cover is one of the most notable aspects of the album, so yes, its removal does impair the "readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But yea, you got guts :) Acer (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my comments regarding WP:NFCC were moderately lucid: I believe that it failed NFCC 8, and I believe that the absence of commentary in the article speaks clearly to this. Censorship is a fascinating subject, but IfD is not the venue for it. If images fail NFCC, no number of votes can change things. My interpretation of NFCC 8 may be an extreme one, but I believe it is valid none the less. I am aware of the album-cover-free-wiki implications. I have no problem with this. Mileage may vary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the other album cover in the article then? Or any of the hundred-thousand or so other album covers we claim under fair use? If the child nudity issue wasn't a factor in your decision, then how can you possibly justify this considering everything else claimed under fair use? Equazcion •✗/C • 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since half of the article about the album discusses the cover, doesn't the use of the album cover in the article apply as fair use? Corvus cornix_talk 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it (easy to, there was a lot of noise there), the article talk page features new discussion of the controversy, including at least one published interview about the controversy. The ironic thing about that is that since the article was protected, the text to be added about the notability of the cover had not yet been added, pending the closure of the IfD. So, once the protection expires and that content is added to the article proper, I believe your rationale for closing the IfD as delete will be obsolete. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with your deletion, I do understand the underlying reasons behind it. You also may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IfD_rapidly_running_out_of_control. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exept that it doesnt hold in light of the hundreds of other less notable album covers in use, why this one? why now? Acer (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside any dispute on the issue of WP:NFCC, deleting a contentious image under the auspices of ignoring the debate & doing it under a different reason? Without putting that reason up for debate? Is not really taking any kind of view of consensus. --mordicai. (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I thought this would've appeared at DRV already, but apparently not. I'm going to start it up, unless someone has a reason why I shouldn't. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do Acer (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed your comments at the top of the discussion. Even though I completley disagree with your decision, you have presented a rationale, so I applaud you for that. Good work. -- Chzz ► 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Acer re. above edit simultaneous with mine - yes, thanks for doing that.[reply]

I've already undeleted it. The closing was spurious and with no account to the arguments and consensus generated. FCYTravis (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this is going to end up at ArbCom. *sigh* Btw, I agreed with the original closure. Walton^One 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If they pull my bit for reverting an unsupported and against-consensus closure to delete an image over a moral panic, this encyclopedia project is worthless and I won't be around to contribute to it anyway. FCYTravis (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been best to wait until the wheels of process had turned. The image would probably have eventually been undeleted anyway, but an out-of-process undeletion doesn't cancel out an out-of-process deletion. It just inflames things. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not weigh the arguments given in the discussion. You substituted your judgement for everyone else's. There is no point to a discussion if the closing admin simply closes according to their understanding and does not give credence to the opinions and arguments of the others. What you did does not reflect consensus. What you did was dictatorship by the closer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 9. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Do I delete the DRV? Is the deletion discussion now open again? Equazcion •✗/C • 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the DRV open. Someone will almost certainly come along and delete the image again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The DRV should stay as it is. I don't give a monkey's about FCYTravis wheel-warring, but I do agree with Walton that this will end up at Arbcom. We have no option, short of forking, but to enforce the EDP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's truly what you believe, and not just a thin excuse to cover up your entirely-unsupported deletion, you should be in the process of mass-speedy-deleting every album cover on the encyclopedia. Start right now. FCYTravis (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be disruptive I feel. No fait accompli's and all that. Deleting one image, on the other hand, seems perfectly reasonable when NFCC argues for it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we're supposed to believe that it's not disruptive to waltz into a hotly contested deletion debate started by a moral panic and speedy close based upon your entirely novel interpretation of NFCC which not a single person was discussing? We're supposed to believe that you did that in good faith? Please. FCYTravis (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ask you to believe or disbelieve anything. You can take my comments at face value, or not, just as you please. I believe the image should have been deleted for the reasons I gave. On the other hand, the more eyeballs the massive EDP/NFCC avoidance that goes on gets, the happier I will be. As for the mass speedy deletion of those album covers, I expect to see it sooner than ever as a result of your undeletion. It may not have been the Right Thing, but ultimately it will be a Good Thing. Thank you very much, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Jason Safoutin and I write at Wikinews. Can you please leave a message on my talk page as to your reason behind this deletion? I am doing an article and you are mentioned in it. I would like to get a balanced view on the situation, so i would appreciate it if you could take some time to give me a brief statement. Thanks :-) DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for the reply. it was helpful! :-) DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 debate

Were you aware of Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate? Given your comments above about "massive EDP/NFCC avoidance", I thought I should point you in that direction. In particular, Wikipedia:NFCC8#The spectrum of opinions might interest you. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help though. I think I'm 3.5-ish, but the issue is less where we are on the 1-5 scale, it's how we move forward. You can't be on the scale at all and be happy with Image:Skkk.jpg or Image:AudioslaveSullivan.jpg or ... Score two fails from two. It's a massive problem and only radical action will fix it. Manually tagging stuff with {{dfu}} or sending it to WP:FUR is hardly practical. I just had a go just now with dfu-tagging, because I couldn't remember how it worked, and evidently I'll need to track down some extensions to twinkle because it's simply not on. FUR is backlogged at the best of times. Adding tens of thousands of album covers, video clips and whatsits is not workable. We are so totally fucked when it comes to getting anywhere close to where the EDP says we should be that I don't even like to think about all the other stuff ("GFDL presumed" indeed!). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage. The former shows (or should show eventually) that the rate of increase is slowing (see here, though the rate may have increased again now). The latter (the template) shows that around half the non-free images are in the clearly defined areas of album covers and logos. The real problem is not one of non-free versus free, but one of people willing to work with image uploads, versus the number of people incorrectly uploading. Choke off the incoming images, and then get people working on the backlogs. That would work, but until that happens, it will be difficult. I think that various bots running in the background do unofficially cut things down a bit by swatting all the incorrectly tagged images soon after upload. But if this could be openly confirmed, then we might not get people worrying so much. Anyway, what is really needed is for more organisation and work to be done in this area, and having humans and bots working together. But no matter how many time I say that, or point to that page, no-one really seems that interested. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OR?

I think your heading left for me adequately summarises the issue; original research. The material removed ([3]) appears to be "all style, no substance" type stuff (a synthesis from some very recent results), conjecturalising from statistics, rather than letting them speak for themselves. I'm not sure who said it, but certainly the phrase "anything can be proved by statistics" comes to mind. Does the material include historical views, alternative perpectives, regional differences, explainations, critisms, annomalies? -- no, of course, and is also a bit of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in my humble opinion.

The article has enough issues wrong with it as it is, without adding/forking more of this type of poorly sourced material. I suspect you think this is an attempt at erasing out national identity (whatever that is! - I personally think any such article should be deleted), but it isn't. I understand the dynamics, but that's exactly why, in the scheme of things, I think this hinders rather than helps. However, I should've made that clearer in the edit summary, as you say. --Jza84 | Talk 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Yup, it was a mistake. I wasn't quite sure how the twinkle spam guard tool worked when I installed it. A powerful tool. I uninstalled it. Don't feel too confident using it just yet. Thanks for letting me know about my twinkle mistake.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!

Why did you reject the speedy deletion you did not give a reason. So what's your reason? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the complaint on the page. Hopefully it won't be needed. Kransky (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes delete it. Thanks Kransky (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is so unfair! The page served no purpose but to disparage me and influence other editors! It was only created because Kranksy has a hothead and was trying to shove his opinion down peoples throat's! Why does Kransky get off scott-free?! Why is he never punished for the wrong things he has constantly been doing?! Not so much as a template has been issued to him and I demand to know why?! The ONLY reason he quickly removed the comment is because I added the template and he knew very well what he did was wrong so he quickly removed it in an order to strengthen his argument because any templates left on his page warning him of innapropriate behaviour would most likely go against him in our dispute. And why did you delete it per [[4]] saying "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup"? NON-CONTROVERSIAL are you kidding me?! Every aspect of the page was controversial and Kransky disregarded almost if not all dotpoint instructions needed to be abided by when creating an RfC! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT WAS NOT FILED PROPERLY! If it was I would not have had a problem as I would have been in the wrong, but clearly I wasn't! How would you feel if someone did the same thing which Kransky did to me to you? And did so with no consequence for his actions?! Fact is it is now a permanent part of wikipedia history and has influenced whoever viewed it, which I have know way of knowing! And most the people who view the RFCs for articles and offer third opinions on them would most certainly view RfCs for users also, therefore influencing the viewing editors to be biased! All due respect re-read what I said to you "The page served no purpose but to disparage me and influence other editors!" it clearly went against the third dot point instruction of creating one of these pages "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.". Just because it isn't about a biography of a living person does not mean it did not disparage me! And I'm not probably right, I am right! He did not do the right thing once again and I will not forget this! He needs to take responsibility for what he has done and suffer consequences! Just as all third parties were able to see what was said about me, they need to see what wrong doing he has done in this situation! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what I am arguing about and you have no place commenting if you have not read everything from start to end. Because if you had read you would see my quarell with him, is that he does not provide valid references and always trys to edit the article to his personal preference. I can tell from you reply you have been influenced by the comment Kransky left about me and do you know why he left this comment? Because he knows he has done the wrong thing! Why have you totally disregarded my reply to you?! Please address the issues I brought up. Did you see when I left that message you were referring to?! I left it after nothing was done to him for what he did which you still have chosen to ignore and not address! Why do you think I am angry?! That message was deserving which I left because if you bother reading everythng which has been said by both me and Kransky over this topic, you can see that he is constantly trying to shove his opinion down people's throats! Please replies are meant to address the message which has been sent and not the one Kransky sent to make you think differently of me! So address what I said to you in a new reply. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrum II

Dear Angus, That's what comes of sitting up at wikipedia till 2.30 a.m.!!! Et in Arcadia ego. I've just seen your message and I haven't got an answer immediately, as this is slightly out of my frame of knowledge. I want to look all through the references you mention. But when in search of minor kings, particularly in this period, one place to look is Coins. The Cambridge/Fitzwilliam database and the sylloge together are useful for searching (used to be [5], but this seems to have expired), at least as a starting point. The peculiarities of coins and their moneyers occasionally provide food for thought in such matters! My own view is, that if a King seems really to be mentioned by a mediaeval source, then he is worth a brief article even if he is ultimately mythic, i.e. fictional: the article just has to make it clear that the person is possibly/probably not an actual fleshly being. Even then, the character (like 'Offa' of East Anglia in the Edmund legend, or Hun of East Anglia) is a real entity within the world of historical sources. I'm sure you come across this all the time. I will ponder some more. It is "scorchio" here too, make the most of it as last year the spring heat wave also had to serve as Summer. Cordial greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emc is at [6]. Eebahgum (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, sorry I've just absorbed what you say about John of Wallingford saying it was Guthrum I. Sorry I am being very slow. What you mean is, the source doesn't say what Thorpe says it says. This is what it needs to say in the Guthrum II article then. Sorry, pickled brains Eebahgum (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A, Thanks for last, just seen. I have just posted a better statement on the other page! as follows:

Sorry I have just absorbed the point about John of W's comment on G I and II. The source doesn't quite say what Thorpe implies that it said. So Ashley is just perpetuating a mistake by Thorpe. In order to avoid the OR problem of saying this in a wikipedia article, I suggest that the Guthrum II article should (after a brief explanation of the supposed historical context, as already seen) contain accurate quotes of the sources in question:

i.e. "Lappenberg says....and refers to Thorpe." "Thorpe says.......and refers to John of Wallingford." "John of Wallingford says......" with wherever possible ext links to the exact locations. If John of W is online he is a quoteable source in my opinion! Then the OR is in the mind of the reader, while the sources for the statements are plainly stated for everyone to see. That would be my approach.

So why not do that? Rather than try to assert the truth or otherwise of it (which would be OR) just say what they say. Eebahgum (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TeePee

I am afraid that a debate between myself and TeePee has become uncivil. I believed it warranted further attention from other editors, but I incorrectly used the wrong warning mechanism. Earlier I have tried reasoning with this guy, humouring this guy, exercising a "time-out", reasoning again with this guy and comprimising with this guy, while all along ignoring his rather robust comments. When I posted maps of ethnic groups in Sydney and did not include data on South American Australians (because such data did not exist), he accused me of being racist (then joked about his comments and blamed me for not having a sense of humour). Talk:Chilean Australian would demonstrate his behavior. If you can make him calm down enough we can redevelop enough goodwill to look at the actual point of disagreement - my belief that his use of a student's essay contains invalid estimates, and his belief that I do not sufficiently reference my work (although this version would demolish his claims). Thank you. Kransky (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you inflence an editor by providing false statements and all because you know you are in the wrong for what you did so you are now trying to bring up history to make me look worst! I have not read his response yet but I quickly checked the timestamps and he replied after you added your two cents, which is once again influencing him, especially when it is false! Look you did the wrong thing and if I had not stuck that template on the page disparging me you would not have even bothered withdrawing it! The fact you are not in the very least apologising for it shows your character and what type of person you are! Now to look at the comment he left me which no doubt will have been influenced by what you said, but I don't need to tell you that as that was your intention to begin with! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influence an editor? Actually you have been your own worst enemy. I couldn't have been more influential myself.... Kransky (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BS! Do not lie Kransky, what purpose did your quick response on Angus' page after I left my second comment serve? You're lucky I wasn't watching his page otherwise I would have deleted it so hopefully he couldn't have read it before he replied to me. If I was my worst enemy then you would not have needed to write this discussion on me, you are a liar Kransky wether you admit it or not. I know hopefully other people do too. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBOSITG's RfA

Hello Angusmclellan, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 200: / Line 200: @@
 :Once again you inflence an editor by providing false statements and all because you know you are in the wrong for what you did so you are now trying to bring up history to make me look worst! I have not read his response yet but I quickly checked the timestamps and he replied after you added your two cents, which is once again influencing him, especially when it is false! Look you did the wrong thing and if I had not stuck that template on the page disparging me you would not have even bothered withdrawing it! The fact you are not in the very least apologising for it shows your character and what type of person you are! Now to look at the comment he left me which no doubt will have been influenced by what you said, but I don't need to tell you that as that was your intention to begin with! [[User:TeePee-20.7|TeePee-20.7]] ([[User talk:TeePee-20.7|talk]]) 07:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 ::Influence an editor?  Actually you have been your own worst enemy.  I couldn't have been more influential myself.... [[User:Kransky|Kransky]] ([[User talk:Kransky|talk]]) 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::BS! Do not lie Kransky, what purpose did your quick response on Angus' page after I left my second comment serve? You're lucky I wasn't watching his page otherwise I would have deleted it so hopefully he couldn't have read it before he replied to me. If I was my worst enemy then you would not have needed to write this discussion on me, you are a liar Kransky wether you admit it or not. I know hopefully other people do too. [[User:TeePee-20.7|TeePee-20.7]] ([[User talk:TeePee-20.7|talk]]) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 == WBOSITG's RfA ==