User talk:Angusmclellan

Archive

• /Archive 1: to 30 March 2006
• /Archive 2: February 2006 to April 2006
• /Archive 3: April 2006 to June 2006
• /Archive 4: June 2006 to August 2006
• /Archive 5: August 2006 to October 2006
• /Archive 6: October 2006 to December 2006
• /Archive 7: January 2007 to March 2007
• /Archive 8: March 2007 and April 2007
• /Archive 9: April 2007 to August 2007
• /Archive 10: August 2007 to November 2007
• /Archive 11: November 2007
• /Archive 12: December 2007
• /Archive 13: January 2008
• /Archive 14: February 2008
• /Archive 15: March 2008
• /Archive 16: April 2008
• /Archive 17: May 2008
• /DYK: DYK archive

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 [1], 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)

emc is at [2]. Eebahgum (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 and hopefully other people do too. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Angus, I am afraid this incivility has continued on another editor's page (User talk:Blnguyen‎). And comments like "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" are probably not the smartest things to say when one has been given a level four warning about disruptive editing.

On this matter, could you please remove from my talk page the same warning TeePee put on mine for my disruptive editing (whatever he claims it was). I don't believe warning signs should be removed by persons who own the talk pages they are placed on.

Also I have sought wider consultation on this issue from WP:RSN and project pages to do with geography, Australia and Chile. Let wiser heads prevail... Kransky (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Angus, I am afraid Kranskys incivillity has continued as he has continually been taunting me with his wrong actions and has deliberately asserted false information on a discussion page so as to mislead. And he is still disparaging me by bringing something up unrelated to the matter at hand which does not even concern him and if I wanted to could have deleted of my page months ago! As a weak excuse to influence you opinion! Really think about why he is bringing up all these things which happened months and months ago, because he knows he has a weak case after what he did with the RFC. And why did he reply to you and not me? You can quite clearly see on your own talk page you do not need a parrot. Think about how petty he is being especially after what he did to me with the RFC.

On this matter, could you please remove from my talk page the same warning Kransky put on mine for my disruptive editing (whatever he claims it was). I don't believe warning signs should be removed by persons who own the talk pages they are placed on. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tethbae

I know some, probably not more than you, but I'll add what I can. Very good work; up to your usual impressive standards, as always. Fergananim (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Support

Thanks. I know exactly what the beatification would involve too! I know only too well I have failings, but certainly won't let you or any part of WP:SCOTLAND down. Thanks again, your support was very welcome --Jza84 |  Talk  14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’m pretty sure nobody will ever consider me a career admin, let alone a person subject to group think. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee

Angus, I am afraid TeePee has not learnt much from your blocking, and he has regained his old habits of incivility on Talk:Chilean Australian. What really has taken the cake was his mocking comment when I acknowledged he had correctly identified he was right on something. Other editors are now being abused by him, although I suspect they are more frustrated by his inability to listen or assimilate basic facts. Earlier mentoring he received on his talk page (User talk:TeePee-20.7) hasn't seemed to work. What do you judge should be the next step? Kransky (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

There is a consensus among the majority of editors that this article should be moved to the title Irish Potato Famine. An argument continues about the title change on this page by three particularly vocal editors who hold a minority viewpoint. However, given the overwhelming number of editors who agree that the article should be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the name it's best known under internationally, it seems like enough should be enough and an administrator might want to close the discussion and move the page. I see that you are one of the listed mentors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hello! :) In March, Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons) was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? BOZ (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again - you're not the first one to make that offer. :) The majority of what I wanted to do with the undeleting is done, but I will keep that in mind if I need any more in the future. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitulation of Irvine

At your leisure, take a look at this page, and tell me if you think passes muster. I have very serious doubts about it. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ibixian

Hi, since you offered, would you mind handling this one? [3] This user hasn't posted in about 6 weeks. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user [4] has been off for over a month as well. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!  :) BOZ (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Medieval Gwynedd

To be honest Angus, I was thinking on nominating a split between the periodes: Early Medieval Gwynedd: foundation to the Mathrafal occupation, and Mideival Gwynedd: restoration of the Aberffraw line with Gruffydd ap Cynan until the foundation of the Principality of Wales with Llywelyn I of Wales (1216). What do you think?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV NEEDS ATTENDING TO

AIV NEEDS ATTENDING TO

Government of Belgium

Can you start a separate article Government of Belgium? It is redirecting to Politics of Belgium. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Belgian federal government not a better target? The regional governments are regional, not Belgian. Albert is the head of state. Perhaps we can change the redirect? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

nl:Belgische regering is about the federal government. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the redirect can be changed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I see we're missing some ministers. Translation time! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationality/ethnicity in categories

Dear Angus, can you help with this? Talk:Albert Schweitzer#Schweitzer : German or French ?. Should a Category containing a prefix 'French' or 'German' refer to legal nationality or to cultural origin? Have you a thought on it - I am concerned particularly about Categories. Thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No ref yet for abolition of G II but will advise if I happen on one. Best, Eebahgum (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Article mention

Hello Angus, I put up an article Novantae and Selgovae and made the previous stubs into redirects. Since you had edited in both of those, I thought you might be interested. Any comments would be welcome; if it is not of interest, that will also be fine. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not something I'm very well read on, but it looks like a huge improvement to me. Nice maps especially. I'll see if I can find anything to add, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting. A job well started I think. Congrats! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work with adding those pics to the articles about Scottish villages

I like how a lot of the articles about villages that I created, and the many others I didn't create, have been supplemented with pictures by yourself. Great work.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have not got on as fast as I hoped. I've been busy in real life and on wikipedia I seem to be stuck doing some tedious admin stuff. But I hope to get back to work on it soon. I really must finish Yorkshire and Dumfries! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Listify from cat.

Help I turned Category:Natural Descendants of Louis XIV into List of descendants of Louis XIV of France per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18#Category:Natural_Descendants_of_Louis_XIV. Is there anything else I need to do? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note Please respond on my talk. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/226 in Ireland

Thanks for the well reasoned and policy based reply to my comments/questions. Guest9999 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Location Turkey in Europe.png

Hello. [[::Commons:Image:Location of the Republic of Turkey.png]] this version is uploaded at 18th of May but Image:Location Turkey in Europe.png I uploaded this at 13rd of May. This means that I am the author. Thanks! Izmir lee (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

In light of this discussion, here, and based on the responses here and here, further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue here also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out here, this article is under an Arbcom Ruling here, with conditions outlined here under Principles and here under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of WP:LEAD. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including WP:OR, which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example:

• Article says:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]

• Actual Source says: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."

• Editors response: “I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: Ireland: History of a Nation (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book…” Colin4C (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to direct your attention to the recent edits on the Article. I have detailed my concerns here and in the absence of any worthwhile response acted upon them. The recent changes here has resulted in the deliberate re-insertion of factually incorrect information. Because of our policy on Copy-Vio’s I have emailed you a copy of the page being quoted. --Domer48 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, since you're one of the arbitrators on the "Great Hunger" page, I just wanted to call to your attention another recent edit bby Domer48 where he blanked (again, again) a big section of the lead. [5] Wotapalaver (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the period of discussion for the proposed move is now over. There are 9 votes to move to "Irish Potato Famine", 2 votes to move to "Great Irish Famine 1845-1852" and none to retain the current name. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Old Montauk Station & Bike Rack.JPG

Thanks for the deletion of this image. I've been trying to move many of my images to the commons for a few months, and after a while I've decided it's better to watch some of them there, rather than here. My watchlist is full enough as it is. ----DanTD (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Angus. No I'm fine with the deletions. Actually there's several more of my articles I'd like to see deleted or at least severely re-edited because I wrote them while ill and therefore I don't think they are up to Wiki standard. I don't know about the RIA book (way better than yet another IRA book!). What do you think of it? Fergananim (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson image

Do you have any proposals to make for the image? As far as the internet goes this is quite a rare image. I suppose it its at a musuem although I cannot travel to museums myself easily, and until someone does and donates an image to the Wikipedia this image is surely fair use. Dont you think?

I really dont think there is any real substitute for a contemporary portrait on the face of a coin. True alot of coins are pretty similar and can be unoriginal as far as the actual portrait goes. Some are exellent, and stand apart from the others, though. This Horold godwineson one is one of these. I think you will be hard pressed to find a better image. If you can great. I will try to find another again myself. Maybe the best thing is to ask the copyright holders permission. Do you think the National Portrait Gallery is of a free-for-all kind of mindset, at all? There is an email on their webpage. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well its not too bad. It looks like a painting or priniting of the same coin. It is novel. Certainly not as good as a properer digitiseation of it. I have sent an e-mail to the National Portrait Gallery to request they permit the useage oftheir pictures of coins. If they let Encylopedia Britannica they may well be likely to let Wikipeidia. Lets hope. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

Under the ArbCom ruling a number of principles were agreed upon by the ArbCom. While editwarring and reverting were not directly addressed, Verifiable information and original research were. While you have focused on the issues which were not directly addressed, you have ignored the ones which were. That the ones you ignore are directly responsible for the ones not listed appears to me at least strange. Ignoring the causes and focusing on the symptoms, and not alone that but targeting one of the editors who is trying to improve the article. While I get warnings on my talk page here and here on reverting, I appear to be the only one. Having engaged on the talk page here, here, here, here, here, here and now here, I get warnings. Now can you explain to me why this is? Why are you reluctant to enforce the rulings of the ArbCom?

Now here is some examples from the revert you failed to address or even mention.

Examples:

Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell's Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Now are you going to answer my queries and address this, or sit on your hands and wait for the opportunity to issue me another warning? Please address the cause of the problem, the people adding un-sourced material and/or original research and edit warring to keep it in the article, instead of threatening to article ban the person trying to keep it out of the article. I don't see a single warning for edit warring on anyone else's talk page, despite them edit warring to retain disputed information. I should not need to go for RFC or Third Opinion, we've already been all the way up to ArbCom and various principles were established, and if they were actually upheld things would go a lot smoother for everyone. So where from here? Domer48 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point to discussion

“All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page,” per ArbCom ruling. This revert by a single purpose account Editor was accompanied with the Edit Summary “removed after discussion.” This is the outline of the “discussion” which resulted in the above reversion. The editor proposes removing it here. I respond here, suggesting I reference it. I almost immediately put forward a reference, and said I would provide more. My answer noting a policy based reason was based on a previous proposal here, which gave no rational. The first editor to respond had no real objection, did not even ask why remove it. I asked why they wanted to remove it, and they said they wanted to make it flow better and beside they never heard of it. The editor who previously had no objection supported its retention bending sources. The editor who proposed it be removed, removes from the article and only then responds on the article talk page, rejecting the source and any other source provided, under a completely different rational. Is this what constitutes discussion? When I see the amount of discussing I was doing and I still got a warning? Where is the consensus for its removal, and were is the discussion for that matter. --Domer48 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? [6], [7], [8], [9] , [10], [11]. Or is it just me? --Domer48 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And on it gose [12] and I made a mistake on the Straw Polls, its actually 4 times in as many weeks?

And on [13]?--Domer48 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't read my Talk page very often, so didn't notice your warning until after the ban, which is due to end in a couple of days. Just to point out regarding the above user's complaint, when he wrote that "the editor who proposed it be removed, removes from the article and only then responds on the article talk page" he was misrepresenting me. If you take a look at the times on the page edit and talk page comment that he links to, the talk page comment was at 16.22 and the edit at 16.30 on the same day. So he inverted the timeline, as any discerning person can see. I discussed the edit beforehand.

I notice also that the other party to the edit war didn't get a ban or even a warning despite breaking the 3-revert rule at links given above [14], [15], [16]; not even a talk page reminder. An I missing something?

Anyway, I won't be returning to this issue again. Asmaybe (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

East-Hem Maps

Hi AngusMcLellan, thank you for moving the East-Hem_200bc.jpg map to commons. I've already moved all of the East-Hem maps over to commons, but several of them haven't deleted from Wikipedia yet. Thus Wikipedia is showing older versions of the maps. Would you be able help by deleting the remaining East-Hem maps from Wikipedia? Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angus, from what I've seen so far you did what I needed. Basically I just need all of the East-Hem maps that are on Wikipedia to be deleted from Wikipedia (since they are already uploaded to Commons). If you use the Template:World_History_Maps, you'll be able to get directly to each image's homepage. Many are already deleted from Wikipedia, but most of them are still on Wikipedia. I just need them deleted from Wikipedia is all. Thank you, Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh wikimeet

Venue decidedish, I hope. Please can you confirm attendance on the page. Best, Asty (137.195.250.2 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

ArbCom Ruling

Well Angus, at the very least, thank you for the reply. Now since as you say reverting is covered by Wikipedia:Edit war, could you explain to me why I get a warning for this edit, yet this edit is not even noted. I’ll not add all the diff’s for the detailed discussions I had to engage in, you should be familiar enough with them by now. Now we have information which is not sourced, supported by references, and containing original research has been re-inserted and the [ArbCom ruling ], which pacifically identified the issues of verifiability and [original research] as the main contributing factors which lead to an Wikipedia:Edit war, is not being addressed. So excuse me if I beg to differ with you, but I suggest that the Mentor’s are, under the ArbCom Ruling obliged to review “content” if it has been shown to breach the [above mentioned] principles agreed upon by the Arbitration. I find your suggestion of “mediation, a request for comments, a third opinion and all the various noticeboards” incredible when it has already be as far as it can go with Arbitration, and a decision was made and agreed upon. As an Editor, I should not have to get bogged down in argument, especially when there are three Mentor’s there to ensure that the ArbCom decision is enforced. Now on top of this we have yet another Straw Poll], that three in as many weeks, and appears not to be an issue? So were do we go from here, either we have an ArbCom ruling or we don’t? --Domer48 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Aftoater

I made it from a redlink at List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak. I think it can be deleted, as I can't find any references to it anywhere, not even at streetmap.co.uk which includes the tiny settlements. Epbr123 (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for turning up today, it was good to chat to you.

Best, Asty (137.195.250.2 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

CSD I8 cleanup

Hi Angus, thanks for helping to do CSD I8 related cleanup, but I have one request - would you be able to do the older ones first? There are still some from Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 11 May 2008 and later days, and I'm struggling to clean them out. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Corlea Trackway

On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corlea Trackway, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

Angus, can you ban IP 212.219.36.5 for persistent vandalism please. Ta, Bill Reid | Talk 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours

I saw your comment regarding the name change of Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours. Instead of renaming it to something which still isn't clear enough, what do you recommend? Should I rethink and propose another/other name(s)? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's easy to criticise, but much harder to think of anything better. So far, I haven't, but if I do I'll let you know. Don't hold your breath! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me, is Category:Urban waterfront developments any better for you? I'd be happy to repropose this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Me again. I just noticed there seems to have been an error in the rename, with one "category" too many. See Category:Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Aargh! Well, let's get that fixed. Will I go with Category:Urban waterfront developments? That seems spot-on to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you, Angus. This is happening because someone is trying to poke me by targeting my image uploads, among other things. It means that images are being moved to Commons that shouldn't be; others are being threatened with deletion though they're PD; others are being deleted after being moved though I've expressly asked that they not be. My apologies if it has caused you extra work. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your warning

Just wondering if it was just me you were warning for making 1 revert to an article and if not does this not warrent one too. BigDunc^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as you read my advice, and follow it, that's all that really matters. You can leave me to worry about everyone else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Garbiel Murphy deletion review

When you closed it you didn't seem to say what the decision was. Somebody who appears to be Gabriel Murphy seems to be repeatedly recreating the article based on this. It would be helpful if there was a ruling, at best it seemed inconclusive to me.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It was closed originally as redirect, so that's what is endorsed. Apologies if this was unclear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stories set in a future now past

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008 May_22#Category:Stories set in future now past had 4 votes for a rename, 3 for Litify/Article-ize. How did you decide that that was the decided outcome? Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for making it a list, or perhaps an article, if the sources exist for that, appeared stronger to me. Indeed, they seemed stronger in the original 2008-03-24 CfD. Without some explanation, which can only be provided in a list, it makes for a rather trivial category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So you decided rather than following the concensus? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I read the arguments. Consensus is based on arguments, not counting heads. If I'd followed my own inclination it would have been simply deleted as non-defining (or trivial if you like). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Please see the recent history and discussion, especially Tag Lead Section. Domer is acting without consensus. While you're there, you may want to take a look at the move proposal, where there is a clear consensus to move the article. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. I've been out and about. Seems like Daniel has (again) explained things to Domer48. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was nothing said about these?

• my edit Colin4C's revert
• my edit Colin4C's revert
• my edit Colin4C's revert
• BigDunc's edit Colin4C's revert
• my edit (removing 1845 as misleading) Wotapalaver's revert
• my edit Wotapalaver's revert
• my edit Wotapalaver's revert
• McNoddy's edit Bastun's revert
• McNoddy's edit Bastun's revert
• my edit Bastun's revert

I don't see any notices about reverting on their pages, is there any reason for it? Although the others could be examined in more detail, let's play close attention to Bastun's first two reverts, this and this. It is clear that McNoddy was merely trying to add much needed context to the sentence that is very unclear at the moment, and the edits only needed some grammatical tweaking. Help:Reverting recommends instead of just reverting "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it, if possible. This may entail factual or grammatical corrections", but why bother doing that when you can just instantly revert?

Well I've given it some time to see if things would actually improve, but they have not. I see the unjust and unfair to warn of ban on me is still in place, yet not in place on other editors who revert as shown above. Not a single word has been said to them has it? This is currently contributing to many problems with the article, as it gives them free rein to introduce as many policy violations as they like and I am prohibited from removing them. And yet when I complain to admins about these policy violations, I am fobbed off saying it isn't your job to enforce policy. Well if it isn't your job, whose is it? Sanctions should not be used to unfarily handicap one side in a content dispute, and admins then ignore the problems they have caused.

If you feel that people are straying away from what the sources actually said, as well as the talk page there is mediation, a request for comments, a third opinion, and all the various noticeboards. There's even one on "original research" these days.

That must be the single most usless piece of advice I've ever been given by an admin, in fact it's the standard admin response you get to any problem. "I don't want to know, so I'll fob you off and send you somewhere else" - thanks! So let's look at the various options you've given me shall we?

• The talk page - well that's a waste of time, as can be seen by Colin4C's refusal to provide quotes on request due to extreme wikilawyering, and he won't admit to straying away from what the sources say.
• Mediation - what's to mediate? I say the sources don't support text, Colin4C says they do. There is no middle ground is there?
• Request for comments - why would I need this? Either the source supports text, or it does not. A request for comment isn't needed, just for editors to stick to policy. If a source says "The ball is red", do we really need a request for comment to prove the ball isn't blue?
• Third opinion - see "Requests for comments" reply.

• Various noticeboards - the ones above? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - they will say it's a content dispute, no admin action required. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - content dispute again. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement - well that would be a waste of time, given there's three admins who already refuse to do anything about the policy violations, and they'll probably say it's a content dispute as well. Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard - been there, done that. The rest seem irrelevant.

You claim "No original research . . . does not include "I don't think that the source says what you think it does" disputes", which is news to me as the policy states "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". The key words are "directly support the information as it is presented", therefore per policy if the source does not "directly support the information as it is preseented" it is original research. This is backed up by decisions from other ArbCom cases, such as this.

At the moment I'm being directed to dispute resolution in order to remove even a single sentence which is blatantly original research which seems a horrible waste of time with no clear resolution at the end of it, especially when all that is needed is admins who are prepared to enforce policy. It seems we're heading back to ArbCom again, and (assuming the case isn't rejected with the predictable "No reason why the existing sanctions don't cover the current problems" replies) things like these would be a likely outcome.

Verifiable information from reliable sources

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.

Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

7) Wikipedia:No original research prohibits original research; editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C engaged in original research

2) Colin4C (talk · contribs) engaged in original research on The Great Hunger...

Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver engaged in original research

3) Wotapalaver (talk · contribs) engaged in original research on The Great Hunger...

Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But wait isn't there a problem with that decision? Yes, the decision doesn't actually do anything. So even after all that we'd still need somebody to enforce the principles established for the second time of asking, yet nobody seems willing to?! So how many more times do non-negotiable policies (policies that have been confirmed by many ArbCom cases, including one specific to this article) be violated before someone is willing to actually do something about it? Domer48 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What original research? Please be precise. Last time I looked - and I no longer have The Course of Irish History to hand to check - the argument appeared to turn on how precisely to paraphrase the material which dealt with Peel's response. I was unable to see any obvious reason for your vociferous opposition to Colin4C's proposed wording, a wording which seemed to me to be a reasonable paraphrase of the source. Unless you're willing to explain your objections precisely and shortly, neither I nor anyone else will have much of a clue what you are on about. What I know about the Irish Potato Famine, as we'll need to get used to calling it, would fit comfortably on the back of a postcard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall endeavour to be as precise as possible. I removed original research, after no secondary sources were provided and other editors agreed they were needed. Colin4C's only response was to claim it wasn't original research, not source it.

At 09:59, 16 June 2008 Daniel states that there was consensus for removal, but if sources can be found a new discussion would be in order.

At 12:24, 17 June 2008 Colin4C ignores that, and makes his first revert.

At 13:36, 17 June 2008 Daniel states "but on the basis of policy the argument to exclude shades the argument to include given the split in support" and asks for a secondary source.

After discussion with Daniel I again removed the information as OR, and asked for further discussion to take place as Daniel recommended about any proposed wording and sourcing. Colin4C made no attempt to discuss the matter before performing his content reversion, but simply reverted....

At 21:05, 17 June 2008 Colin4C ignores that and makes his second revert, claiming "reverted by Domer against concensus" when Daniel says no such thing.

Oh wait I tell a tiny white lie, he contributed to the discussion after reverting, saying "The citations support the text. Period"

The sources for the sentence in question:

• Reference 1 - the front page of a website, tremendous!
• Reference 2 PDF file with various figures, with no mention of the famine.
• Reference 3 - population in "the North" (Northern Ireland it's safe to assume?) is "nearly one-and-three-quarter million people", no mention of the famine.
• Reference 4 - total population of Ireland is 5,602,603, no mention of the famine

The sentence in question:

The fall-out of the famine continued for decades afterwards and Ireland's population still has not recovered to pre-famine levels

From Wikipedia:No original research:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Now as you can see, not one of the sources makes any claim about the current population of Ireland being affected by the Famine, or the famine having a "fall-out" that continued for decades afterwards, or even mention the famine for that matter. Are interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims being made based solely on census figures? Emphatically yes you would agree? Not one of the sources provided sources that sentence.

---

Further problems were had in this section where there was a dispute over Peel acting "immediately" adding in this edit. After raising the issue on a noticeboard here it was tagged as needing a source here, and Colin4C added a source here. Colin4C was repeatedly asked to provide a direct quote from the book to support the text. He wouldn't provide a direct quote, but said things such as these:

• 17:12, 7 June 2008 "According to Woodham-Smith, Peel was very quick"- that isn't a direct quote
• 17:29, 7 June 2008 "Woodham-Smith IS being used a reference and does the support the text of the article" - still not a direct quote
• 10:21, 8 June 2008 "Page numbers have been provided in accordance with wikipedia policy and guidelines" - why not provide a direct quote?
• 12:44, 8 June 2008 "The sentence has been formulated according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines." - why not provide a direct quote?
• 12:57, 8 June 2008 "The sentence has been formulated and sourced according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines" - why not provide that direct quote then?
• 13:22, 8 June 2008 "The sentence has been formulated and sourced according to the same standards as every other acceptible sentence in the wikipedia, as dictated by wikipedia policies and guidelines" - still no direct quote?

However we finally get to the truth of the matter, when it's revealed that the source doesn't use the word "immediately" or anything similar.

• 14:34, 8 June 2008 "So, I think, all in all, that Peel was pretty quick off the mark"

Bardcom then replies with "As you've pointed out above, Peel did not "immediately" do anything - instead he set up a scientific commission. And so on. The fact that *you* think that Peel was pretty quick off the mark is not relevent, and should not be reflected in the text (that's the point about synthesizing text)", and Colin4C agrees saying "Yes, maybe the text should be reformulated, giving the dates of the various events and responses and the reader can then make up their own mind how quickly Peel responded". So after all his claims that the sentence was sourced the word "immediately" was based on Colin4C's own interpretation of events, and his own opinion that Peel acted immediately. Small wonder he was so obtuse about providing a direct quote isn't it?

---

As Colin4C is now a proven liar about what sources say, and I I have investigated other issues with text he has added, and requested quotes, which Colin4C is now obligated to provide according to the verifiability policy. Colin4C responds by removing the tags without providing a quote, and claiming "citations correct". If they are he should have no problem providing an exact quote as he is obligated to do according to policy should he? But look above, see what happened last time he said that and was proven to be lying.

Hopefully that is as precise as you need, anything you need clarifying please ask. Domer48 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

O Great Administrator, Thou Hast Sinned

Way to go on the disambiguation of certain kingly folks at Christianity and astrology‎! But you did it on some direct quotes, and so you broke the quotation slightly. Please go back and fix that which ye hast broke. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox British Royalty

You are right, it is inappropriate to use Infobox British Royalty for monarchs who ruled England and Scotland as seperated kingdoms, but if English monarchs have that infobox, I don't see why Scottish monarchs should not have it too. The article about Henry I of England, who reigned 700 years before the Act of Union, has Infobox British Royalty. As for "Majesty", it's only a part of infobox which indicates that the person was either a monarch or a monarch's consort (it links to Styles of English, Scottish and British sovereigns). It has nothing to do with the actual style of the person in question. The styles are listed in the infobox under "Titles and styles". So, if English monarchs have that infobox, then their consorts and Scottish counterparts should have it too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)