User talk:Angusmclellan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:35, 26 July 2008

Rod Underhill

Thanks for the note. The action taken seems hostile. Best, Leah —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus: I am Leah Dunsmore (Team underhill), this particular article has been on Wikipedia for years without being molested. Currently Michael Robertson has been in a lot of controversy and I have been helping to update his related page (Michael Robertson)...i feel that this may have been the trigger to the Underhill page being deleted, with all due candor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 July 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 [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)[reply]

emc is at [2]. 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 and hopefully other people do too. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precise as possible

Civility-free zone

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.

Note: I did not state that there was consensus for removal. I said Domer's position enjoyed a shade more support than the alternative. If it was an AfD, I would have closed it as "no consensus", not "delete". The difference is subtle yet important. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: After reviewing the four sources detailed below (none of which remotely come close to sourcing that sentence, check for yourself as you clearly hadn't bothered to do so before making your "decision"), do you still wish to maintain that position? As following your position to a logical conclusion, if two people simply disagree and throw their toys out of their matching prams in unison any policy violation can be ignored as "no consensus". Policy overrides arm waving, and those sources in the article do not source that text no matter how much Colin ~~lies~~ disagrees. Domer48 (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Domer48 must have spent hours trying to selectively pull together these diffs so that he could misrepresent things quite this completely. On the topic of the long term effect of the famine and the trends in the Irish population, I have provided multiple references on the talk page which several editors have agreed properly support the text that Domer48 is so determined to delete from the page. Domer48 repeatedly ignores the references and, naturally, hasn't mentioned them above. On Peel, I provided (several times) a source which describes Peel's actions as "prompt, skillful and on the whole successful" and says that the authorities (and Peel) acted "promptly". Others say that (by the standards of the day) "Peel had acted quite imaginatively". Domer48 ignores these sources too and has repeatedly attacked any such text. As for his calling Colin4C a liar, I haven't seen any evidence of that and although I don't have copies of some of the books Colin4C has used as sources I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the references. Colin4C has provided specific and clear references. Conversely, if a source says (example only) "in 1847 150000 people died" and later in the same sentence says "in 1849 150000 people died" then Domer48 will attack as OR and synthesis any text that says the same number of people died in those two years, or simply ignore the source entirely. He is wiki-lawyering, reverting, blanking, and being generally disruptive. Oh yeah, he's also been busy editing the WP:V policy and then quoting it at people in the "Great Hunger" page. Sneaky. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin4C is a self-admitted liar. As the comments above show, he repeatedly claimed that Woodham-Smith sourced the word "immediately", then after being repeatedly challenged backed down and admitted the inclusion of the word was based on his own opinion. Therefore I am no longer obliged to assume good faith now he's been caught lying about what sources say. As for your sources and people who agree they source the sentence, they don't and that fact won't change. You try sourcing the existing sentence with them, and I'll be happy to make a report on your policy violations too. I did not originally add the text about quotes being required from books on request, but I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with it, except for people who lie about what sources actually say that is.....

As for the prompt/immediate situation, the article is currently a breach of NPOV (more on that later, on the article talk page) and it was rather a waste of your time bothering to try and source an adjective in that way. Consider the following sentence:

John owned an expensive painting

Would you attempt to reference the word "expensive"? It's a qualifier with no fixed meaning, it means different things depending on the reader. You would attempt to reference the actual value of the painting, be it £10,000 or £100,000. Domer48 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to reference "expensive". I provided reference for "promptly" in relation to Peel's actions, which reference you continue to pretend doesn't exist. To accuse Colin4c of being a liar because the source he paraphrased didn't contain the EXACT word he used but did contain an exact timeline that other historians characterize in essentially the same way Colin4C (and I) did is so exaggerated as to be pathetic. As for the other sources, anyone can go to the talk page and read them. They clearly support the other text that you deleted and they are from reputable verifiable sources. Go accuse me of policy violations all you like. Meantime, you're still throwing long-winded and misleading accusations around to create distraction. I just hope Angusmclellan and the other Arbcom people can see through it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine^[1], ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.^[2]^[3]"

Colin4C is a self-admitted liar. As the comments above show, he repeatedly claimed that Woodham-Smith sourced the word "immediately", then after being repeatedly challenged backed down and admitted the inclusion of the word was based on his own opinion. Come to think of it so did you? As for the prompt/immediate situation, the article is currently a breach of NPOV (more on that later, on the article talk page) and it was rather a waste of your time bothering to try and source an adjective in that way. A person would have to be a right gobshite not to see the problem. --Domer48 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right....a liar and a right gobshite. Calling me ignorant on the article talk page isn't enough I see. Angus, a question, does civility matter? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no response to the evidence of original research then? Domer48 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you find some novel syntheses, let me know. Your disagreement with the phrasing others have chosen when paraphrasing and summarising sources is trivial and has nothing to do with original research. The nearest you've got is the census stuff, but even that is unimportant. You should be more concerned by the poor quality of the source you are arguing over, a rather old book by an amateur historian. So, were I you, I'd be worrying more about verifiability and neutral point of view and less about imagined original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda wonder about whether you have any response to the civility issue especially since you apparently don't see the problem either making you - in Domer48's view - another person to join the ranks of the r**** g******s. BTW, Domer48 has persisted in accusing Colin4C of being a liar on the article talk page - at least up to the point where I provided sources that matched Colin4C's sources pretty much perfectly. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bailing your little chum out of the grave he's digging for himself by producing a different source fails to address the actual problem. Colin4C is claiming particular sentences are sourced by certain books, but on close examination this has been shown to be repeatedly untrue. Thus, Colin4C is lying about what sources say, and his constant evasion rather than producing direct quotes from the books shows he knows he's lying as well. So saying "it is in this other source" changes nothing, Colin4C is still lying. Domer48 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image:Parkiet.jpg

You removed the nowcommons tag on Image:Parkiet.jpg with the edit summary "image on commons is gif, not jpeg". The image on the commons is a gif and so is the image here, it is just misnamed here. The MIME type listed under the image here is image/gif and the image on commons is listed as a duplicate, which would not happen if the images were different formats. BlueAzure (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

I see you are one of the three mentors assigned in this case to monitoring Great Irish Famine. A related arbitration enforcement thread has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#The Great Hunger. I am cross-posting this to the talk pages of the other two mentors. GRBerry 04:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ui Chennselaigh genealogy

I have wanted to create more articles on the kings of this branch of the Laigin but I can't find a decent genealogy anywhere except for bits and pieces. Do you know if A New History of Ireland, Volume IX has a genealogy in it or even a decent king list. I'm thinking of purchasing this book for my collection but i'm a cheap bugger.Timelinefrog (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Irish is practically non-existent. The few words I know are gleamed from comparisons of English texts with irish sources. This looks like a great reference. the 625 entry is probably related to Mongan's death versus Strathclyde. There is an irish dictionary online e-dil, I think it is, but it's not too good if you are looking up old irish. I'll take a look and see if i can gleam the jist of it. looks like there is a lot of data in this saga-related annal though. I like it. The data on ulster-scottish politics in the late 6th-early 7th century fascinates me. very well lit up period. Timelinefrog (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer's block

Hello Angus. I would like to unblock Domer now, for the following reasons.

He block was for incivil language. He pledged (admittedly somewhat begrudgingly) to desist from that sort of language in future and I have made it clear to him that a longer block will be re-instated should he repeat it.
I believe unblocking on that sort of understanding with the editor is much more effective, in the long term, that having then sit out a short block. It also puts a line in the sand that Domer has agreed not to step over.
He hasn't apologized, I know, which is unfortunate. But making an apology a condition of an unblock undermines the whole point of an apology (expressing genuine remorse)
Finally, while his language was particularly incivil, he was not alone in the bad faith assumptions and accusations. I think, while asking all editing to some some good faith going forward, we should show some ourselves and take Domer at his word that he will not repeat this.

As you can see from my comments on his talk page, I don't believe in reversing another admin's actions - since my opinion is no more inherently "correct" than yours. However, I really believe this would be the best way forward at this time. Would you have objections to me unblocking him at this time? Rockpocket 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An apology was not a condition for an unblock. Domer48 would be unblocked in 31 hours whether he apologised or not. An apology, or even a passable effort at pretending contrition, would have got him unblocked much sooner. I have no problem with you unblocking him. The point he raised at WP:AE was, if badly worded and over-dramatic, a reasonable one. What's the drill for editors who are slipshod when it comes to sticking close to WP:V? When I have an idea of what a reasonable answer might be, I'll let him know. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angus. I actually completely missed his WP:AE request. The WP:V issue is valid, but can be resolved without attributing nefarious motive and blame to editors for mistakes. It never fails to amuse me how quickly the goal of WP:V gets lost amid the acrimony. Anyway, I really hope that a number of editors sees this as a wake up call and comes back to the page with a new attitude, because I fully intent to propose a more radical solution if we find ourselves in this situation again. Rockpocket 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Help (spotters.net.ua)

Hello. In the website's "about the site" section, it says, "The site does not claim the rights to the photographs", "Сайт не претендует на права на фотографии". I'm not sure what that means exactly, but maybe something like {{Attribution}} would be suitable. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 05:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am the owner of the site. "Сайт не претендует на права на фотографии" means that photos belongs to the users that have uploaded this photos to the site. The site itself doesn't bear any relation to this photos and copyrights. If you want to use the photos just ask the owners, I am sure they wouldn't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.126.91 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion

By all means - go ahead. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK parts

I'm thinking ...part of the United Kingdom may be best for all articles concerned. It's apolitical, unlinked & certainly can't be disputed (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked? That'd be "part of the United Kingdom" surely. But wouldn't "..., as of 2008, part of the United Kingdom" be safer? Just kidding. But does that come before or after the geographical location? You can be quite sure that there's no form of words will please everyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before or after geographical location? either way would do (for me). GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famine

Hi. I was trying to add a comment to the "Great Hunger" talk page when the page seemed to become damaged. As I look at it and reload it now it's incomplete, has no headers or "edit the page" or "history" tags at the top of the page, etc. I don't think I had anything to do with the damage (I certainly didn't try to do anything) but since I was trying to edit at the time I guess it's at least a possibility. Can you check the page? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the above. The page is back, fine, undamaged. I have no idea what happened. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shots

Hello! Please, Read this comment and this one.--O sama K 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Review

Hello Angusmclellan. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Angusmclellan/RfA review, but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Angusmclellan, Thanks for your closure of the cfd for Category Serbian academicians, and thanks to you (or whoever else is responsible) for initiating the Bot run for the merge with Category Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Cheers, Lini (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much

Hey that's very nice of you. Its been fun and Geocachers are appreciating it as well. Rosser (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:City states

When deleting pages Category talk:City states please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Category talk:Former city-states Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

My RfA

Deletion reviews

I have called for a deletion review on Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topical outline of lotion

I've replied to your post at WP:VPR.

The Transhumanist 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Category:Persons Taking Refuge in Diplomatic Missions. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eli Fucile

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eli Fucile, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Superpika66 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Angusmclellan, and thank you for your proposal. As I don't know you yet from previous edits, could you just give me a few hints about the person you are? Best regards PHG (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PHG and Angusmclellan. Want to follow up with the two of you about working together. Have you all discussed this further. If you are both in agreement, then I will let the Arbitration Committee know of your plans. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aethelburg/h

Angus, I just happened to notice that some time ago you changed "Æthelburh" to "Æthelburg" in Eadbald of Kent. I don't have my refs with me (I'm away from home till September) but I seem to recall that the "urh" ending was a bit more common than "urg" among my more reliable references for names ending like this. Do you happen to recall what made you change it? I'm fine with it staying as it is, but I was curious about your reasons since I know you're a stickler for good sources. It did occur to me that there might be a case for consistency in AS articles -- Seaxburh, Æthelburh, Eadburh or Seaxburg, Æthelburg, Eadburg -- but I don't know that that's justifiable. The idea of orthography is so much later an invention that I suppose it would be unreasonable to apply it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. When I get back to Texas I'll take a look at my refs and I may move it then if there's a majority one way or the other. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation question

Hello. Alison suggested that you might be the right person to help me with a translation problem I have. My Irish is pitiful. Not even that good really, nonexistent would be nearer the truth. Normally I can find a synopsis or a translation somewhere, but this from the Mionannála, which I'd like to mention in Mongán mac Fiachnai, has me beat.

I reckon the first sentence is along the lines of "Years afterwards a great fleet came from Britain [stuff] and was defeated by Mongán [stuff]". The rest is more or less a mystery, although I have a vague idea that his comment to his mother has to do with her praying at his grave. And then there's a stone in the story. So that makes me wonder. I know that somewhere, where I do not know, there's a story which goes like this: Mongán and his mother are walking on a beach; she picks up a beautiful stone and shows it to him; he tells her that some day he'll be killed by that very stone, so she throws it into the sea; years later it washes up on Islay and sure enough, Artúr the Britain picks it up, and throws it at Mongán, and kills him dead.

Is that what the text is about, would you know? If it isn't, do you have any idea what it is about?

Sorry for taking up your time with this trivia. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan 18:35, 7 Iúil 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angus, my knowledge of older forms of Irish is pretty vague, but it does seem to be referring to the story. Here’s what I’ve figured out so far, though I’m sure it’s not 100% right.

Many years later, now came a large fleet from Britain [dative plural!] to plunder their neighbouring lands so that Mongán came together with a host to put them to flight and drive them back to their boats. However, one of them took a stone from the shore and cast it at Mongán’s head so that he fell, and that stone was the stone that the waves cast up on the shore and [some reference to ashes in a cloak/cloth?]. Afterwards, the stone was recognized [and Mongán was dead as a result?] i.e. the eleventh year of Suibhne Minn and before his passing Mongán put the stone into his mother’s hand and the mother recognized it. Thus the man who killed him and all the crew of his ship were able [?to leave] and Mongán didn’t let any of them be killed but let them go[?]. But though it was a large fleet none of them reached the eastern sea without dying or drowning but one man only.

[This part I’m really not sure about] Then the dying Mongán said to his mother: ‘I will be alive in a year in my grave and open the grave.’ [The next sentence I don’t follow] The day came however [and] she found warmth in her son’s body and [thick?] sweat through his side and blood flowing from his nose and him trying to rise. ["if it’s true" writes the Christian scribe in Latin] An additional year after than? his father lived.

I might ask someone with better knowledge of Old/Middle Irish about this, but in the mean time it might also be worth asking User:Angr. Fascinating story anyway, especially the apparent resurrection!
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (Vicífhoclóir: Moilleadóir ☎)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onewillfind

Thank you for your expert handing of the situation on User:Onewillfind. Best, HiDrNick! 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I just wanted to commend you on how well you handled the Onewillfind situation. It's a refreshing change. Hopefully your efforts will not be in vain. Angrymansr (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish chronology

I have decided i am not going to use MacCarthys dates anymore for the period before 665. Historians are still using the updated dates of the Annals of Ulster and though his theory may be correct I think individual events such as for example the Battle of Degastan or the Battle of Mag Roth would be better looked at on an individual basis. This means I have a lot of backlogged work ahead of me to correct this in articles but I think uniformity is better. Makes it easier to synchronize with your articles as well. Thanks for your previous advice on this, I will prpobaly just use a footnote at the beginning of the article.

I finally broke out my wallet and purchased some new books, found a lot of data I've been looking for. Timelinefrog (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Exposition (1935)

A quick thanks for rescuing this article from reckless speedy deletion. All best to you -- --Lockley (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I walk past the 1935 Expo building every time I take the underground to work, so I was pretty certain indeed that it wasn't a fake. There's a nice night photo of the palais at Commons:Image:Luc Viatour Bruxelles Palais expo heysel.JPG, or alternatively a view from the top of the Atomium at Commons:Image:Centenary Palace.jpg. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion review concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Angusmclellan, and thank you for accepting to work as my mentor. I will ask the commitee so that they can officialize our collaboration. I hope I will not take too much of your time! Cheers PHG (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Royale

Hi Angus. I wish to use a reference book in French about the French Navy for my work on the Sino-French War and France-Thailand relations. It is "La Royale", Jean Randier (de l'Académie de Marine), ISBN 2352610222, Editeur MDV. "La Royale" is a compilation of three of his books, starting with "La Vergue et le Sabord (des origines a 1850)" ISBN 291082117X. Could you confirm if it is acceptable as a source? Thank you. PHG (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad I can use this source. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongan and new books

New books I got actually are the Gill series first two volumes (second hasn't arrived yet) and New History of Ireland, Volume I. So you probably have these already. Mac Niocaill's book is a nice handy reference for following the Irish annals and has some genealogies for the Ui failge, osraige and ui Cennselaig I was looking for. I was a bit sceptical of O'croinin in early medieval ireland because he made some obvious errors that threw me off to his work but in a new History of Ireland I've only found two mistakes by him so far, one is a date and the other is a mistake of cousin for uncle but he elaborates on his earlier work in a way that makes it much clearer so I've regained some faith in him.

your Mongan looks good, very thorough, I'm not very familiar with saga stuff except for what I stumble across. All I know is some Briton threw a rock at him. Though for some reason i have the idea it actually occurred in battle with them. I'll have to recheck my annals on that one.Timelinefrog (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.

Arra best, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer

Thanks for the offer - I had assumed there must be a way to revert other than using the 'undo' option but couldn't see what it was! Having that tool could certainly be helpful on occasions, so 'yes please'! Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It now appears as an option when I look in a history page so I assume it must be working. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thai calendar images

Why did you delete # "Image:August2004rs.png" (I2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons) and "Image:August2004 1-2.jpg" (I2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons) despite my "Hang on" on their Talk pages? The images, or something very like them, are still at Thai lunar calendar and Thai solar calendar, so it is obvious I don't know what's going on. Please enlighten me so I can lighten your burden in future. Pawyilee (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me: I just read your answer on MY talk page that you put there before I asked it. Sigh. Live and Learn! Pawyilee (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Lafont

Hi Angus. I am considering using as a source an article (in French) by the French historian and Inalco professor Jean-Marie Lafont [17], entitled "La découverte du bouddhisme par le monde européen", in Dossiers d'Archéologie, June 2002, to help document the article Christianity and Buddhism. Could you confirm if this is acceptable as a source? Cheers PHG (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angus for your feedback. I added some of Lafont's material to the Christianity and Buddhism talk page. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oops

Heh, it's okay - those manuals can be misleading, much to our inconvenience. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

I had a look at this, and though it seems a useful tool, for the amount of time I can foresee using it, I'm happy enough sticking to the "undo". Although I'll keep it in mind as a possibility in future. Appreciate the offer though, thanks. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hi, and thanks for taking on the job with PHG. :) Along with his work on new articles, would you also be interested in helping with older articles that he has worked on? For example, we are still reviewing several articles with POV issues, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. A couple of us are working on them as we have time, fixing the articles and crossing them off the list, but it would be nice to have help. For example, PHG created Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia, which are effectively duplicated articles that need to be merged. Would you be interested in helping with that? Thanks, El on ka 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the list and see if there's anything I can help with. If not, I should certainly be able to do the merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue is that Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia are not quite the same subject really. Nestorianism especially had a great role in Asia and has nothing to do with Catholicism... Also, if someone could work on these articles, these is a lot to say about Protestant missions in Asia, which do not belong to Catholicism either. Actually, Roman Catholicism in Asia should function as a sub-article of Christianity in Asia. "Roman Catholicism" also should stand in its own right, as it belongs to the "Roman Catholicism in ...." series. I would love to expand these articles, and make them quite different from one another... maybe sometime in 2009 I guess :) Cheers PHG (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I have concerns about a recent article that PHG created, Shanhai Yudi Quantu. It seems on first glance to be a good article (as PHG's articles often do). However, on a closer look, I have the following concerns:

The entire article is based on just one source
There was a better location for this information, in the parent article Sancai Tuhui.
There is a lot of detail in the article, which makes it look a bit like a dictionary, which I feel runs afoul of WP:NOT.

I would recommend merging it into the parent article, and reducing the amount of "detail" information presented, since it's already available in the online source. What are your own thoughts? --El on ka 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shanhai Yudi Quantu (山海輿地全圖) is a type of map which is very well known in cartographic circles [18], quite independently of the Sancai Tuhui in which it was first published, which is a general encyclopedia. As far as I know, the usual practice for maps if to have their own articles (Kangnido, Wanguo Quantu, Cheonhado, Fra Mauro map etc... see Ancient world maps for a sampling), whatever their mode of publication. I am sure a lot more content will come (from me and others) on this fascinating subject so that the article will naturally grow. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the referenced document and let you know what I think when I get to the end of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've read through Ptak's paper. Here is what I think. Mileage may vary.

Cave ab homine unius libri, or is a single source ok? This is not really an issue to my way of thinking. Ptak's paper is undoubtedly a quality source directly addressing the subject. I see no conflict with WP:V or WP:NPOV, so long as Ptak's views are fairly represented. The only thing that gives me pause is the unattributed quotation from Ptak's paper in the "Description" section. I would like it to be clearer when Ptak's work is being quoted.
Forking and merging, or should this be covered in Sancai Tuhui? It certainly could be. My reading of Ptak's footnotery suggests that any substantial expansion of Shanhai Yudi Quantu will need access to Chinese language sources. We can reasonably assume that this, while possible, is not likely in the short term. On the other hand, even if the "Description" section of Shanhai Yudi Quantu could, and probably should, be pruned, one would expect that Sancai Tuhui would tend to grow as the existing article is only scratching the surface and could be readily expanded by anyone who cared to do so. This question seems to turn on personal preferences as to article size and eventualism versus immediatism. A merge is possible, but it is not necessary.
The level of detail? Here I agree. The "Description" section is over-long and I have already remarked on the need to be more transparent as regards attribution of quotated text.

On the whole, my initial position is that I see no reason to merge the article as a matter of policy, although I do agree that changes to its current form are needed. I suggest that any further discussion might best take place at Talk:Shanhai Yudi Quantu. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I think that if the article would have been tagged as a stub, I would not have had as many concerns. However, one of PHG's techniques, is to make poorly-sourced articles that look like real articles, because he takes pride in getting them on DYK. As you may know, stubs are not eligible for DYK. It is my belief that this is another reason why PHG makes separate articles, rather than expanding existing articles, is because, again, he is aiming for DYK. We had trouble with this in the medieval history topic area, as PHG would make articles that would make unsupported claims, so that they could have a good "hook" to get into DYK. This resulted in some DYK tags showing up with out and out false information from time to time, which is why I'd like to ensure that, with supervision, it doesn't happen again. I do think that PHG does a lot of excellent work on Wikipedia; however, I think that at times he becomes so eager to "prove a point", that some Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR fall by the wayside.

Another of his new articles that I have concerns about, is Cheonhado, another "single source" article that was not tagged as a stub. I am concerned about a couple statements in it such as "Some scholars have attributed" (even though again, there's only one source on the article). And the statement "Such maps were produced in Korea only, and were never found in Japan or China" appears to be original research. The word "never" does not appear anywhere in the source document. I understand that it may simply be a paraphrase, but the word "never" is a WP:REDFLAG claim, that should be carefully sourced. Thanks for taking a look at these, --El on ka 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with vandal

Hi Angus, you've helped me before so I feel comfortable asking for your help here. I need to propose this user be banned or suspended. I caught him trying to take credit of one of my images, and he's also a notorious vandal / promoter. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmiworld I would like to know what the policy for this type of stuff is so that I can handle it without having to bother you. If you'd be so kind as to drop me a message back into my box I'd GREATLY appreciate it. Thanks. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tour article DRV

The DRV for Burning Up Tour was 3 to 3 when you closed it as endorse. Since there wasn't a majority in favor of endorsing, I don't understand the basis of the decision. Everyking (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means we leave things as they were. Well, it does at XfD anyway, and most everywhere else I can think of, so it seems reasonable that the same logic applied at DRV. For that reason I'm not going to overturn a close without some reasonable grounds, and there weren't any especially compelling reasons to do so in the DRV. So, the close is endorsed by default. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Harp page and the significance of Hugh Trevor-Ropers work in wikipedia

Hi Angus I would like to invite you to a discussion on the talk harp page [[19]]. I am currently in discussion regarding an edit warring with an unknown poster relating to early medieval triangular harp instruments and origin in Scotland. As far as I can see and from multiple refrences and sources, the triangular harp was first evident in Pictland, and later spread to Ireland and the Anglo-Saxons. However user 93.107.129.136 states everything we percieve as being Pictish in art, culture and society is of Irish origin. To back up his point he has quoted one study by the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Invention of Tradition [20]. That all Scottish culture is of Irish origin and therefore the triangular harp, music, insular art and pretty much everything attested to Scotland (Gael or Pict) didn't originate there. Would you like to discuss the data as your well read on Pictish history. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Certainly The Invention of Tradition is a pretty much useless source for the medieval period. Déja vu all over again, like you said. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 39-53
^ David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 311
^ Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 49-65

[1] Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 39-53

[2] David Ross (2002) Ireland: History of a Nation: 311

[3] Cecil Woodham-Smith (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9: 49-65

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 715: / Line 715: @@
 * The level of detail? Here I agree. The "Description" section is over-long and I have already remarked on the need to be more transparent as regards attribution of quotated text.
 On the whole, my initial position is that I see no reason to merge the article as a matter of policy, although I do agree that changes to its current form are needed. I suggest that any further discussion might best take place at [[Talk:Shanhai Yudi Quantu]].   [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 12:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
+: Thank you for your review.  I think that if the article would have been tagged as a stub, I would not have had as many concerns.  However, one of PHG's techniques, is to make poorly-sourced articles that ''look'' like real articles, because he takes pride in getting them on DYK.  As you may know, stubs are not eligible for DYK.  It is my belief that this is another reason why PHG makes separate articles, rather than expanding existing articles, is because, again, he is aiming for DYK.  We had trouble with this in the medieval history topic area, as PHG would make articles that would make unsupported claims, so that they could have a good "hook" to get into DYK.  This resulted in some DYK tags showing up with out and out false information from time to time, which is why I'd like to ensure that, with supervision, it doesn't happen again.  I do think that PHG does a lot of excellent work on Wikipedia; however, I think that at times he becomes so eager to "prove a point", that some Wikipedia policies such as [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:NOR]] fall by the wayside.
+: Another of his new articles that I have concerns about, is [[Cheonhado]], another "single source" article that was not tagged as a stub.  I am concerned about a couple statements in it such as "Some scholars have attributed" (even though again, there's only one source on the article).  And the statement "Such maps were produced in Korea only, and were never found in Japan or China" appears to be [[WP:NOR|original research]].  The word "never" does not appear anywhere in the source document.  I understand that it may simply be a paraphrase, but the word "never" is a [[WP:REDFLAG]] claim, that should be carefully sourced.  Thanks for taking a look at these, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 ==Help with vandal==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 17:35, 26 July 2008

Archive

Rod Underhill

Guthrum II

TeePee

WBOSITG's RfA

Tethbae

Re: Support

RFA Thanks

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

WP:HAU has a new format

TeePee

Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons)

Ibixian

Early Medieval Gwynedd

AIV NEEDS ATTENDING TO

Nationality/ethnicity in categories

Article mention

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

Listify from cat.

Image:Location Turkey in Europe.png

Great Hunger

Image:Old Montauk Station & Bike Rack.JPG

Deletions

Harold Godwinson image

Great Hunger

Please point to discussion

East-Hem Maps

Edinburgh wikimeet

ArbCom Ruling

Aftoater

Cheers

CSD I8 cleanup

Corlea Trackway

IP vandal

Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours

Your note

Re your warning

Garbiel Murphy deletion review

Stories set in a future now past

Verifiable information from reliable sources

Original research

Colin4C engaged in original research

Wotapalaver engaged in original research

Precise as possible

O Great Administrator, Thou Hast Sinned

Infobox British Royalty

Image:Parkiet.jpg

Ui Chennselaigh genealogy

Domer's block

re: Help (spotters.net.ua)

Reunion

UK parts

Famine

Shots

RfA Review

Thank you

Thanks very much

Category talk:City states

RfA thanks

Deletion reviews

Deletion review for Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska

Deletion review for Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska

Deletion review for Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska

Happy Independence Day!

Topical outline of lotion

Proposed deletion of Eli Fucile

Hi

Aethelburg/h

Translation question

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

Kudos

Irish chronology

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Thank you

La Royale

Mongan and new books

RfA thanks

Thanks for the offer

Thai calendar images