User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 18

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

June 2008

Great Hunger

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, since you're one of the arbitrators on the "Great Hunger" page, I just wanted to call to your attention another recent edit bby Domer48 where he blanked (again, again) a big section of the lead. [1] Wotapalaver (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Old Montauk Station & Bike Rack.JPG

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

Deletions

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

WP:HAU

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

Harold Godwinson image

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

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

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

Great Hunger

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please point to discussion

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

Am I missing something here? [2], [3], [4], [5] , [6], [7]. Or is it just me? --Domer48 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And on it gose [8] and I made a mistake on the Straw Polls, its actually 4 times in as many weeks?

And on [9]?--Domer48 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I notice also that the other party to the edit war didn't get a ban or even a warning despite breaking the 3-revert rule at links given above [10], [11], [12]; not even a talk page reminder. An I missing something?

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

East-Hem Maps

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

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

Edinburgh wikimeet

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

ArbCom Ruling

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

Aftoater

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

Cheers

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

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

CSD I8 cleanup

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

Corlea Trackway

On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corlea Trackway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

IP vandal

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

Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours

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

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

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

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

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

Your note

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

Re your warning

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

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

Garbiel Murphy deletion review

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

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

Stories set in a future now past

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

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

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

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

Great Irish Famine

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

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

Why was nothing said about these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiable information from reliable sources

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

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

Original research

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

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

Colin4C engaged in original research

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

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

Wotapalaver engaged in original research

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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."

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

O Great Administrator, Thou Hast Sinned

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

Infobox British Royalty

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reunion

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Shots

Hello! Please, Read this comment and this one.--OsamaK 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)