User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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.

January-April 2010


Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 27[edit]

I have decided to withdraw the nominations for now to see how History of BBC television idents can be improved upon. Although the arguments in favour of keeping the image are sometimes a little dubious and neatly sidestep the idea of adding more relevent text in their place, I'll see what can be done before any deleting takes place. I'll give it a couple of months and probably try again. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Gerrit Mannoury.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for the "Deleted old revision 20100103003949" of the Gerrit_Mannoury.jpg image. Now I wonder if you could delete some more old versions. In the last two days (2-3 jan (see my user contributions) I have reduced the size of about 35 fair-use images (for a better compliance with fair-use regulations). Most of those images I uploaded myself. I think it would be even better if all of those images would be removed? -- Mdd (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work and the tip: I gave the {{non-free reduced}} template a try. -- Mdd (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:District-9 advertising Canterbury Tail 25 June 2009.jpg[edit]

I notice you closed this PUF as keep based on Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada, but freedom of panorama only applies to 2D reproductions of buildings or 3D artworks. Direct quote from that page: "The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs." Can you please reclose as delete. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What can I say? Oops probably. Close updated. Will delete the image shortly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Baffled, puzzled, confused, don't understand[edit]

LOL overzealous. Yes, you do have a point. But I do think that it is fair to say that I only try to nominate files which are orphaned or have no real foreseeable use. Wikipedia has enough of these unused files laying around and frankly, it's not like Commons needs all of them either (as if there weren't enough over there). I concur that good quality, but useful files should be retained despite being orphaned, but remember, Wikipedia is not an orphanage! All I'm trying to do is to do my part to cleanup. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Edokter and WP:UNINVOLVED[edit]

I saw your choice of edit summary here, which I happen to agree with. Please see User_talk:Edokter#Please_be_mindful_of_WP:UNINVOLVED. Unfortunately, it appears this is a pattern of behavior with Edokter (talk · contribs) and failure to abide by WP:UNINVOLVED. Perhaps further discussion of this might be appropriate? Cirt (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a barrel of fun![edit]

Saw your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holdone and couldn't stop laughing, literally. My sides hurt. What a win, Just thought it shouldn't go unnoticed :) Outback the koala (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sir Noel Power.jpg.jpg[edit]

Your decision is simply unfair. There were equal number of people who supported and opposed the deletion. But you came, you left your comment, and then you deleted the photo right away. You did not give chance for others to give feedback on your comment. I strongly protest that the discussion should be reopened.--Clithering (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The policy which determines whether and where and when we can use non-free pictures such as this one is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This states: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. ... Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." That's the basis of my comments. And the comments are there not as a "vote" but to explain why the result was as it was. I assume that you wouldn't have found the single word delete to have been a very satisfactory explanation. As I said in my comment, I think this image has more problem meeting the requirements of #8 than #1, but restricting my comments to #1 it was clear from your comments that no effort had been made to find a free image beyond a simple search on Google. Apparently this was not judged to be sufficient by two editors who commented. Jheald's contrary view seemed to rest on a blanket presumption that non-free photographs of dead people are automatically irreplaceable. I see no basis in policy for that view. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me how sad it is that Wikipedia:Files for deletion is not a place for mutual discussion. Now I have a few points in regarding to your comments:
the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense
I believe adequate rationales were provided in the info page when the photo was uploaded. I wonder did you really read that page and can you retell what rationales were provided.
Nobody saw any need to add a free image during the several years
This is a rather subjective comment. No one added a free image does not mean no one saw the need. The reason may be because people saw it too difficult to obtain a free photo and gave up. There are many HK-related biographies have been left unattended to in Wikipedia, but you cannot dismiss the fact that there is a need to upload images for them.
it was clear from your comments that no effort had been made to find a free image beyond a simple search on Google
This is an obvious error of judgement and a grave accusation. How clear was it? In fact, much effort had been made to search a free photo in different sources, but the effort was in vain. If you have some idea to find an free image of the late justice, why don't you share here? The current photo was obtained from a webpage of a museum where I think is an appropriate source.
Lastly, there are many fair-use photos, such as File:RoyJenkins.jpg and File:LordWeatherill.jpg, were uploaded without meeting objection. I think you need to take action fairly and reconsider my case. Thanks again.--Clithering (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
If I thought I had made a gross error, such as the one Stifle pointed out at #File:District-9 advertising Canterbury Tail 25 June 2009.jpg above, I would change this close as I did in that case. I don't thing I did so I won't. When a decent interval has passed it will surely be possible to contact the family and ask them to donate a picture of Sir Noel. Or find a public domain one. Until then we can do without one just as we did without for several years. If you'd like to dispute the deletion, please try Wikipedia:Deletion review. Whatever people may say there, the actual policy here is clear. It's up to you to show that a free image cannot be obtained and you have not done so. Until you contact the subject's family you will not have come close to exhausting every avenue.
It would be fair to add that I disagree with the rationales you provided for File:SirTLYang.jpg and File:Yuet Keung Kan.jpg: the non-free content guideline states that non-free images of living people are almost always replaceable. I'd suggest looking at alternatives such as contacting the subjects and asking for a free picture. Or you could always do what was done with Power, whether by accident or design: wait for them to die and then claim no free image can be obtained.
Finally, given that there are around a third of a million non-free images on this Wikipedia it would be very unwise to draw any conclusions from the existence of other pictures or from the rationales offered for their use. "Other stuff exists" is generally considered to be an argument to avoid at AfD at least and so it proves here too. The Weatherill one is assuredly not an acceptable use of a non-free image and I have tagged it accordingly. The Jenkins one is debateable so I have opened the debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shannon O'Donnell Maureen Naylor[edit]

How come these files are being non-disputed as such that they are not qualified to be on wikipedia? However, for some photos, they are allowed to be on Wikipedia? What is the problems with my photos that I uploaded?

JD2635 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changeux's picture[edit]


This story is getting ridiculous. With the help of Changeux himself I have been trying to fix the situation. We have tried all the licenses, sent all the e-mail requested. We are just fine for a while, and then someone come and complain again, or worse delete the picture without warning. It is like an iterative nightmare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenov (talkcontribs) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some other websites using this picture of Changeux (it is the one of the pictures he systematically provides):,,,,,,,,,,1126.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenov (talkcontribs) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changeux just CCed me the email he sent to wikimedia, confirming that this picture is in the public domain. Could-you or someone suppress the deletion procedure please. Thank-you. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Forteviot Bronze Age tomb[edit]

Hi, Angus. Can I ask which book shop you purchased the 'Forteviot dagger burial? Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, it's just a short two page notice in History Scotland magazine (which you might be able to get in a big newsagents). I can send you a copy if you have your email enabled. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just enabled my email now, Angus. That would be great if you could send it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No bother, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just ticked the box to enable other users to send email. Missed it the first time, sorry. Jack forbes (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Uí Duach Argetrois[edit]

I came across them in your sandbox. Our sources do not agree, and they are either Corcu Loígde proper (MacCotter) or belong to the Uí Fidgenti-Liatháin block (Bhreathnach). See here for support for the latter. Possibly there were two distinct Uí Duach in Munster. But I suspect the early Uí Fidgenti-Liatháin had a special gravity for attracting septs of the Dáirine not seated inside the borders of Corcu Loígde proper. DinDraithou (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:A solution for image license/source/whatever problems: delegation and teamwork[edit]

I just happened to check in things when I saw your message. Thank you for your recommendation. I do believe it is a very good one. Even though I will not write anymore articles for Wikipedia, mostly because of what has been discussed before and because I have health problems, I will at times check into the situation of some of the images. I was disapointed that the "Nurses at Tortuguero" image was deleted because it was obvious that the image was a group or platoon image taken by the military as only such an image would have been permitted. I want to wish you and your loved ones a lot of blessings this new year. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

re:Help with an image[edit]

Hi Angusmclellan. I didn't see any public domain notice but I'm not familiar with the website. --Jmundo (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rican images with problems[edit]

Hello Angusmclellan, I created a Wikilink to a subpage in Project Puerto Rico which will lead to "PR images with problems, view it here: [1]. I then created the page: WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems. I would like it if you to wrote an introduction on the page, explaining the purpose, time limits and so on. I will then post the news of the page creation on the talk pages of other interested users and ask them to place it in their "watchlists". Feel free to make any corrections and tell me what you think. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source material fully quoted[edit]

You stated that our policy on verifiability "discourages" us from posting the actual source material. Could you quote the exact language where you're getting this from, so I can review it ? Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Access to sources" section isn't envisaging that the entire source document is being uploaded to Wikipedia. The implication seems clear to me. You may very well disagree but please don't feel under any obligation to tell me so at length. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dr. Zakir Naik.jpg[edit]

yes,i didn't check the dates,mistake i think the file should be moved to commons then.Linguisticgeek (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Then why keep this copy on the english wiki.delete it then.Linguisticgeek (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC).thanks for the info anyways an advice please archive your talk page it takes a hell lot of time to download.Linguisticgeek (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much, Angus. I have sent you an email from a new account. I actually don't use email very much these days and it turns out the account I used for Wikipedia was getting flooded from a Facebook account I regret starting. In the meantime I have come across this new paper on Saint Ruadán, who belonged to the Uí Duach. Judyta Szacillo (pp. 50 ff) discusses the question of their official descent from the Eóganachta, presumably meaning the Uí Fidgenti/Uí Liatháin block, as I have seen no other pedigree for them.,146273,en.pdf DinDraithou (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Urban Outfitters Image[edit]

It's not "my" image. If you have a problem with the image, then you should take up your issue with whoever uploaded the photo in the first place and on the image's page — whether or not the issue belongs in the UO article, however is fairly clear... it's illustrating the item in as discussed in the article. 842U (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Starbus-with-AMT.jpg"[edit]

Hello Angusmclellan,

I have added information in "Replaceable?" section of "Non-free use rationale" template and have also removed the tag you placed over the following images :-

I hope this have sufficiently addressed your concern.

regards, --Anmol.2k4 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images[edit]

You questioned the "non-free" images on the Old Forge Blue Devils page. Let me make one thing clear for the n'th time. I own these photos. They are very old. They are probably the only ones in existence. The photographer is most likely dead. There is no copyright on them. Why do these photos bother people? I don't understand. They are historical to the people of Old Forge, Pennsylvania, and I have gotten many compliments for posting them. Lou72JG (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

These images have all, I think, been deleted once or twice. You keep uploading them and they keep getting deleted. Wikipedia:non-free content aims to explain when and where you can use images that are apparently still copyrighted. The kinds of images which are acceptable and where are here. And even if one picture, or two, would be OK, there are currently seven. This is excessive when our goal is to use as little non-free material as possible. If you think the images should be here, and evidently you do, I'd encourage you to ask about the pictures at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to see what others think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I chose "non-free" for the license information is because thet last two time I chose public domain, which they basically are, and they were deleted. There is no copyright on these photos....none at all. Lou72JG (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

My issue is much the same as above. You questioned the"non-free" status of an image I created, I own, reporoduced, and am the subject of. What's the problem? Why did you remove the image from album: Bliss Wishes by L. Cedeño?

Etrangere (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Legally the image would most likely be owned by one of (a) the record company E.M.7 or (b) the graphic designer who created the cover. Unless you are one or both of these the image won't belong to you as the derivative work article explains. If you do represent the copyright holder then there are a number of things need to happen to put the image back. Let me know if this is the case and I can explain these. If you want to use the image even though you don't own it then you need to "The cover of an album or single" and the "in an infobox about the album/single" options from the Wikipedia:Upload page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the info box with the image: I am the record label as verifiable through BMI. I am the graphic designer who created the image from a photograph I took myself. I am also the subject in the photograph. Does that about cover it?

Page moved[edit]

Hello Angus, just thought that I would drop by to let you know that some one moved "WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems, in case you didn't know. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Helioculture image.jpg[edit]

If you ever need some grafical drawing please check out my response to your post at my talk page. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)


Thanks for your feedback on my new biographical articles about Charles S. Zane, Lily Eskelsen, and John F. Fitzpatrick (publisher). My first efforts, Utah Education Association and Dennis Van Roekel, were more stubby, but I think I'm getting the hand of this, and I appreciate your feedback.--Thelema12 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello Angus, In the "Puerto Rican images with problems" I found the book from which I obtained the images of "Alfonso Valdes" and "Sylvia del Villard" and posted them in the images files. Damien placed a question under the image if Alfonso Valdes, which since I am not to savvy in this, which I do not understand and since I do not want to give him the wrong answer, I was wondering if you could help me. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Alright, so my opinion is that while much of what he offers is insightful, it falls apart eventually. Basically he bases his speculation that the royal line was Pictish on nothing but the names of Britain and the 'Gabranaig'. We can hardly include it when the author himself admits to speculating and offers not even any good indirect evidence. Broun also fails to discuss the accepted Cenél Loairn pedigree of Macbeth's family or the Kingdom of Moray at all. Where are they? What about their role in the 8th century? He's happy to discuss the Eóganachta and Munster. It's no wonder the paper has not made it to more than a few collections in the world, and why Woolf appears conflicted about Broun's conclusions. What do you think? DinDraithou (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper is cited by Woolf multiple times in both Pictland to Alba and the chapter in A Companion to the Early Middle Ages. A good two thirds of the material appears in much the same form in Broun's Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain, which parts are cited in Evans, "Royal succession and kingship among the Picts". It doesn't seem to have vanished without trace.
If the Cenél Loairn pedigrees are not being taken up as evidence by Broun or Woolf, it is because they are not accepted as genuine. If you look at ¶1697 in the Rawlinson B 502 genealogies (Máel Snechtai's pedigree), Woolf ("The "Moray Question"...", which Broun is presumably following here) divides this into three parts. From Máel Snechtai back to the first Ruadrí matches the evidence of the annals. From "Ailgelach" (obit AU 719.6) on back to Eochaid Munremar it is a pedigree from the Primchenéla. These are probably from the early C8th (there's a copy online of the Senchus, with the attached Primchenéla, here, but with one important mistake for our purposes: the pedigree starting "Mongan mc domnaill" is not Cenél Comgaill as the website states but instead follows that of Ainbcellech in the Cenél Loairn section; it is the pedigree that follows it, that starting "Echtgach mc nechtain", which is headed up as Cenél Comgaill). That leaves the section from Domnall to the second Ruadrí. Not only is the pedigree far too short - four names to cover about three centuries, so probably around four or five generations too few - but the content is also thought suspicious. If Morrgán is taken to be a misreading of Mongán, then all four of those names appear in the pedigree of Mongán mac Domnaill which follows that of Ainbcellach. For these reasons, or so I recall, Woolf presumes the pedigree to be an C11th confection aiming to provide Clann Ruaidrí with a suitably prestigious patrilineal descent, in line with their (newly?) elevated status. Woolf writes (p. 257 of A Companion) "Clann Ruaidrí seem to have been based in the region of Moray, and it is possible that they inherited their claim from the family of Aed." He presumes, in "The "Moray Question"...", that this link may have been matrilineal, so explaining the absence of a pedigree connecting Clann Ruaidrí with Cináed. Such a link would surely have been the most obvious way of demonstrating their king-worthiness, but only if it could have been swallowed by the audience.
But as for Cináed's Gaelicness, Woolf says (on p. 252 of the file you sent me), "there was, in his lifetime, no hint that [Cináed] was of Gaelic origin" ,and (p. 262), "what we can say is that, despite the apparent Pictish character of the dynasty in the later ninth century, by the 990s they wished to be regarded as Gaels". In Pictland to Alba (pp. 116–117) he does indeed note the poem at AU 878.3 connecting Aed with Argyll, and says, "if this is a genuine ninth-century lament, it may bear witness to two facts about Áed. His kindred were no longer ruling in Argyll but it was believed that they had done so in the past." He also makes the same point as Broun (at p. 105): that CKA's record of the reign of Domnall mac Ailpín, where the "laws of Áed son of Eochaid" are mentioned, should not be read as saying that Domnall was "king of the Gaels". Where Woolf and Broun differ is over the importance of the apparent name change circa 900, but that's not especially relevant to Cináed's time. The articles on Domnall mac Causantín and Causantín mac Áeda currently follow Woolf's line of thinking, at least as it is set out in Pictland to Alba.
Do you have access to the Scottish Historical Review on MUSE or something like that? Clancy's "Iona in the kingdom of the Picts: a note" would be worth a look. It is very short. If not, I can certainly send you that and "The "Moray Question"..." (some of which I find rather unconvincing, but that doesn't count for much).
As for the Eóganacht, Fraser, in Caledonia to Pictland, assumed the link to be the product of political expedience. Heading off at a bit of a tangent, I started writing Lang Stane of Auquhollie yesterday since there's a fair bit on it in that Broun paper. I've looked at what the Celtic Inscribed Stones Project says about it. It seems that there's a name on it. It may read, in part, "Dovoni...", about where one might expect a patronymic, or a gentilic, to appear. If you were thinking there might be a link to Munster, and if you had a name that read "something Dovoni-something", wouldn't "Dovvinias" and Corco Duibne come to mind as a likely solution? Coincidence perhaps, but it would be easier to understand a link to the Eóganacht being confected if there was a pre-existing link with Iarmumu believed to exist. As an idea I don't see that this is worse than any other wild guess, but alas!, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is borderline suitable and I just need to find where I've read about the early connection. One Munster tradition has it that the Dál Riata first occupied the West of Munster but for some reason left, to be replaced by their Corcu Duibne kinsmen. I think it is in the Conaire cycle somewhere, which I need to read again, and so I will bundle up both De Sil Chonairi Móir and De Maccaib Conaire and send them to you soon. One consistent theme is that the Dál Riata, Múscraige, Corcu Duibne and Corcu Baiscinn belong to a "dispersed and wandering" group of the Érainn more closely associated with each other than with the more "established" Ulaid/Dál Fiatach and Dáirine/Corcu Loígde. This is supported by the tradition (discussed by O'Rahilly and others) that the Múscraige, most closely associated with the Corcu Duibne, at some point turned against the Corcu Loígde and supported the Eóganachta. This may very well be where Munster really began to turn upside down, before the Osraige were lost. And let us not forget the historical favoured status of the Múscraige under the Cashel kings, and at the right time for us in Scotland. Maybe we should assume Corc Duibne to be an invention for a sept of the Músraige particularly interested in the assets of an Érainn ancestor/goddess Dovinia. Or maybe the Dál Riata invited along some of their kinsmen (who after all really knew their oghams) to the North.
Broun is missing about where else Gabrán and similar forms can be found. Another Gabrán became Gowran in County Kilkenny, interestingly in far east Munster, in old Ossory (a conspiracy?). Yet another might be the Gabra in Uí Chonaill Gabra, of the Uí Fidgenti, again in Munster, but in west County Limerick.
Maybe I've been misled about the Moray pedigree somewhere, so I would like to see "The Moray Question". I don't have access to the Scottish Historical Review.
Oh but just before posting I've thought of something problematical. The inner circle Eóganachta really hated the Eóganacht Locha Léin of Iarmuman, and the Eóganacht Glendamnach, to whom Cathal mac Finguine belonged, had recently enough been at war with the ELL.
Personally I don't feel compelled to accept Broun's conclusions because he devotes part of his paper to saying they can't be conclusions. On the ancestry of Kenneth's dynasty, the suggestion that long established royals were incapable of remembering even ancestor figures, or deliberately forgot about them, is basically absurd and unprecedented. This new crowd in Scottish studies evidently aren't familiar with how the Irish, Welsh, and the Gauls and Celts in general, treated their distant ancestors, human or divine. Fabrications are only needed for upstarts, new arrivals, and for vassals in the Celtic World. DinDraithou (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've emailed the Moray paper, and the Clancy one. Yes, indeed, the pass of Gowran does seem to have been missed. Never say never because someone is sure to find an example you didn't. I'm not sure I've ever seen my bad idea repeated anywhere else, but it's very hard indeed to come up with anything truly original and downright impossible to have read everything.
It'll be difficult to find historians who would agree wholeheartedly with the view of genealogies in your final paragraph. Dumville's "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists" (1977) is fairly widely cited. It doesn't take an ultra-skeptical view, but still sees genealogies as being about ideology as much as biological reality, so too does the Ó Corráin lecture I linked to a while back. Even kindreds with perfectly good pedigrees are said to have improved them. Clann Cholmáin would likely be the best example, and twice over if their learned experts, rather than those of Síl nÁedo Sláine, turned one Conall son of Niall into two, as they were surely responsible for turning one Colmán son Diarmait into two. If that's what happened. Byrne accepts that it did in the introduction to the latest edition of Irish Kings and High-Kings.
It's also difficult to identify which historians who write about early medieval Scotland, if any, are offering an alternative to the arguments advanced by such as Broun, Clancy, Forsyth, Fraser and Woolf. Benjamin Hudson might do, although he doesn't seem to have written anything covering this period since The Kings of Celtic Scotland (1994). Archie Duncan, who represents an earlier generation than these, doesn't dispute the general idea (Kingship of the Scots, p. 9): "Recent scholars, however, have offered an alternative view reducing the catastrophic nature of Cinaed's succession by emphasising the usage of annalists, presumably contemporary, wherein kings from 842 to 878 are 'kings of Picts' and only in 900 is Domnall II, at his death, 'king of Alba'. This does not tell us how Cinaed became king, but it does suggest a continuity which is more believable than the slaughter legend, especially if Alba is indeed a Pictish name." He then goes on, as Broun says, to suggest that we should look to the reign of Giric as being a critical period. Which would be fine if we knew the first thing about it, but we don't. On p. 35, in the only discussion of genealogy I can find, he remarks: "The genealogist's concern was not with kingship among the generations, but rather with descent from distinguished or heroic ancestors in remote antiquity, and it is possible, indeed likely, that such pedigrees were fabricated to join a successful 'new' king to an ancient line of ancestors. The ancestry of Macbeth and Lulach may be the result of such pedigree-making, linking them to Loarn son of Erc, while Maelcoluim II descended from Fergus son of Erc."
Woolf uses the word "alleged" of Cináed's ancestry (Pictland to Alba, p. 320 321): "We seem, simultaneously, to be presented with evidence that suggests both, on the one hand, a Scottish conquest of Pictavia and, on the other, dynastic continuity through this period. A Scottish king-list compiled in the mid-twelfth century extends back through the Pictish king-list, suggesting that kings of that period saw themselves as heirs of the Pictish kings. The link between Cináed son of Alpín's alleged Dál Riatan ancestry and the idea that the kingship of Alba itself was a continuation of that of Dál Riata seems to have been fully formulated only in the late eleventh or twelfth centuries. It is even possible that this revised stance was the work of partisans of Macbethad or Lulach whose claims to patrilineal kinship with the ruling house were to be sought in Dál Riatan times. Likewise, the major churches of the kingdom, such as St Andrews, Dunkeld and Abernethy, together with lesser churches such as Deer, Culross and Loch Leven, seem to have promoted the idea that they had a continuous history originating in Pictish times and their origin legends appear to regard the kingdom ruled by the Picts as the same kingdom as that ruled by more recent kings. The idea, well known today, that there was a union of the Picts and Scots is a very late development, originating in the period after the Union of Scotland and England in 1707, a classic example of writing the past in the image of the present. The contemporary and near-contemporary evidence would seem to suggest that the Pictish kingdom suffered a political takeover by a Gaelic-speaking group but retained its integrity - much as England remained England despite the Norman Conquest. Against this interpretation seems to [be] the incontrovertible evidence that the Alpínid dynasty provided both the last Pictish and first Scottish kings. [para] One possible explanation for the political transformation of Pictavia into Albania would be to attribute a Scottish, that is to say Gaelic, conquest of Pictavia by Giric son of Dúngal. We have seen (in chapter 3) that later versions of the king-list include the statement that Giric 'first gave liberty to the Scottish church, which, up to that time, had laboured under the customs and mores of the Picts', and this may bear witness to popular or ecclesiastical beliefs about his role. Although after his death, or expulsion, the Alpínid dynasty he had supplanted returned, it may be that the nature of his 'regime change' has been such that certain aspects of it were irreversible. We might compare the situation of Edward the Confessor who ruled the kingdom of the English from 1042 to 1066. ...".
Anyway, must get back to my monolith! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Angusmclellan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,277 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Charles Rizk - Find sources: "Charles Rizk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  2. Elias Saba - Find sources: "Elias Saba" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  3. Antoinette Spaak - Find sources: "Antoinette Spaak" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  4. Kamel Asaad - Find sources: "Kamel Asaad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
  5. Bastiaan Ragas - Find sources: "Bastiaan Ragas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn bots. Translations tend to have as good, or as bad, sources as the originals. But perhaps I can round up a real live expert for the Lebanese guys ;-) Surely Mme Spaak has a source? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank U[edit]

So far your great idea is working smoothly. I believe that the following three have been fixed and are ready to be closed: File:Usmcmayaguez.jpg, File:Bougainville-mud.jpg and File:AgustinRC.jpg. Could you check them out? Thanks Tony the Marine (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PR images[edit]

Hi. Be careful with some closing. When an images is disputed for not having a source, providing a source does not automatically resolves the problem. Once a source is provided, when need to verify the fair use rationale (what is impossible to do without a source). That an image appeared in some books it doesn't automatically follows that we can use it under fair use on the web. Some closings seemed to follow this broken rationale. I'm sorry I'm a little busy right now and I'll point out the cases individually later.

In any case, thanks for your participation on the taksforce. --Damiens.rf 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Navy[edit]

Naval Ensign of Japan.svg

Hi Angus! One of my FAs, Imperial Japanese Navy, is currently under Featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1. Although I would like to respond to the improvement suggestions at the FAR, I cannot technically edit the article since it has a paragraph about the Mongol invasions of Japan. Could give me your OK to edit the article? Thank you. Per Honor et Gloria  22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with this and I will note that on the enforcement page. Best of luck with the review! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Per Honor et Gloria  22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello Angus, I'm here in an official clerk capacity. You listed the dispensation at the first case not the second which is still in force until 2 February 2010. You left your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, but the active sanctions are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. -MBK004 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Informational query[edit]

In re: File:PulpFictionColors.jpg. When the discussion has produced no consensus for deletion, and especially when the arguments favoring deletion consist of four brief sentences, half of which evidence misunderstanding of policy, it is very important that the deleting administrator clearly explain the policy basis for deletion. Would you please do so? Thank you.—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, your comments weighed significantly in my decision, but perhaps not entirely in the manner in which you had intended. The fact that you cited commentary did a good deal, or as much as anything ever can, to meet the requirements of #8 of the non-free content criteria. I have in mind the allusion to "Willis' physical appearance in character". However, things then went off in another direction. You stated that the "[i]mage is evidently judiciously chosen to focus on Willis's physiognomy and physical bearing in accordance with sourced critical commentary". Not the character portrayed, but Willis himself. The article echoes this, and was quoted by the other editor who argued against deletion: "Tarantino said, 'Bruce has the look of a 50s actor. I can't think of any other star that has that look.'" But this raises a problem. If it is Willis's appearance which was important, and the comments arguing against deletion do suggest that it was, then in avoiding #8 you've run into #1: an image of Willis will serve perfectly well to depict Willis's "physiognomy and physical bearing". And so, after all this, I deleted the image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Well articulated and much appreciated. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

Hi Angus. Sorry for the intrusion but I am here to request your assistance regarding a proposed audit of my image uploads that Damiens.rf has demanded on my talkpage as seen at User_talk:Dr.K.#Upload_review. I disagree with editor-centered audits which have the potential to lead to witch-hunts and intimidation of editors here . However I proposed at the above discussion that you act as a mediator in this matter and render an opinion regarding the validity of this unpecedented proposed editor-centered audit given also that Damiens.rf and I have been involved in opposite sides in the recent WP:AN discussion. You are free to proceed in any manner you see fit and should you choose to do so, your opinion on my image uploads is also welcome. Thank you for your consideration. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I missed this message earlier. I will have a think about this and get back to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Angus. I would still welcome your input even though I already replied to Damiens.rf here. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image removal / Discussion[edit]

In the future why don't you perform due dilligence on images to include entering your issue with a particular article on it's discussion page. With regard to the image "L. Cedeño Bliss Wishes" - as sated in the notations with the image in Wikimedia commons: I took the photo, I'm the subject of the photo, I am the graphic designer who altered the photo, I own the record label E.M.7. That should cover it.

Now please leave the image in place.

Etrangere (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, autobiography[edit]

RE: Neither of these are good. I refer you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and, more importantly, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are the last person on God's little green earth who should be writing about you, records you made, or companies you own. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I did not make the music on the album. I have the Artist with me RIGHT NOW though and he typed in that he grants permission. Further more, even if I had:

from: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.

The spirit of this guideline is in deterring wanton and unverifiable self promotion. The point being that the facts of a given topic can be given in a neutral POV even if the author is somehow related to the subject in question. All of the facts in this article are verifiable. There is no original research (see below)

(more from:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.''

(more from:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below.

The article in question again: does not violate this guideline. According to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion this article is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. POV is not the defining issue.

It's possible that I'm off base, I don't think so but it is possible, and if so I'll take my que from moderators after discussion.

As for God's little Earth? Are you God? Are you the one who decides and enforces all Wiki policies? I doubt it. So if you have a legitimate and discernible argument which you can present in coherent terms please state it clearly and gain consensus.

If in the end this article is deleted - I'll contact the journalists at NPR and request they post the article. Either way, the article is bound to stay on Wikipedia. It seems more useful to iron out the issues you might have rather than play "God."


Try educating yourself first by actually taking the time to read WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:NPOV before making egregious claims regarding Wikipedia policy. You are in no position whatsoever to make threats so I suggest you stop. -FASTILYsock(TALK)
Have I made a threat?

I am doing my best to educate myself on Wiki policy. In my estimations I have not made any egregious claims. If you assert that I have can you be specific? Can you please point out the specific error of my interpretation of policy?

and again: Have I made a threat? If so can you point it out please?

As for my requesting that someone who is not associated in any way with the subject matter - write the article (NPR)... Isn't that what you and your fellow editor are telling me is necessary?

Very confused.

Thanks again.

Etrangere (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone at NPR, or anyone else, would write an article, or expand an article, because you asked them to, then they would have a conflict of interest also. If you'd like the views of an expert on this subject, that wouldn't be me. I'd suggest you ask User:Durova. She has given a great deal of thought to the subject, and has given talks on it. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Angus, I'm sorry for bothering you with the requests in the "Puerto Rican images with problems". Unfortunately it seems as if you and I, besides the nominator, are the only ones trying to do something. I don't understand why but the nominator is not closing those which have been fixed, that's O.K. I have fixed the sources, licenses and when needed, added the rationale which appears in Wikipedias criteria of fair use. Please check these out and if possible close: File:EstevesWP.jpg; File:RamonaValdez.jpg; File:Antonio Maldonado.jpg; File:German Rieckehoff Sampayo .jpg; File:JJvaldez.jpg; File:De Arellano with awards cropped.jpg; File:DeVillard.jpg; File:O'Niell2.jpg; File:Jesus Colon.jpg. Thank you in advance. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Random Playmates for Deletion[edit]

Hello, I saw that you proposed a number of playboy playmate articles for deletion. When I've run across these discussions before, WP:PORNBIO is usually cited to me for inherent notability, i.e., "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards", "is a Playboy Playmate". While BLP concerns shouldn't be disregarded, its not a ground for immediate deletion unless there is contentious or attack information in the articles. I would propose that you remove the proposed deletions from these articles, as I did for the 1st one I saw, Charlotte Kemp --Milowent (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

MTX Jackhammer picture[edit]

That image has been here for over a year; it has a copyright thing on it already. It says fair use under US law. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates[edit]

Could you please stop listing Playboy Playmates for prods. They are notable per WP:PORNBIO. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After going further down my watchlist, I see that you deleted several Playmate's articles. Could you please replace them? Dismas|(talk) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Commons/Files for deletion[edit]

Thank you for making my life easier with that tag :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IFD closed maybe a bit prematurely?[edit]

Hello, would you mind reconsidering your early closure of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 20#File:Woodward pic of woodward.png? As I said on the parallel case of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 21#File:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.jpg, there isn't normally a life-of-author-plus-70 rule in the US, and in cases of paintings from this time period there are rather complicated issues about determining when it was created, and when and how it was first published. I'm afraid we might need a bit more discussion and more background data to determine these cases. Perhaps, to avoid bureaucracy with DRV and all that, you could just revert the early closure so we can talk it over at leisure while the IFD runs its normal time? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-Free image in the Nokia N900 article[edit]

Regarding : File:Nokia N900 05 lowres.jpg, it is my understanding that your are right by saying that my fair use rational cannot any longer apply as the Nokia N900 has been released, and as such, a high quality free image is easy to come by. You are welcome to delete it. Thanks. --Mandor (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Moray Question[edit]

Thank you again. This is an excellent paper and Alex Woolf is a pleasure to read. Obviously now it is possible that the pedigree is ultimately spurious. But at the same time Scotland was different from Ireland and I am having trouble with who else they could have been. Obviously it is popular to see Picts in the Void. But I recall that in Ireland we were able to correct the ancestry of the Dál nAraidi and Dál gCais only with an excellent knowledge of early medieval Irish populations. For Scotland we lack any record of what must have been countless minor and discard septs of both the Dál Riata and Picts, with contributions from the Britons, Angles, and Norse. Clann Ruadrí could have been anybody or everybody.

The Cenél Loairn themselves are wonderfully mysterious. It would appear that ten or more later clans, like the Mackenzies and Macleans, were claiming descent from them quite early. I know of no surviving legend concerning this but there must once have been tales in existence. DinDraithou (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


  • I just added a couple WPs to Talk:Rheged. The more the merrier. But my geography is a bit spotty, and I don't want to offend anyone. Would you mind quietly rmv'ing any that are inappropriate? Tks. • Ling.Nut 06:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dirge Within removal[edit]

Hi, I was curious as to why you removed the Dirge Within page, they are a signed to a record label (E1 Entertainment) which makes them eligible for their own Wikipedia page. x IDidThePope x 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't show up as something I deleted if you can see that. In fact, I'm not seeing that there ever was a Dirge Within article. If you click on a red link and it has previously existed you should see a message to say that, like at The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location. Are you sure about this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It was saying it was you yesterday x IDidThePope x 11:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "12:07, 13 January 2010 Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) deleted "Dirge within" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xididthepopex (talkcontribs)

Makes sense now. Yes, it does seem that I deleted Dirge within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've undeleted it, but it is very likely to be deleted again if it remains as it is. If you look at WP:BAND, you'll want to show that it meets one, or preferably more than one, of those criteria. References to reports in music and lifestyle mags, newspapers, major entertainment websites, and so on, are always the best way to go about this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I will clean it all up when i get home later x IDidThePope x 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xididthepopex (talkcontribs)

Anglo-Saxon Kings[edit]

I have been tidying up some of the introductions to the articles on Anglo-Saxon Kings. I noticed that they often did not make clear at the start who they are, and I thought that it would be clearest for the user to start by saying that they are Kings of Wessex and their dates. I think that I may have improved the article on Æthelberht so that it no longer needs a note that additional citations are needed.

Up to Æthelred it seems uncontroversial to describe them as kings of Wessex, but not from Alfred on, and Mike Christie suggested that I should ask for your advice. Alfred and Edward the Elder are both described in the infobox as King of the West Saxons, Alfred at the start of his article as King of Wessex and Edward as 'an English King'. Kings thereafter are described as King of England or King of the English and mostly by different titles in the text and the infobox. Some editors think that Alfred and Edward should be described as King of the West Saxons as this was their contemporary title. My own view is that using such a little known title is confusing for users, and that it would be best to describe all kings up to Edward the Elder as kings of Wessex and all subsequent kings as kings of England, but I am doubtful whether it is reasonable to make such wholesale changes off my own bat. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Is there a reason this was being moved to commons? if it's not PD-Cuba it shouldn't be on commons either. Anyways can you delete it for good now? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Long story, which I think you'll find further up this page, based on a mis-reading of Cuban copyright terms. Deleted now. Thanks for the reminder, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.jpg[edit]

Angus, what the heck am I to do with this one? :-) I'm confused with the conversation that you and Fut. Perf. were having. I can't work out now whether you think it should be kept, or whether it should be deleted. Can you clarify your thoughts at the AFD? I'd like to get this one closed to clear the backlog. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we agreed that that one should be kept as we have a publication date and no renewal to be found, so the close was fine. I am rather less confident about the paintings of old New Orleans. I'll follow up on those myself. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers... that's what I thought. If you do find that there is an issue, let me know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Close final FFD[edit]

Hi Angus, I've managed to clear the backlog at FFD. However, as I commented on one FFD nomination, could you close? The FFD is Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 18#File:Thomas Youngblood at Monsters of Rock 2007 in Zaragoza, Spain.jpg. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was too slow. Someone beat me to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


I realize the spectacular possibility that the Picts constituted a small aristocracy (of peculiar custom?) and were distinct from the populations over whom they ruled. I would like to research this, and find or fashion somewhere to discuss it in Wikipedia. What is our evidence? DinDraithou (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegn vs thane[edit]

Hi Angus. Someone has proposed to move thegn to thane. Your input is much appreciated. Cavila (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Category Operalia[edit]

There was no consensus and most people argued that it should be renamed or kept. Please visit again the discussion.--Karljoos (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" and "most" are not always related. Wikipedia:Consensus states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" and the Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline (OCAT), whatever its flaws may be, is at some level that "wider scale" which needs to be kept in mind when weighing arguments and closing CfDs. OCAT is reasonably clear on award categories, and has some things to say about eponymous categories which can be more generally applicable. Given this context, the arguments to have kept the category would, I feel, have had to supply clear and compelling reasons why the guidance in OCAT was not relevant in this case. In my judgement they did not do this.
If you do not find this explanation satisfactory, you may wish to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Operalia[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Operalia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Yes, I was involved in such a discussion w-a-a-y back, but I was on the receiving end of some expertise by a Wikipedian well-versed in the area. I don't know if there's ever been a WMF advisory or extensive discussion. I've uploaded a few still images from trailers in the past few years, but I believe I've brought them all to Wikipedia, rather than to Commons. That said, given my understanding of the issues, this should be a very fruitful resource field for expanding Commons. DCGeist (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Category:19th-century national presidents in Africa?[edit]

There was no WP:CON-- as I already pointed out to Johan-- and I quote.

Keep/Expand : Alansohn, Carlaude, JohanSteyn123
Delete/Merge : BrownHairedGirl, Good Olfactory , Vegaswikian

Please revert this or comment on your reasoning. Thank you. Carlaude:Talk 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether you have actually read WP:CONSENSUS? You appear to be counting votes and treating every comment as being of equal validity. Is that the case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have read it, and agree there are some occations where some votes are not truly valid, but I am not crazy I about your apparent hope that I can read your mind or I just think like you do. This is not even a comment on your reasoning, and I do not think that that was too much to ask of you. Why don't you just say what you mean?
Considering you had the option of just "re-listing the discussion to gain consensus"-- I would say you need an actual reasons to just dismiss views that you disagree with. Carlaude:Talk 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No clairvoyance is required. I'm happy to answer the question, but we do need to be speaking the same language. If I say consensus means what WP:CONSENSUS says it does, and you say it means counting all of the "votes", then we aren't likely to be communicating properly.
I discounted Alansohn's comment for reasons which, I think, should be obvious to anyone who reads CfD. When his comments are right, it's on the stopped clock principle. If he's ever read the Categorisation or Overcategorisation pages, he must have decided that they are wrong and he is right. His comments are largely a waste of his time, and the time of whoever reads them.
That this was part of a larger system is a reasonable argument, on the face of it. It does beg the question of whether the larger system is valid, something that wasn't entirely accepted. There was also the point raised that this was 'an "overall scheme" that is almost completely self-manufactured by one editor', something that wasn't addressed. So, yes, there's an argument here, but it is not accepted by all who saw it.
The argument that this was unhelpful to readers and not especially meaningful was advanced. This wasn't refuted so far as I can see. Although there were questions raised, they were addressed more fully than those regarding the "larger scheme". The criticisms of this view didn't convince the last person to comment.
JohanSteyn123's comment would have been germane had the only question, or even the main one, concerned the size of the categories. Although this formed part of the nomination, it did not, as it happened, form the basis of the debate. I entirely agree that the category was large enough to stand on its own and this question didn't have anything to do with the close.
If I reduce the argument to the main points and who made them, we have: Alansohn missing the point entirely, as usual; JohanSteyn123 arguing about something that turned out not to be disputed after all; you arguing that the larger scheme should be respected; and three people who disagreed with you. There are not, as you suggested, three arguing for and three against. There are three against, one for, and two who aren't adding anything to the discussion, one because that's normal, and the other because, while the comments were valid, they were not in fact addressing the main question. When comments are made is also of some relevance: the last two comments were in favour of deletion, and the final one was from someone who had the chance to read all of the arguments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I notice you've blocked FastilySock. Are you also going to start an RFC on User:Fastily proper? If you are, I'll back it. I've just made three comments that read like this on Images for Deletion:

File:Multiple Antenna.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Daniel Christensen (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and trout nominator. In this edit, Fastily removed this image from the article Television antenna, where it was serving to give a good illustration of a kind of television antenna. So the image was not orphaned, clearly encyclopedic, and its use was obvious. This is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. :-(

I've also read a bit, and see he's done the same thing on multiple other articles, apparently mostly tracking one user's image uploads and removing them from wherever they may happen to be, and nominating them for deletion under artificial pretexts. I can't imagine more discouraging action towards someone just trying to help illustrate the Wikipedia. If he didn't have the mop, I'd be asking Fastily be banned as a vandal. Since he does, I imagine he's done something good for the Wikipedia before, but this is just horrible. --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your concerns. You're right. It is horrible. The kind of thinking that would lead someone to remove a free image from an article without replacing it with a "better" one and then nominate it for deletion as orphaned, unencyclopedic and use not stated (← that bit should be in 72-point blinking text) makes my head hurt when I try, and fail, to understand it. I really do expect a clear assurance that this will never happen again. It's not the umpteen messages, or even the less than frank nominations, although those are really unacceptable from an administrator. It's the whole idea of nominating free content which has a fairly obvious use or which could usefully be moved to Commons. Why would anyone do that? How does it help the project? It makes no sense at all to me. And unfortunately it isn't a first. Look at User:Ericci8996 last month, although that didn't blow up quite the same thankfully.
As for an RfC, I am still undecided. I think I will wait and see what is said before I make my mind up. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of some of this. I thought Damiens.rf was bad, but this is unreal. The attempt to delete free images with an untrue rationale just has me flummoxed. If you decide to file an RfC I'll happily certify. And did you notice that he unblocked his own sock? I'm guessing it was to clear an autoblock, but... sheesh. AniMate 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Please see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Neutrality issues. --Elonka 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Now the pressure is on. I have added the Osraige to Template:Royal houses of Europe for being notable troublemakers. DinDraithou (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Is there much than can be done with Cearbhall of Osraighe? Its quite a good article, as are a few other on his contempories, but are there any more sources left to use?

Sorry for not getting around to the Ua Conchobar articles. I've got waylaid with Gaelic-Irish medieval bios. I am proud to state that I have helped bring up the Medieval Gaels category to 941. I've also gone out of my way to write up and catagorise the same for Irish counties. Thus far the top three are Dublin (1244); Galway (1057); Cork (870). It just looked weird that we had so few from way back, and especially with purely Gaelic names.

I've also added substancially to the category Irish poets useing the above standards. Otherwise how are people looking up their county ever gonna hear about them?

All else is good. Hope to reach 1100 for Galway soon, and to eventually top Dublin. We'll need more from the midlands to balance us out. Fergananim (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Angus[edit]

What's the specific issue please? Per Honor et Gloria  20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Angus. I have no clue why Elonka is reacting like this. The previous matter we had was over the Mongols and Jerusalem and Elonka finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while User:Srnec now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [2], which is quite a progress knowing how I was criticized for putting this fact forward. Now she is apparently threatening me for no specific reason other than contributing to that article. I'd be delighted if you could help.. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria  20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not that sophisticated :-) old generation I guess, but e-mail works just fine. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria  20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Just never done it... any advice on how to work it out? Per Honor et Gloria  21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, nothing in Gmail. Never mind... it's time to go to bed now. I wish Elonka would learn to relax a bit. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria  21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You might be interested [3] I think this is a total misrepresentation of facts. I think this is harassment. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria  06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at all of this, but there is some good advice, although sometimes hard to follow, which I have heard: Cunctando regitur mundus. Please send me an email and we can discuss this privately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
E-mail sent Per Honor et Gloria  20:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Many thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since PHG is continuing to disrupt the GA nom (and has escalated to making personal attacks), I have filed an AE request to extend the topic ban, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria. As you are his mentor of record, I am letting you know in case you would like to comment. --Elonka 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the AE thread was not the proper venue, a request for the extension of the topic ban has been filed here. --Elonka 07:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Angus, will you please respond? As I was worried about, PHG is once again making coatrack articles. Timurid relations with Europe actually got on DYK, and today he just created Ruad expedition. This really has to stop. --Elonka 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Angus, hi, it's been one week since you posted your placeholder statement at the ArbCom amendment request.[4] I know you're working hard in other areas of the project, but would it perhaps be possible for you to offer a status update? --Elonka 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Angus since you've still been editing, could we get some kind of an update here? Do you at least have an idea when you believe you'll be making a statement? In the meantime, you may want to read PHG's latest contribution is now accusing Elonka of personal attacks and disruption. I had hoped your discussions could move toward resolving this issue, but PHG's stance seems to have worsened rather than improved. Shell babelfish 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am puzzling over this still. I sent an email to CHL which I suggested he could pass on to the arbcom mailing list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey Angus, I hate to be a bother, but we're now running up on 22 days since the opening of this request with no comment from you. I'm sure its not a simple situation, but some kind of update would be appreciated since discussion is stalled waiting for PHG's mentor's take on the situation. Shell babelfish 08:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Angus, hi, it has now been over a month since you posted your placeholder statement.[5] Could you please post some sort of update at the Amendment page? Thanks, --Elonka 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support[edit]


Angusmclellan/Archive 26 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


I came across the word 'alod' as a type of medieval tenure. It is not in Wiktionary, and in Wikipedia it redirects (for a reason I do not understand) to a comedy website called 'Something Awful'. I found in a Domesday glossary that it means freehold land. I think it would be worth creating a (stub) article for it, but I am not sure how to create one when the word already redirects, and whether it belongs in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think alod may have been a more common early medieval spelling. Googling "alod" with "Domesday" gives 2000 hits compared with 1000 for "allod", and googling the spellings with "Anglo Saxon" gives a majority of 1000 to 850 for alod. I have added a reference to the Domesday spelling to the article on allodial title and changed the alod redirection page to a disambiguation one.Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-name de Clare Article[edit]

It seems crazy to me - the whole idea. But whatever your opinion, would you please weigh in on this discussion? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15 The category is entitled Category: House of Clare. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood the purpose of the discussion but I still think the major contributors have a right to give their opinion on anything to do with articles they have invested time and effort on. As another administrator stated, he was disappointed that we were not encouraged at the forum. Anyway, I always seem to be saying thanks, so I'll do it again. Thanks for getting involved. Mugginsx (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Angus[edit]

Wow! that's a great offer. Thank you so much! At present I am recovering from rotator cuff surgery ===soooo painful, consequently, I cannot do too much on Wiki except for a few minutes at a time, but I will take you up on your very generous offer! As I said on my talk page, I follow your work and I find it to be very scholarly. That's not flattery, just the truth! That's why I wanted you to put your opinion to that request. Now, I am going to retire, take my pain pill and hopefully enjoy a little time without pain! Thanks! Mugginsx (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Florence of Worcester to John of Worcester?[edit]

Hey there. I have come to realize after looking through Florence of Worcester and it redirected to John of Worcester I note that they are two people and this is noted in my sources where I note down Florence ([6], [7], [8] etc.) May I ask for the reason why Florence is redirected to John? I guess the obvious being that there is not enough to make an article out of Florence but I didn't think it would be usual for such a redirect to occur (since they are two different people), understandably they worked on the same text. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having snooped around a bit more I can see that this: [9] is similar to John's article although it doesn't look bad in of itself. Perhaps more info has arisen and both articles can be expanded to include more info about each individual?Calaka (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As the article on John says, the current view is that it was he who wrote the Chronicon. It seemed (and seems) to me that there's no reason to have a separate article on Florence as the article on John covers him. I'm not sure that there's anything more can be said about Florence, but I'm not really an expert. If things do stay as they are, then the history of the two articles should be merged. Such a merge is one of the few processes that can't easily be undone, so it would probably be good to get some discussion of it beforehand. The best way to get more opinions is posting a discussion on the talk page (and maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages too). Make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I will send a quick message to the WikiProject you mentioned and see what they say. If they think it should stay as it is, then that is no problem. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, the issue came up again and a new article was created (by an anonymous IP) using long outdated sources. I've rewitten the whole thing, as Florence may be notable in his own right, though I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge. Just so you know. Cavila (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I admit that I was unable to judge the accuracy/reliability of the IP's write up but it did look good to me. Having said that the rewrite seems just as acceptable/referenced and I don't mind the fact that the articles are apart (from the two monks). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for comments and offer to help. Please see my talk page when you have time for a couple of examples of issues I would like advice about. Comment here or my page to suit you Jniech (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis (Photos)[edit]


I noticed you assisted the Nelson Antonio Denis page by placing the appropriate OTRS Pending tag on top of a photo (the fourth photo).

Permissions have been sent to OTRS for all the other photos, but an editor keeps ignoring (and often removing) the OTRS Pending notice on them...then tagging them for deletion, as if the OTRS Pending notice had never existed.

Could you take a look at it, when you get a chance? Otherwise this situation will just continue.

Thank you,

KHamsun (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

de Clare[edit]

Due to many uncited statements in the article, I have restructured the introductory paragraph. Would you check it out when you get a chance? Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello Angus, how are you? I see that you have been very busy. The thing is that I believe that there are several images whose problems have been taken care of at Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems and it wouldn't look right if I closed the discussions. Therefore I think that you could do the right thing with the following in the list: File:Rafael Carrion .jpg, File:Antonio S. Pedreira.JPG, File:DeVillard.jpg, File:Manuel Zeno Gandia.JPG, File:Mercedes Negron Munoz.JPG, File:Luis Llorens Torres.JPG and File:Corretjer.jpg. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Annals of Ulster citation template[edit]

Hi Angus! I was toying with the "accessdate" in the template, when all of a sudden I saw words I couldn't remember putting down, hehe. That was an odd experience, just for a sec there. You're quite right about the s.a./entry method, which is probably the most sensible thing to do, even if the specific references usually occur in the footnotes rather than the References/Primary sources section. Cavila (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, now that I have your attention, maybe I ought to explain that I've been considering creating more of these auxiliary tools for sources that get frequently cited. It does not seem to be very common (yet) to build such templates (consistency of style being one possible issue), but if they make the life of an editor a little easier, why not? Any thoughts? Suggestions? Cavila (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I am a hapless cut and paster and a hopeless typist. Anything that cuts down on my typngi mtsiakes is all to the good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

Thanks Angus. By the way, do you have smelling salts for Tharky? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Smelling salts? No, I rather think you were right the first time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I lost my fight at the Mary I of Scotland article, now moved to Mary, Queen of Scots. The old status quo in me, has wore out. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lillehammer 1994 Winter Olympics logo.svg[edit]

Please give a reason for why you reverted File:Lillehammer 1994 Winter Olympics logo.svg for File:1994 wolympics logo.png, or start the deletion request. --Svgalbertian (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 45#SVG conversions and non-free content, again. The non-free content rationale on the SVG versions is plainly inaccurate on at least three counts: the entire logo is not being used; the logo is being misrepresented; the logo is inherently not low resolution. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Please link to such discussions when making changes, perhaps add links to the talk pages of each file. --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I take your point, but much as I'd like to say "Yes" I'd be lying if I did. Even if I did it tomorrow, I'd have forgotten it by the next time I came across one. You shouldn't read this anti-SVG-logo stuff as being a criticism of anyone involved. Anyone who has seen my efforts knows that I'm hopeless at anything graphical, whether it's on a computer or not. I am very appreciative of the skill and effort that went into these. If I knew where the best place to leave a note about not SVG-ing non-free stuff was, I'd do it, so as to save anyone from effectively wasting their valuable talents on something which really isn't worth doing. If you know where such a message should go, please do tell me. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I figured that is why you made the edit, and I actually agree with you. I was just concerned that the lack of traceability to your edits would prevent getting the proper people involved, but now I can see that they are involved. As for the bigger problem, SVG images of logos should only come from official vector sources, e.g. PDFs from the company’s website. Even popular sites like often have the same user created content that should be avoided. Perhaps a new warning should be added to Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format. --Svgalbertian (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Three separate users now, (Feydey, you, me) have removed fair use images for depicting Selena from Selena discography. You cautioned User:AJona1992 about this [10]. Today, (first this, then this) he placed another fair use image File:SelenaLive!tour.jpg, lacking any rationale for the image to be there (failing WP:NFCC #10c) and as you noted in your warning to him failing WP:NFCC #8. I've removed the image, but this won't stop him. --Hammersoft (talk)


Bonjour! Vous avez un nouveau message sur Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre. DinDraithou (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

House of Óengus[edit]

Feel free to rename this if it happens another is more popular in Scottish scholarship. DinDraithou (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So I've written about all I can confidently. The rest should be up to you and your Scottish colleagues here. I may try to mention Cathal mac Finguine. DinDraithou (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Fraser says House of Wrguist. I can't remember what, if anything, it may have been called elsewhere. I have the suspicion that the answer is "". Nicholas Evans might save the day! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh good! I was worried my little obsession with posting notes on your talk page and getting no response might turn me crazy. I need to find something else to do. We had several feet of record-breaking snow not too long ago and I still feel whited out. DinDraithou (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move[edit]

de Clare[edit]

There is currently a discussion as to when the coat of arms started to be used in the family and how it and if it should be displayed. Since you are well-read on the subject, perhaps you would care to join the discussion. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish genealogy[edit]

Hi. Are the reference sections too long? Fergananim (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving Dublin around[edit]

Hi Angus, seems like administrative assistance is required here. Could you do take care of it? Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Thanks for the information and the offer of help. It is rare to get such an offer and I appreciate it very much! Mugginsx (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I've been away for a bit; imho the controversy can be described as historical.Red Hurley (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance[edit]

Just to let you know, ArbCom is moving this matter to the front-burner, and will likely consider some sort of motion in the near future. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Have need your help[edit]


I have create Shum Gora. Co-administrator of Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project have several picture of site sent from actual caretaker of site and wish to upload. I have spoke to him. I saying need to know with what license. May he upload or must caretaker who actually take picture? Can you recommend choice for license? They're English much better than mine, so not worry.

Thanking you! DinDraithou (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. A release of the pictures through WP:OTRS is simplest (even if it doesn't look like it). Anyone can upload them, just put the caretaker's name in as the author and after uploading add the template {{OTRS Pending}}. Then ask the caretaker to send an email something like the one at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to The URL can be a link to the picture(s) on Wikipedia. The CC attribution/share-alike license ({{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}) is the most common one. So the email would look like:
I hereby affirm that I, (INSERT NAME HERE) am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of (INSERT URLs FOR THE PICTURES UPLOADED HERE).
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS] (to allow future verification of authenticity) <== NAME & ADDRESS
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY] (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.) <== COPYRIGHT-HOLDER
Does that make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian Boru. Ireland's greatest king?[edit]

Hi Angus, hope you don't mind me using you as my private book-reviewer... I'm considering buying Máire Ní Mhaonaigh book "Brian Boru. Ireland's greatest king?" - seems you've read it. Is it any good? Does it add useful information besides what Duffy writes in the ONDB article?

I hope the removal of Brunnhilde et al here wasn't too insensitive to the finer points of wikiguidelines btw... Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a Tempus/Sutton/History Press/whatever-they-are-called-this-week book, so it is aimed at a wider audience than, for example, Downham's book. Not that it is a lightweight popular book, but it is a book and not a doctoral thesis turned into a book. She adds a fair bit of background and on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand to what's in Duffy's piece. For once the title is appropriate as she spends a lot of time and space on Brian's posthumous reputation. Her answer to the question posed in the title, as if you couldn't guess, is "probably". Is it absolutely unmissable? No, but it is quite a good book that will tell you a great deal about Brian although it doesn't go that far into the historical context.
Poor Brunhilde! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


The debate itself is outdated, but some people might seek it out so IMHO better to have it in there - or maybe on a separate linked article? Lots of sources in wiki are outdated, see Creationism.Red Hurley (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical map of Ireland for Ireland 800–1169[edit]

I'm currently trying to expand/fix Ireland 800–1169, and I'm looking for a better map than File:Ireland_early_peoples_and_politics.gif showing "all" the various subdivisions/ people - the problem with the linked .gif file is that it's unreadable in all but full size. I left a request at the Graphics lab for for fixing the gif-map, but I was wondering if you know of any existing maps here - if not as detailed then at least indicating the major peoples.

Any other input to this project I'm undertaking is very much welcome - no rush, I'll probably be stuck with this for the next year or so :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Angus, forget that map thingy - not really needed pluss I've had a look around and we do not have a better map with this amount of detail, and reducing the amount of detail isn't really a good idea. Are you still using the same e-mail address as half a year ago? If you do, forget about the question I asked you per mail a while ago as well - someone else has provided me with what I asked about. Hope all is well with you, best regards Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Asterix - Cast.png[edit]

Please reverse the deletion, and restore a larger version -- if not the previous version, then at least one large enough to compare contrast and appreciate the different faces of the different characters.

As discussed at WT:NFC, and on the file talk page, the reduced version has been reduced too far, it now no longer achieves the purpose intended. Jheald (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You noted at File talk:Asterix - Cast.png that deletion review had reversed such decisions in the past. A solution suggests itself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria[edit]

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:
  • Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
  • Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.
  • Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.
Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Help please[edit]

Hi. Could you have a look at this file when you have a minute please? The file was nominated for deletion on 10 March; the issue has dragged on for 21 days now - well over the 7 days recommended. Some one closed the discussion as 'Keep', but as it was a non-admin closure some one is not accepting that decision. If you could help out by looking at the discussion and making a decision that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance. Jack1956 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


The file File:Chinese_Division_Table.png was nominated for deletion as it was replaced with wikitext in the article Suanpan. After the file was nominated for deletion, an editor User:Nanami Kamimura added the image to the article Soroban. We have discussed this edit and come to the conclusion that wikitext would be better than the image as was done on Suanpan. However, we later reached a newer consensus that the wikitext should not be included on Soroban because Japanese don't use the table in question. So now that the image has no use and has been replaced with wikitext in the only article it originally resided in per Template:ShouldBeText, should we reconsider its deletion eligibility? Chrismiceli (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"British Isles" question[edit]

Angus, sorry to bother you with this but I figured it's something you would know. I'm aware that there are editors who regard "British Isles" as an offensive term, but as far as I'm aware this is a minority opinion. I know there have been multiple Arbcom discussions of Ireland, including related nomenclature; is there any ruling on the use of "British Isles"? My question is prompted by a recent edit to Cnut the Great, changing "British Isles" to "Britain and Ireland". In most cases that's probably fine, but I wouldn't like to see the term "British Isles" rooted out from every single article via this substitution. Any guidance you can point me at from Arbcom (or your own thoughts on the topic) would be very helpful. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, unfortunately, there's no helpful guidance. There is the failed/rejected Wikipedia:British Isles proposal. And the moribund Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. But that's probably it. There are arbitration cases which touched on the matter, the famine one mentions the dispute for example, but there's no remedy that I know of. As you say, in some cases "[Great] Britain and Ireland" conveys the same meaning, or even a more precise one, but there are lots of cases where "British Isles" (all of them, including the littler ones) is what's wanted. As it happened, the change has been reverted. The MOPE edit summaries usually end up attracting unfavourable attention. If you happen to see any problems in this regard, please do let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't say I'm too surprised. At least I learned a new acronym; "MOPE" is a good one. Reading the rejected proposals did at least give me a sense for when "British Isles" is likely to be a good choice. I'm getting mildly interested in some of the prehistoric Britain articles, and if I end up editing them it seems likely it would be useful as it is a geographical, rather than political, term. Thanks for the help and the offer of more help; I'll call on you if I need advice. Mike Christie (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sechnall, Secundinus[edit]

Hi Angus, sorry to bother you again, but I'd like to submit a request at WP:RM, which is to rename a saint who's been moved relatively recently to his modern Irish name "Saint Seachnall". In secondary literature, he's no doubt commonly referred to as either Secundinus or Sechnall, but I can't decide which is preferable. Any suggestions? Cavila (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only found a mention in a couple of books: Mac Shamhrain's Island of Saint Patrick uses Sechnall; the RIA history and Ireland before the Normans use Secundinus. Neither the Oxford nor Penguin dictionaries of Saints have an entry, neither does the index to Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings, which seems odd. I'll have a look at some others over the weekend. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Also Secundinus in Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
And in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland, so together with A New History of Ireland that's already three standard works of fairly recent date. It may still be a close race but the more material I dig up (Dumville, Ludwig Bieler, etc.), the more I'm inclined to think that his native name "Secundinus" is a tad more common (it's possible, of course, that things depend a little on the subject at hand, the historical personage or the later Patrician tradition, but any such discussion would have to deal with roughly the same source material and the same political phenomena). Anyhow, I first need to decide on other things before I go ahead with this. An alternative option would be to merge the articles on Auxilius and Secundinus into the stub for poor old Palladius, but that would require more work than I have the time for right now (plus I really need to sort my priorities, Wikipedia-wise, having abandoned this and promised to work on this). Tbc I guess. Cavila (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Walsh's A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West has him Secundinus (p. 537). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (belatedly). I've gone ahead (also belatedly) and proposed to have the article moved to "Secundinus". Cavila (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Grand slam bomb.jpg[edit]

The "description" field on Wikipedia says where I got File:Grand slam bomb.jpg from: so I if you want to trace it further you will need to ask there. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not ONE-WAY[edit]

Thanks for dropping in. Actually, here is the related guideline: "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The full guideline is here: [[11]]

In regards to the edits in question, I have mentioned to Tom that he may be tunnel-visioning on a very narrow definition of the one-way guideline. As you can see from the quote above "No mention" is not the case. (It's not as if I have gone through all 37 (38?) Shakespeare Plays and inserted a story about Oxford that Oxfordians believe is connected to the play in question. THAT would be abuse of the one-way guideline.) What we have here are properly referenced edits that do indeed have a factual connection to the topics at hand:

  • In the case of the Chronology article, there are numerous mainstream references to the chronology and how it affects the authorship issue (I have supplied 2!), as well as the fact that there has always been even greater debate within Stratfordian circles regarding so called "early" or "late" plays. The connection is clear, does not create undue weight or a coatrack.
  • It's an obvious connection to be made: the article speculates on who the author writing under the pen-name "Pasquill" actually was, it mentions several candidates including newer scholarship, and one of those candidates just also happens to be the leading alternate candidate for the works of Shakespeare. The additions hardly create undue weight, nor the appearance of a wp:coatrack. The one-way restriction just does not apply.

In any case, yes a third (or fourth) opinion never hurts! Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Verfolgter Jude.jpg[edit]

Hi. Your closing comment, "FoP applies", ignores that this is not a permanent structure, which is required and was mentioned in the discussion. Why then close without commenting on this? Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In what respect is it not permanent? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It's an exhibition, not a permanent fixture, this is why PhilKnight reverted his earlier close. Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It would have been helpful had someone left a note to that effect. I spent some time pondering whether it was in a "public place" (since the photograph seems to be taken in the open air in natural light I assumed that it was), but little considering its permanence. Not none though. I did check the Von der Schulenburg Stiftung site and couldn't find any exhibition mentioned at the Jewish Museum. Oh well, I'll delete it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, caution is important with regards to copyright. Best Hekerui (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Dirk Jan Struik's photograph[edit]

I have now adjusted the copyright statement of the above-mentioned photograph, whereby its replicate on the Commons will have to be removed. My earlier copyright statement dated from a time when I was not very familiar with copyright statements: since I have a personal copy of the KNAW report from which I have taken the photograph, and since I had made the photograph in its present form myself, at the time I believed that these made me the copyright holder of the photograph. Incidentally, KNAW allows use of its published material provided that they are properly cited, which is the case here. --BF 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome! I also thank you for your kind response. --BF 23:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review as comments have been addressed[edit]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 13#File:Chinese Division Table.png[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 13#File:Chinese Division Table.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chrismiceli (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lim Biow Chuan[edit]

I've found credible sources for this wiki entry. They are from SPH Stomp and Channelnewsasia. Both are reputable Singapore media. The other is from Malaysian Star Newspaper, one of the main English newspaper in Malaysia. Hope it's acceptable Ahnan (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Better sourcing fixes much of the problem, but please also look at the "Criticism and praise" section of the WP:BLP policy page. In short, "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections are often a problem, especially when combined with issues of "undue weight" (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The question - I have no idea as to the answer - would be whether this event is really significant in Lim's life. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I supposed as a politician, such callous remarks made by him would be considered significant. Yes? Ahnan (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It really depends on how widely reported it was, and for how long. The Neo thing seems to be set to run for a while, but coverage of Lim's foot-in-mouth problems seem to have died out. I can't speak to Singaporean politicians, but the ones here are forever saying stupid things which get in the paper for a day or two and are then forgotten. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New request[edit]

[12] Best regards Per Honor et Gloria  20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that this is a good idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

Hi. I just left this at the article but wanted to leave it hear as well: "I need to point out to Angusmclellan that according to your edit summary, you referred to "adding" the material. This material has been in the article for quite some time and was never challenged or controversial. What is going on here is the deletion of consensus material. You also are under the impression that the references are "anti-Stratfordian". This is incorrect. The sources are all independent and all mainstream, which brings them into compliance with the requirements. I believe I am following the policy correctly." I am assuming good faith here and I was hoping that you would see that since you were mistaken about this, and were not aware that material had been in the long time "consensus version" of the article, that you would see that your edit [[13]] was inappropriate. Would you consider self-reverting and letting the discussion come to a resolution as to whether it is best to leave, improve or delete the material in question? Smatprt (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "consensus version" of a non-FA article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it has been challenged now, no? And consensus can change, so they say. The trouble with making a dispute visible, in my experience anyway, is that is more likely to attract people who disagree with you than not. Those who agree will just nod and carry on. Those who disagree will probably head on over to make their disagreement known by word or deed. As you saw. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree! Tom - please see [[14]]. This is what I was referring to. When an edit is made and is not challenged, it represents the new consensus. Of course it can be challenged later with an attempt to build a new consensus. But right now there are 3 editors arguing for deletion and 3 editors arguing for keeping the status quo. Obviously, there is nothing even approaching a consensus to make this change (in the case, the deletion being proposed). As far as Tom's "There is no such thing as a "consensus version" of a non-FA article" sometimes I have to wonder if you just make this stuff up!. Smatprt (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless you think a consensus changes every minute, my statement stands. And you need to read that entire guide all the way down, especially this: "Edit wars, such as repeatedly inserting the same content when other contributors are rejecting it, lead to page protection and suspension of your ability to edit rather than improvements to the page."
And one comment from two uninvolved editors does not equal "3 editors arguing for deletion and 3 editors arguing for keeping the status quo". Tom Reedy (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Accidental deletion[edit]

I've reinserted sections etc on Roman Catholic Diocese of Ossory, which I'm sure you accidentally deleted them when edited the history section. :) Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Something weird happened here. Thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Broun, "Alba", p. 258, note 95[edit]

Hi Angus, you just added a ref to this at Picts, I can't seem to find it in the listed references. Could you add it please, best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll send you a copy. It's thrilling stuff. OK, maybe not. I still didn't send you those post-Brian kings. Apologies! I'll get that done shortly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind those post Clontarf guys - you probably missed my post above on this page somewhere but I've found myself a new dealer, so it's been taken care of. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Lucky you! Cavila has much better sources than me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicago montage image[edit]

Why did you remove this image? All of the images were free-use! -- mcshadypl TC 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you never even discussed this on the article's Talk page. All of the images were free-use, and you didn't even give us an opportunity to defend the fact. -- mcshadypl TC 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately it wasn't a free image. There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 14#File:CityChicagoMontage.jpg. It included File:Crown fountain.jpg, but freedom of panorama in the United States (see commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States) doesn't apply to artworks, only buildings, so that that picture wasn't free and neither was the collage. A free collage could be made replacing the Crown Fountain with something else, or just missing it out, which seems to be what has been done. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wulfhere -- opinion needed[edit]

Angus, could you take a look at Talk:Wulfhere and give me an opinion on the map? It's going to be today's featured article later today, and you're my go-to person for A-S questions. (And any talk page watchers with an interest in Anglo-Saxon history, please chip in too.) Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


[15] Per Honor et Gloria  13:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


With your magic sysop powers, are you able to check if File:AK wp1 16Jan2009.jpg is the same as the deleted File:Amanda_Knox_court_16Jan09.jpg?   pablohablo. 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to ask about this. It isn't the same picture, but it is exactly the same principle as the other non-free photos that have been uploaded with dodgy fair use claims, and deleted through discussion or speedily. Wikid77 clearly has a misunderstanding of our policies, as typified by comments such as these [16]. The claim for fair use also include original research - "To show smile of Amanda Knox in court, and reaction when seeing ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito at trial." There is nothing to say this was her reaction to seeing Sollecito in court (note image is taken from here not from the Independent as it is somewhat bizarrely described). I've only become aware of this article and the images in the last few days but am frankly horrified at the attitude of Wikid77 and User:Zlykinskyja. Just a look at User talk:Zlykinskyja shows that they view this article as a battleground in which they are the only neutral editors. I don't have the time or inclination to become too involved but we could certainly do with some more eyes on this whole area. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree regarding the picture. The image was similar, but not identical. The non-free content rationale was almost word-for-word though, and the intent was the same, so WP:CSD#G4 seemed appropriate.
I really don't know anything about this case (probably a plus), but I can have a look at the article. More eyeballs can't hurt. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Vatican secret archives[edit]

This from the VSA - a c16 script of the 1196 Laudabiliter (nooo...), and this picture of the actual event and document being hammered out. Both are on the talk page...enjoy!Red Hurley (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice! And not from just any archives, but the secret ones. But I'm not convinced that the picture of Adrian IV was painted at the time. Looks photoshopped. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)