User talk:Angusmclellan: Difference between revisions

No content in Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The category was emptied and blanked by User:Chromenano (see their contribs from Jan 29). Looks like they replaced it with Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in England, bypassing CFD. --Kbdank71 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Famine deaths revisited

Can I include approx referenced numbers of deaths in the intros of all articles on world famines? If not, why not? Is mentioning approx numbers against wikipedia guidelines? Is this referenced sentence bad-faith vandalism?:

"Approximately one million of the population died and a million more emigrated from Ireland's shores.[4]"

Is the source I quote: David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, New Lanark: Geddes & Grosset, 2002, p. 226. ISBN 1842051644 not allowed to be cited anywhere on the wikipedia? Is Ross an inaccurate liar who is not allowed to referenced anywhere on the wikipedia? If so, please give source which says so. Is it bad-faith to cite him? And is this info okay in the intro about the Bengal famine of 1943?

"It is estimated that around 3 million people [1] died from starvation and malnutrition during the period."

Should approx numbers be used in some intros of famine articles and not others or banned in all famine articles as non-notable info? Please give reasons why it is okay to include approx referenced figures for the Bengal famine but not the Irish one.Colin4C (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can include numbers in the lead if they're included in the body of the article - please don't reference the lead unless absolutely necessary. What you should aim to do here is summarise the "Death toll" section in a sentence. Not all that simple really ... maybe you should try getting someone else to do it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Not simple at all. Do you therefore think that radical alterations should be made to other wikipedia articles? For instance as the numbers who died in the Holocaust are disputed do you agree that all mention of "six million" Jews killed be eliminated from the intro to that article?:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler"?

Should be replaced with?:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of an unknown number of European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler."?

Also is it right that the Holocaust death info is referenced or should the info have been summarised by an editor from the body of the article by a clever editor working it out from the figures presented in the body of the article and the ref eliminated? Colin4C (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Áedán mac Gabráin

Hope you enjoyed it. You should definitely get Áedán mac Gabráin on the front page for that date. Only one chance in 1400 years after all! It's already FA, so anything you "update" will be bonus material. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronology in Irish History

There is a long chronological section in The Troubles which is duplicated in Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Do you agree that as per what Domer and Rockpuppet and you have stated in the talk page of The Great Famine (Ireland) that it is wikipedia policy that when chronological accounts of episodes of Irish history are duplicated in other articles that the first should be summarily eliminated to save space and repetition of material? Does it depend on the length of the article? Colin4C (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Chattur

Hi Angus,

You had previously helped me by restoring article edit histories for Dungeons & Dragons articles in cases where the deleting admin is no longer active. I was wondering if you could help with this one as well? BOZ (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you also mind getting King's Festival please? BOZ (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

King's Festival is alive! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) That one, along with many in the "B-series" seems a likely candidate for merging, as we've been doing at articles such as CA module series, DA module series, and Desert of Desolation. Speaking of which, would you also be able to restore the edit history of Journey to the Rock? BOZ (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Áedán mac Gabráin

Working on Áedán again? Just letting you know that Jonathan Jarrett, one of the blogging medievalists out there, put a revised version of his article on the king online, previously published in something called Pictish Arts Society Journal. It's here, in case you didn't know already. Cavila (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks for that! Hadn't seen that version. I am a regular reader of JJ's blog but have never got through all of the "back issues". Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. McClellan

You worked on a page on the Pictish language a while back. I am hardly an expert on the subject so I decided not to add anything to the page, but I would simply like to point out that I have been trying to figure out this Pictish language thing for a while using mostly the Pictish Chronicle. Has anyone considered the possibility of a link to Illyrian languages? I see strange resemblences between the tribal names of Picts on Ptolemy's map such as CALEDONES and TAEZALI with Illyrian tribal names such as CHELYDONES and AZALI. Anyway, I simply wanted to point that out to someone and get some feedback, please tell me what you think about this strange coincidence and if you think it even signifies anything at all. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithyphallic Giant (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Ælfgifu

Thanks for helping out with the bad links. It's funny to see how the article evolved from the simple urge to correct a few details and add sources, but then as one thing led to another, things got rather bizarrely out of hand. Poor Eadwig must be jealous that his wife is getting so much attention. Regards, Cavila (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And another one while we're at it. It's shorter and less spectacular, without the court intrigues or other juicy details that we know from some of her namesakes, and no corresponding ODNB entry to check with, but I found more than I expected to at first. Cavila (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Óengus of Tallaght

You might be interested in the naming discussion here. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Angus, Could you pass your eye over Morcar (died 1015) as I see you did a lot of work on Ealdgyth (floruit 1015–1016). I want to check the refs and facts are as good as they can be. The article is based mainly on DofP's and User:Ealdgyth's work to date and a bit of my own browsing. Victuallers (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Unfortunately, I do not have Ann Williams' book to hand to check for any other snippets. But I am jealous. I should learn how to make maps like that. Cavila has another nice one in Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig. So I think I should start with Wulfric Spot. Many thanks and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Angus. Thank you for your message. Glad you like the article. Phg (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tam Dalyell

I don't understand what you mean by saying Dalyells part of the expenses scandal that is a very big deal right now, and pertinent to the politics of these days, is not 'wikinews'. I hope you won't keep deleting this part of the article which several editors have already thought worthy of inclusion in the article Sayerslle (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is news - you can tell that from the fact that it's in the papers right now - and this is an encyclopedia. So far as most MPs are concerned - obviously MacKay, Malik and Morley would be exceptions, and others may be added to the list - inclusion of this news material is hard to reconcile with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view's strictures concerning undue weight ("in proportion to the prominence of each"). How prominent is this in the great scheme of things? For Dalyell, as for many others, the answer would seem to be "not at all". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

L'Aube de la Gloire

Hi Angus, I am planning to use as a reference a very interesting book of mine on the early history of the tank: L'Aube de la Gloire, Les Autos-Mitrailleuses et les Chars Français pendant la Grande Guerre by Alain Gougaud, 1987, Musée des Blindés, ISBN 2904255028. What do you think? Phg (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a good choice to me. Saint-Martin's L'Arme blindée française has nothing on WWI in it. I have a copy of L'Emergence des armes nouvelles somewhere but I can't remember if that has a paper on tanks in it or not. I'll see if I can dig it out and check. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Phg (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lacey's "Donegal kingdoms" book

Hi Angus! Yes, the weather is brilliant. Suncream retailers must thing all their birthdays came at once!

I read Lacy's book when it came out and while I remain impressed with it, I have serious reservations about his treatment of the true members of the Uí Néill . He did not cite the 2006 XY-DNA Chrosome research which proved that most, if not all, of the punative Uí Néill do indeed descend from a common fifth-century ancestor (see Moore, Laoise T., Brian McEvoy, Eleanor Cape, Katharine Simms and Daniel G. Bradley, "A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland." The American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (February 2006): 334-8.). But no, I have not seen any reviews. I'll look out for them.

I'm usually too busy these days to devote as much time as I would like to wiki, but I squeeze in what I can. Any thoughts on my recent work? What other stuff are you on at present? Thanks for saying hi! Fergananim (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Angusmclellan. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

You are reviewing this GA nom right? :) Wizardman 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am. I've read it, multiple times. All I need is a couple of hours to turn my thoughts into a review. Hopefully this weekend... Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fenland Survey

Hi there. I was browsing through the Requested Articles page and was considering filling the request for an article on the Fenland Survey (in fact, I think the article should be Fenland Project, as the survey was just a part of that). Anyway, I noticed that the article Fenland Survey had previously been deleted by you last July as being incomprehensible (G10) or patent nonsense (G1). The survey and project are very real, so I don't believe there should be any problem with me recreating the article (with references, etc.), but I was wondering if you would be so kind as to give me a peek at the previous article. I'm sure you deleted with good reason, but there may be a useful name or term that might help with my research. Matt Deres (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Cool. Matt Deres (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus

I need some advice. I am adding several stubs and articles to Category:People from County Galway. However, not all of them become listed alphabeticly, so I'd like to correct this (i.e., Burke under B, Collins under C ..). Any suggestions? Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry Mill

Thought you'd be interested.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lovely! I signed up for the NTS last month when I was at Pollok House - my mother had never been at the Burrell and didn't fancy driving through Glasgow, so I took her and we had a look round both of them. I'd better rush off and visit the mill before they sell it off... Hope you're well, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yoo-hoo

Hi Angus. Been doing a lot of work lately on articles closer to home (County Galway). I'm concentrating on bolstering the list of people from the county, especially the O's and Mac's of the medieval era. On a whim, I made a check of the top three counties, population wise, to see how many articles on medieval era Gaelic people. The results are:

Dublin: 1, 127 - 9

Cork: 822 - 4

Galway: 556 - 69 (mainly due to me)

Those hotbeds of Gaelic Ireland didn't far much better.

Donegal: 188 - 10

Tyrone: 116 - 8

And I noticed that a good dozen of those from Cork to Tyrone were by yours truly ....

I'm not too sure what this says, or does not say, apart from the fact that I have way too much spare time on my hands. A brief look at the rest of Ireland confirms to me that O's and Mac's of Gaelic Ireland are in really short supply.

Something else that I observed was the the majority of bios were of people who lived in the last two hundred years. Go back before that in most counties and the list dies out. Search for people from the medieval era and ...

Anyway. For the moment I'm concentrating on the above, fleshing out the more obscure (indeed, unknown!) fellow Galwegians of times past. I wonder who listens? Fergananim (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Egbert vs. Ecgberht

There's a debate about spelling of the name of the Anglo-Saxon king Egbert at Template_talk:Mercian_monarchs that I would like to get your input on: should it be "Egbert" or "Ecgberht" in the template? And if you know of a better place to post a note about this than WP:MA, I'd be interested. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunnichen

I've edited this article quite heavily over the last few days, hopefully improving it somewhat. It would probably benefit from a fresh pair of eyes looking at it. Fancy giving it a run through? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hen Ogledd

Hi Angus, in case you're feeling restless not knowing what to do with all that spare time on your hands, I think you may be interested in recent work on this article and the discussion that goes with it, so feel free to drop a note there. Cavila (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wimund

Hi Angus, it's been a while since last I nagged you about obscure norse-gaels and the like, hope all is well with you. I stumbled across the Norwegian version of Wimund, which is basically a translation of this version here - completely relying on William of Newburgh and taking everything at face value. As I don't have access to the papersources that are references for the more balanced account given in the current version, and don't feel very comfortable just translating stuff with sources I haven't read (though that is rather common practise I'm afraid) - would you know of any online accessible sources that could at least verify that Williams account of this story likely isn't very neutral. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of books, Woolf and Maund should give me some overview of Scotland and Wales, and then I have Downham for the overall "Norse-connection". But I'd also like something similar for Ireland, I have been waiting for the 2nd ed. of "Ireland before the Normans" but now Four Courts inform me that it has been postphoned - again. "Early Medieval Ireland, Ad 400-Ad 1200 " by Daibhm O Croinin looks promising, but as it isn't that cheap I thought to ask some advice before ordering. My main interest would be 800 - 1200, I'm looking for something that's readable for an amateur like myself but still has proper references, and combines overview with some depth (like Downham), and of course, good and cheap would be ideal ;) Any thoughts? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Amazon UK sell the paperback edition of volume 1 of the RIA New History of Ireland, edited by O Croinin, for only GBP 2 more than they sell his Early Medieval Ireland, and probably not so much more (GBP 5 maybe based on past experience) than they'll want for the 2nd edn of Ireland before the Normans. Which would I buy first if I had to buy them all again?

Ní annsae: I'd start with the RIA history. It is a huge book and has more coverage of 800-1200 than O Croinin's earlier book. It has good articles by O Corrain on Ireland c.800, by Byrne and Flanagan on post-Viking politics, on the post-Viking church, on archaeology, and on language and literature. O Croinin's own article on 400-800 politics covers most of the ground that his earlier book did, with Nancy Edwards doing a lot more on archaeology than O Croinin did. O Corrain's Ireland before the Normans is quite dense, but it really doesn't go into the same level of background detail as either of the books with O Croinin's name on them. I haven't read any other books that cover the Viking Age in Ireland except for general stuff like the Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings.

Courtesy of the Deacon, I have almost all of the Viking Age Oxford DNB articles on Irish kings if you'd like copies of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Angus, RIA it is. The table of content from Amazon "look inside" seem promising indeed, and getting some 1000 pages from acknowledged scholars for less than £30 (well, a bit more with postage I assume) is what I would call a bargain, especially with the current exchangerate. Just ordered it through my local bookshop :) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clare family

Yes, I completely agree with the points you've just made. One doesn't want to 'bite the newcomers,' but at the same time it's important they understand the way wikipedia works. Thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia

Thanks for your contribution in the discussion about Kingdom of Galicia, now I prefer to be out of the discussion, I wasted a lot of time translating, and I prefer don´t waste more. I write you because I´m not a historian, one just contributor more, I saw you can read French, and I´d like that you read the French article about Kingdom of Galicia ([1]), I think it´s partial but I´d prefer another opinion anyway. Thanks so much.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops-a-daisy

Sorry Angus. I was just glancing at your edit and clicked "rollback" by mistake. No slight intended! --Mais oui! (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

image on Trichy Sankaran wiki entry

Hi,

I'm a wiki newb, so i need some help here.

Someone has changed the picture (that I believe you originally posted) of Trichy Sankaran receiving his doctorate to a picture of a US soldier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichy_Sankaran#Awards

on the image page, it shows the user who posted this, and 2 entries down, the correct image, that it looks like you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doc.jpg

Prof. Sankaran spotted this, and has asked that it be changed. Needless to say, the US soldier has nothing to do with Prof Sankaran's doctorate...

The picture is from his collection, and he's allowing it to be used.

thanks, Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.88.13 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted back to the version with Dr. Sankaran - you may need to clear your browser cache for the image to display correctly. To avvoid that this happens again the image should be moved to a better name (and doc.jpg locked - leaving that bit to Angus). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! When I get a minute I'll re-upload the picture with a new name and lock the bad name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Towns and baronies

Hi Aengus,

I likewise hope all is well and fantastic with yourself. Best of luck with the house - don't skimp on it!

Bhreathnach and MacCotter's books are on my shelves, and I have made some use of both (see 'Recent Theories' in Airgíalla; and Muintir Murchada, Máenmaige, Clann Taidg and others). I especially like MacCottor for explaining all these divisions.

Sadly I know of next to nothing essential on the internet useful for land divisions. This one - http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/index.htm - is the best I have come accross. To be honest, I've been very disappointed with such illustrations (lack of) in such books over the years. This is why I've spent so much time researching topographics for my own books. Hang on, volume 9 of 'A New History of Ireland' has some good maps, mainly for baronies, I think. They still are'nt great, but will do for the moment.

Frankly the best regional maps I have seen in recent years have been of Middle-earth! Fergananim (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

supposedly left the building

Hello, almost two years ago, it was made your moral responsibility to keep an eye on him. In the mean time, I have asked about a possible déja vu which I have again right now. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that my unblock of RG remained entirely hypothetical. So far as I can tell I never did unblock him because he didn't ask, never mind convincing me that it would have been a good idea. All the same, since I remember RG all too well I'll have a look and see how this scores on the ententestmessgerät. What happened about whatever it was you asked Jehochman about that was going on at Commons? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much, except some of the same old. At commons, some file deletions, deletion requests, some discussions and a break for what seems to be somebody's foot wear. Right here, a comeback after some months a revert incl. a re-move that ignores the sources. Kind of hit and run, or duck and cover.-- Matthead  Discuß   00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If he's causing trouble, you should file a sock puppet report with sample diffs as evidence. If the user returned quietly and is not causing problems, we can ignore the matter. What we need to follow up is some sort of evidence of disruption, event minor disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RE orphan images

Thanks for your help. It does make it difficult when trying to work through a large amount of record covers if I get a CSD notification every time I upload an image. Markfury3000 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia (again)

Hi Angus, I write you again for the same subject, the Kingdom of Galicia. Have you read this article in the French Wiki?, I've checked a lot of data and I believe it can be very interesting to you, if you enjoy Medieval history. I read your opinion on the discussion page KG (Kingdom of Galicia) and I really think there has been a high Historical Revisionism in Spain during the last decade, about the history of KG. I think the Kingdom of Galicia is the historical name of the kingdom which is modernly known as Asturias and Leon after. Please, if you have time, check the information in the French article ([2]).Thanks for your attention.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

L'Alliance Impie

Hi Angus. I am planning to use this book about the relations between Francis I and Suleyman the Magnificient: L'Alliance Impie by Edith Garnier, Editions du Felin, 2008, Paris ISBN 9782866456788. What do you think? Cheers PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a great choice. Did you see that there's a review with Garnier on Neopodia: part one here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous link! Thanks! PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Angus, are you familiar with the language of WP:REVERT, where a revert "is any action that reverses the actions of another editor?" This is the way cases are usually closed at the WP:3RR board. An edit can be a revert even though it doesn't restore a previous version of the article. Changes in different areas of an article, performed in a single day, are all counted as reverts even though they don't focus on a single topic. Though AE is a much scarier place than 3RR, I'm not sure why the 1RR rule would be interpreted differently there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"An[y] edit can be a revert ... [c]hanges ... are all counted as reverts..."? I'll stick policy's with "repeatedly override each other's contributions" as being an adequate summary of what reverting looks like in practice. Every time I try to write a longer explanation it ends up containing too many gerunds, so we'll leave it at that. There's no meeting of minds here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Repeatedly override' is part of the broad summary given at the top of the WP:Edit war page. Later, when it gets down to specifics, it uses the language 'any action that reverses the actions of another editor.' Do you consider the two sections to disagree with one another? EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like broad summaries, they tend to be clearer. My rule of thumb, paraphrasing Potter Stewart, is that I know a revert, or an edit-war, when I see one. So that'll have to be a yes then. I do think that there is a conflict between the plain language of the lead and the far from clear text in the body. I am not at all sure what additional sense "any action that (sic.) reverses the actions of another editor" is supposed to convey to the informed reader. I certainly don't propose to read it literally since that would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Assuming it is intended to cover reverts which don't immediately look like reverts, I didn't see any of those here unless I assume bad faith and imagine that some form of collusion is ongoing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hart

Hi Angus,

Let me first say that I think you and Rockpocket have done excellent work de-poving the Peter Hart article from the hatchet job that it was. You'll also be aware that Domer and I don't exactly see eye to eye. However, once you have seen off the pov-pushing, there is a genuine content issue here.

Is it not legitimate to mention that here has been criticism of Hart's work and interpretations? (Not all of it from he likes of the Aubane Historical Society). Just a question, as I have no intention of getting involved in that particular can of worms. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is surely legitimate. Just so long as it is well-referenced and doesn't get into WP:COATRACK territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, well whenever the war there is finished we can look at it again. Jdorney (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading up on the Aubane Historical Society (never heard of them till 10 minutes ago) and apart from the fact that some virulent anti-nationalist groups and people don't like them I fail to see what makes them "unreliable" untouchables. At least to anyone who supports WP:NPOV when it comes to Irish historical articles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Questionable sources is what you're after. If you think the continuation of B&ICO is not extremist I'm afraid we'll need to agree to differ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention "extremist"? I thought I was talking about reliability or otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The two ideas are inseparable. Extremists are never reliable unless talking about themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Simplistic or wha?! Reading a book by a chap (Michael Scheuer) who worked in the CIA for 20 years and admits he was a key player in their rendition program. He favours terminating US enemies with extreme prejudice and is indifferent to "collateral" casualties. But he openly admits that a majority of Muslims across the globe actually were pleased with 9/11. Opinion polls tend to support this. So, question: Is supporting 9/11 an "extreme" view? (I'm not suggesting B&ICO are remotely equivalent in their departure from conditioned responses) - but what is "extreme"? Tell me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may also want to have a look at the Kilmichael Ambush page, the site of the other 'set-piece' controversey over the 'IRA and its Enemies', if you're removing the anti-Hart stuff from WP articles. Jdorney (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Logging

Hiya, just to clarify the paperwork, was Domer48's ban under the Troubles case or WP:BLPBAN? If the latter, then the ban should probably be logged at WP:BLPLOG. --Elonka 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very poor manners to push in in front of Sarah777. Sorry but it does make things more readable.

It was both. I'd have let him have more rope if this weren't a Troubles article. But I expect we'd have got to the same place in the end. I'll add it at the BLP log. Thanks. By the way, did you get my email last week? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'tis OK Ang - I'm well used to your manners by now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was under "irritation to folk-who-think-they-know-what-an-extremist-is" :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: Yes, sorry I forgot to reply. The answer however is, "Nope, haven't noticed anything recently." --Elonka 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, I see you never got around to logging this, as you said above. Also, you banned him from the article, but blocked him for an edit on the talk page, which merely referred to BLP/V, rather than inserting material in violation of those policies. Might I suggest you save the block for something unequivocal?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I will save the block for later. If you want to unblock him, go right ahead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a rubbish block, as ONiH pointed out no remedy allows you to issue a page ban. If you want to claim otherwise, provide a link to where you can. Your ban also says that Domer is banned from the article, traditionally such wording doesn't cover talk pages. BigDunc 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your permission above, I have unblocked Domer48, as I don't believe that his edit was in violation of your BLPBAN. Should future edits violate it, of course, I have no problem with a reblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good unblock Sarek. Also ONiH allured to WP:BLPBAN, and said the required procedure wasn't followed. Unless you provide a diff where you "counselled" him on "specific steps" prior to warning him, he can't be blocked. ONiH obviously didn't think you'd followed the procedure and neither do I. BigDunc 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing acquiescence with consent. As for BigDunc's plea for counselling, Domer48 has been page-banned before. He should be able to remember whether that included the talk page. So did it? Don't look here if you don't want to know the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should counsel editors who fail to comply with BLP policy... and Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, when did you do this? BigDunc 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd start at Talk:Peter Hart. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will find on the talk were you specifically counseled Domer is that what you are alluding to? BigDunc 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, in that link above, Domer was explicitly banned from the article and talk page. In your recent BLPBAN, you only explicitly banned him from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to contest both the troubles and BLP special enforcement. The troubles rfar doesn't allow discretionary topic bans on its own, and I've seen no evidence that Domer's action on Peter Hart justify invoking BLP special enforcement (compare with the other logged actions) Were either of these done via consensus on an AN or ANI board?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, rather than ban Domer from that page, he agree to take this incident (and the advice offered by an increasing number of people about criticism and BLPs) under consideration apropos his future editing at Peter Hart and associated pages. It would be much better for everyone if this could be resolved without restrictions. However, I have noted that I will take this to AE (or ANI) to gauge consensus on such a ban if these BLP concerns continue. Rockpocket 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What advice would that be he is essentially being hounded from the page by the Scotish admin brigade with blocks and bans and threats of blocks, and it transpires spurious into the bargin, so what were the words of wisdom, IMO John was the only who remotely showed good faith to what Domer was doing. BigDunc 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Does every administrative action require lengthy discussion beforehand, or only blocks, or perhaps it's just page bans? Why would page bans require more discussion than blocks which are rarely discussed? I'm not looking for answers. I know what I think the answers are. I'm always open to reconsideration if you can show me why I'm mistaken, but I feel that you're not off to a good start. I've think I've seen ample evidence that Domer48's editing in relation to Peter Hart, whether at the article of that name or elsewhere, justifies action. There are more than enough recent examples of Domer48 not hearing disagreeable things at the Hart article and others, and also in Wikispace, for me to conclude that nothing but a page ban - or indeed several page bans - will stop Domer48 from pushing coat-racks of criticism of Hart based on questionable sources into any article he can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the BLP violations that I committed? You have not addressed any of the concerns raised here or addressed any of the questions you were asked. Please remove this here or mark it overturned, and this here likewise. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that first diff needs to be modified at this time, but I will make a note on that second one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, topic bans and BLPBANs are more significant than blocks, which are actually trivially easy to overturn. More creative sanctions should be preauthorized by ArbCom remedy or community consensus, or supported by them after the fact. The onus is on the administrator to make the case for such enforcement, and likewise, if such actions turn out to be controversial, to reconsider them. In this case, Domer can be fairly accused of editing in a way that is irritating and not the best writing, but I have seen little evidence that this goes beyond a pedestrian content dispute to the damaging of a living person.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does need an addendum. As Jdorney pointed out, there's more coat-rackery at Kilmichael Ambush#Controversy, complete with more questionable sources. So we have three articles in all, assuming we haven't missed any, with criticisms of Peter Hart. Is this rather excessive when the criticism is based on the propaganda publications of a tiny extremist group and the biographer of one of the key figures in the disputed events? I should say that it is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That section is a perfect example of the issue here. Read that, Tznkai, and tell me it is a fair treatment of Hart. Then consider this has been going on across multiple articles for many months. The persistent and systematic editing of Wikipedia to selectively attack the work of one academic using a questionable sources, across multiple articles, is hardly a "pedestrian content dispute". Selectively quoting these individuals (from the same questionable sources) in an attempt to label his work "sectarian" is a undoubtedly a BLP issue. Just because it isn't simple doesn't make it any less of a problem. What exactly would you suggest, considering the advice and requests of multiple admins and outside editors are completely ignored or rebuffed? Rockpocket 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading, will comment more conclusively later. I was given the impression originally that the issue was only the Peter Hart issue. I do however, remind that not all undue weight issues that involving living persons are BLP problems. IFF the work is genuinely controversial, then that should be noted, though not necessarily addressed in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no-one is claiming that there are not disputes and no-one is saying that they should not be noted. As you will see, I wrote a neutral balanced section addressing the controversial issues which Domer reverted. The issue is one editor, counter to consensus, selectively using sources to further a position (and in doing so, whether purposefully or not, systematically and solely attacking one notable, published academic whose work the editor has vocally dismissed). The critical material? Chunks of text culled from pamphlets published by Pro-Nationalist groups, Indymedia, letters to the editor of newspapers (I kid you not), An Phoblacht, the list goes on. In other words, everything and anything a google search will turn up when it comes to criticizing Hart. This is not how we write BLPs. When the attack material is removed from the bio, it goes into other articles. Even when the material has nothing to do with the content in article itself, it is still used as a forum to criticize Hart. So, again, how do we stop this from continuing when asking nicely and giving advice is unheeded? Rockpocket 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai should ask you to back up your personal attack and if proved, I will volunteer to walk away for a month. However if it is nothing more than a dishonest attack they should lose your tools as not fit to have them. As to this myth about sources:

The first Discussion on the RS notice board.

• We weren't asked to rule on whether the Aubane Historical Society is RS in all circumstances. Obviously it is as a general rule not RS. Instead we were asked about a specific case and have given advice tailored to that case. Itsmejudith

• All right, if you like, there is a consensus among uninvolved commentators here that the AHS source is as a rule not reliable. But there may be a few cases in which it can be used and we need context to be able to advise further. Itsmejudith

Now the blocked sock abusing IP closed this discussion as Aubane Historical Society is clearly Not a Reliable Source.

However at ANI with the result.

This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223

Now Elonka made this determination of consensus on the article. Not exactly in line with the consensus obviously. Even the IP said as much “As described and referenced at AN/I, where it was brought at your [Elonka’s] direction, your 'determination' was challenged by editors representing both sides of the discussion and found no editor supporting it. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet Elonka calls that consensus? [3]

The current discussion at the RS noticeboard also does not support Elonka’s suggestion, quite the opposite in fact.

• The consensus of those who regularly contribute to this board is that Aubane is not a good source for historical articles. We should try and find better sources. But policy makes it clear that there can be exceptions. Itsmejudith
• For example, when authors' scholarly credentials are independently established their Aubane-published sources could be considered. Itsmejudith
• the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this. If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar set by those policy statements, then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press. Blueboar
• If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books. Blueboar
• Applying WP:V and WP:RS to the issue... when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Blueboar
• Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published. Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations. Blueboar

Now Elonka is not alone in her misinformed opinion, so are John here and here Rockpocket here and of course Angusmclellan. So please stop with the questionable sources nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Still ignoring the questions above! This is not about questionable sources, its about your questionable actions. Your views and the very strong opinions expressed above would be a concern if you were to edit these articles. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would I waste your time and mine in the pretence of a dialogue? Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngsocWikipedia. How could we communicate? I had thought to use the word xyloglossia to describe my perception of how you conduct a discussion. Apparently that doesn't exist on Google books. Think of it as your very own protologism.

You asked about the use of AHS material at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You didn't like the answer there. You don't like my answer. But will that stop you? Apparently not. You say you've read BLP but you evidently didn't understand it. Like I say, why waste my time and yours? You have surely memorised lots of acronyms, but you don't bellyfeel them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a conversation on Wikipedia without someone invoking Orwell for once?--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here's my opinion on the situation:

Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. This actually surprised me, as such sanctions are pretty routinely authorized in other cases related to nationalist disputes (WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBMAC, WP:DIGWUREN, etc.). Perhaps it's because the Troubles case is older (2007), and discretionary sanctions didn't start to be routinely authorized until 2008. To address this, I recommend that we open a thread discussing the matter, perhaps at WP:AN. The question to the community would be simple: Would it be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area?

Now, having said that above, I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Domer48 had been inserting controversial information into a BLP article, using unreliable sources from the Aubane Historical Society. Multiple recent threads have affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Domer48 is well aware of this, so for him to continue to argue that AHS is a reliable source, is clearly disruptive. On that basis alone, as soon as Domer48 started using AHS again, he could have been blocked for disruption. It is my opinion that a temporary page ban is far more lenient than a block, since it's only limiting one editor from editing one article for a few months, rather than blocking their account access entirely. So on that basis, I feel that the page ban was justified.

However, having said that I agree with Angus's implementation of a page ban, I have to disagree with Angus's implementation of a followup block. Page bans are routinely understood to apply only to the editing of an actual article, unless specifically expanded to include the article and talkpage. So it was reasonable for Domer48 to assume that though he was banned from the article, he could still post comments on the talkpage until told otherwise. So, I agree with Sarek on this matter about overturning the block. I also commend Sarek for doing things the right way, and checking with the blocking admin first, rather than simply overturning the block on sight. Especially because this was described as an ArbCom enforcement ban (be it for Troubles or BLPBAN), as such bans are not to be overturned lightly.

In terms of how to proceed, my recommendations are:

• We should start a thread at an admin noticeboard, to clarify the issue of whether discretionary sanctions are reasonable in the Troubles topic area (I feel strongly that they are needed)
• Domer48, because of disruptive behavior, should be placed under formal probation via the Troubles case.
• If Domer48 persists in inserting any AHS sources into any article, his account access should be blocked, not because of an ArbCom case, but simply because he's violating WP:V and ignoring consensus from WP:RSN.

--Elonka 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An Ogam inscribed stone found at Ballintaggart, County Kerry. The text is read as "MAQQI IARI (K)[OI] MAQQI MUCCOI DOVVINIAS", commemorating a member of the Corco Duibne (is that first name Mac Ercae I wonder?) Drawn by Cork architect and antiquarian Richard Rolt Brash (1817–1876) and published in 1879 in his posthumous work The Ogam Inscribed Monuments of the Gaedhil in the British islands. More on this stone at TITUS Ogamica.

My main concern remains the use of questionable sources in a BLP and in what amount to BLP sections in articles with other subjects. Tznkai doesn't like Orwellian allusions, so how about Terminator ones?. Domer48 tells us himself that he "absolutely will not stop. Ever." And I believe him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits of the content dispute yet, but I am going to say that BLP special enforcement is a Big Stick best reserved for really bad cases. Domer is nothing if not stubborn, true, but I don't think he's out to ruin anyone's reputation. If you feel strongly about a topic ban, I would point y'all at WP:AN/I. I will not contest any administrator placing Domer under general probation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to my comment, my concern is not just process wonkery- topic bans should have a lot of eyes on them when they are potentially controversial, and I think BLP special enforcement needs to be reserved for certain cases to ensure that when it is needed, it sticks.--Tznkai (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is best to set aside the disputed topic ban at this time. ONiH appears to have succeeded where the rest of us failed. He wrote Domer: I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material and block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. [4] Domer's response, "It [the ban] will be ignored and your advice taken on board" [5] appears to suggest he will not be adding "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page" henceforth, which should preclude the need for the ban. If Domer decide to change his mind and add "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page", we can easily take this to ANI and see if there is consensus for a reinstatement. Does this sound reasonable? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works works for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka I've clearly illustrated above that you are wrong, recent threads have not affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Confirmed also at ANI that there was no consensus. Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles...I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Its because of comments like that it would not "be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area." Now not only was the ban wrong under the troubles, it was not even right under WP:BLP. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: I went ahead and put both Mooretwin and Domer48 under probation for 90 days, for recent edit-warring at Sinn Féin. Angus, would you like to start a thread at WP:AN about the discretionary sanction issue? It'll be nice to have a clear community consensus affirming authorization for discretionary sanctions in the topic area. And if for some reason there's not a clear consensus, at least it'll be a next step towards filing an ArbCom Request for Clarification. --Elonka 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Had any luck?

I don't know if you saw but I replied to you on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that person.

We definitely need to expand Osraige, but their ancestry is problematic. I've come across a third claim, based on a pedigree I haven't seen, that they may have claimed kinship with the Dál Fiatach (why?) up north in addition to the Laigin. But see my musings in the response.

Another Munster kingdom I've looked at are the once powerful Corca Oiche. Facts: 1) They came under Uí Fidgenti overlordship in the 6th or 7th century after losing a major battle. 2) St Molua belonged to their ruling dynasty. 3) That dynasty branches from the Corcu Loígde pedigree at a fairly early point. 4) An online place name expert appears convinced they were actually migrating Cruthin from Ulster. Do you know anything about them? DinDraithou (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see it, thanks very much! I'll have a look and see if I can find anything about the Corca Oiche, but I don't have much in the way of material on early peoples. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Corcu Duibne has now turned a pretty blue, btw. I'll try to do Corcu Baiscind soon. DinDraithou (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't optimistic about the Corcu Óiche, but there's actually something useful on them in Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland and a bit more in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland, plus the usual passing mentions elsewhere. For the Corcu Duibne it would be nice to have a picture of one of the Ogam stones. I think I should be able to find one in an old book on Google or archive.org. And even I should be able to make a map for that! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't own it, but most of Charles-Edwards is available online. Ó Cróinín I may not have access to (I live way out in the countryside presently). When I start the article I'll let you know. Something I failed to mention is that their ancient dynasty is still extant as the O'Macasa (Mackessy) family, so they definitely deserve the article. The Mountcollins article says it was in or close to Corca Óiche, or however it should really be spelled. DinDraithou (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can add Corcu Óche as well to the spellings! The easiest thing is just to pick one at random and make redirects for all the others you can think of. I wouldn't worry about trying to be consistent in spelling. Anybody who is deeply concerned about that can always move the article. I'm off to look for a Corcu Duibne ogam stone now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)