User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 23

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 to March 2009

Happy New Year 2009

Happy New Year Angusmclellan/Archive 23!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you have a good 2009 as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional time travellers

I know this is very old news, but I was noticing the unique lack of categories on articles about The Doctor (Doctor Who), and was intending to see what categories he'd be appropriate for that I might add, and the most obvious one is Category:Fictional Time travellers. I see that it was deleted a long time ago, and I looked at the CfD (which you closed) and I think the arguments missed something important. All of the arguments (except the baffling one that complained there aren't any real fictional time travellers) went to the category was being populated with articles of any character who had ever time travelled. Well, according to the guidelines of WP:CAT, the characters in the category were supposed to be ones who are notable for time travelling. So I believe there was not adequate grounds to delete the category as unuseful, but rather to enforce the guidelines that existed for populating the category. For a great many characters, time travel is a legitimate defining characteristic and a category for them would be useful. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh.

I don't know how my comment wound up inside that New Year's greeting box. I used the "new section" tab and didn't make an edit to that comment). Idon't know how to get it out. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Was missing a </div> tag. I'll have a look at the time travellers thing and get back to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to tell me yet? -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. =) -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Beorhtwulf

Angus, you pointed me at Beorhtwulf a little while ago. I've been working on him in a sandbox, and just wanted to let you know in case you were interested in chipping in or criticizing before I take what I've done to the article. So far I think I have the material in and sourced, but not yet edited for prose style or fluency. I think it's in roughly the right order and the right sections. I have done nothing with the lead yet; I usually do that last. Any comments you have would be very helpful.

I would also like your opinion on the Kings of Mercia family tree link that has been added to a lot of the Mercian kings; it doesn't seem very useful to me, and I don't like either the layout or the lack of uncertainty -- e.g. putting in Ceolwald of Mercia as if he had definitely been king. I'd cut the tree from all of the king articles, but I don't feel it's worth arguing about. Still, I was curious to know what you thought of it. Mike Christie (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For the family tree, I am not so keen on that. It omits quite a few perhaps-Mercian-royals (Baldred of Kent, Cuthred of Kent, Cwenthryth, Merewalh, and so on). And I don't recall anyone saying that Ceolwald II was Wigstan's son, only that he was likely related somehow. Perhaps keep it on the list article only? I'll have a read at the new improved Beorhtwulf later on. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Angus! Happy New Year to you too! Wishing you all the best! PHG (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus! Regarding the subject of the Jesuits in Canada, I decided to follow your advice and start the Jesuit missions in North America article. Improvements are very welcome! By the way, when you have time, would you like to elaborate on this comment [1]? I would love to clarify what you think is an issue here. Cheers. PHG (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Atm, I'm giving birth to Eadulf Rus, but after that I'll take a look at ole Aulay and think about this article. Happy New Year to you also. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Amlaib was a prototype for Havelok the Dane? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. No, I don't think the map is a coincidence. Yeah, it's a bit crude and cliched and is a bit optimistic about the amount we can know, but I guess it was a good yarn and got a few things out into the popular domain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Athelstan of England

Angus, noticed that you have done some editing on this article but I found that A Biograhical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain p. 51 contradicts some of the text in as much as that Athelstan the King of the Anglo-saxons is not the same person as Athelstan 'Half-King' and states that King Athelstan actually appointed 'Half-King' as ealdorman to a large chunk of the former Danish territories and that is where he earned his nick-name. Would this be correct? Rgds, -Bill Reid | ^Talk 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, King Athelstan and Athelstan Half-King were two quite different people, so that's an unfortunate choice of words. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You've sorted it, thanks, Rgds, -Bill Reid | ^Talk 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG ArbCom request

I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you are PHG's mentor, I would also appreciate your thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended v. 2.0. Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page movement

Hi. Re-posting this message to you as I know it will be of particular interest. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Beorhtwulf FAC

I'm planning to nominate Beorhtwulf at FAC fairly soon; probably some time this week or next. Since you put a lot of work in, would you like to conominate? Let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer. Would it be possible to leave it until the end of the coming week at the earliest? I'll be back in Brussels, where all of my ASEngland books still are, this coming Friday. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure; that works well for me too. I still have to do another copyedit/MOS/etc. pass. I'll probably nominate next Saturday or Sunday. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done the copyedit and some MOS fixes. I'll probably look at again, but I think it's ready now, so if you spot anything wrong with it please fix it or let me know. I may be travelling a bit more than usual over the next couple of weeks so I'll try to sync up with you before I nominate. Mike Christie (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus

Hi Angus! You seem [2] to object to the fact that I noted Elonka's large deletions on the Armeno-Mongol alliance page, politely requesting a neutral editor to consider reinstallement [3]. Could you explain what in your view might be reprehensible in doing so? You seem to consider this as a compelling reason for prolonged editing restrictions :-(( Are you aware that I am allowed to make comments and suggestions on Talk Pages? I would like to understand... Cheers PHG (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"I am afraid this is lot of referenced information being purely and simply being suppressed here" is not very collegial. But since then it seems that there is an open thread on adding some of the material back ("Damascus"). But I am not in favour of prolonging your editing restrictions. I am not against it either. I am ambivalent: see my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#Conclusion. If the editing restrictions are removed, you need to be able to work with Adam Bishop, Elonka, Srnec, et al. I have some concerns that this might still be difficult ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. See here. The existing blanket ban is clearly ridiculous and unjustified. This proposal would be a big improvement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus. My edit restrictions are supposed to end altogether after one year, mid-March 2009, in two months: this is the Arbcom decision. In my opinion, nullifying this decision and obtaining a prolongation of the restrictions is anything but "a big improvement", and would have at the very least to be justified by serious issues since March 2008, which I don't think is the case at all: my work since March 2008 has been quite undisputedly top-notch. The only reason why an extension is now being considered (although for a narrower editorial area, as a compromise) is essentially because Elonka and a few others are still making the same old complaints about old edit wars and claiming hypothetical future issues. If the rule of law is to be followed, such complaints should not be legitimate reasons to restrict me beyond the original ruling: after my 1-year restrictions end I believe I should be "presumed innocent" again and given the chance to resume normal editing. If content disputes arise, per Wikipedia's rules, they should be handled through the proper editorial channels and dispute-resolution procedures. If major "behavioural" issues arise, then Arbcom should play its role. I believe established facts and a sense of justice should guide Arbcom decisions, not the expression of lingering enimities or unproven claims about hypothetical future issues, don't you think so? Cheers PHG (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this. You certainly have some good points there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since you're about...

Move Brihtmar to Brihtmær please? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary Fellows of St Hilda's College, Oxford

Category:Honorary Fellows of St Hilda's College, Oxford, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

Maybe I'm not getting your attention because I'm not asking in a new section at the bottom. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are getting a decent share of my [somewhat reduced] attention. I read the CfD again: it's pretty clear cut. I suppose you could argue that it's a while ago now and that the WP:CSD#G4 statute of limitations - is there one? - applies. You're probably right to say that a better patrolled category would more likely have survived. If you're willing to keep an eye on the content I'd say just go ahead and recreate it. The very worst that can happen is that it'll be deleted again. If it's speedily deleted, let me know and I'll undelete it. Is that OK? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to recreate the category, to find out it's protected. Can you unprotect it for me, or should I make a request or go to the admin who protected it? -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected it now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

La Monnaie

Hi Angus! Thank you for your kind comments about my coin pictures from la Monnaie (such as Coinage of Philippe le Bel or Coin of Grimoald)! Of course, I am not allowed to edit articles about Ancient History or the Middle Ages until March. I can only make suggestions on Talk Pages, which is what I am doing, in accordance with the ruling. I have to be cautious about that, even if the material seems nice and undisputable. Cheers PHG (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus. It seems I don't have access to coins of Anglo-Saxon kings. Maybe I'll have an opportunity one day though. I do have however access to quite a few coins of the celtic tribes of Great Britain before the Roman invasion. I already uploaded those of the Dobunni here, Iceni here and Trinovantes here. I'll keep you posted about the other ones I upload, if you're interested. Cheers. PHG (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Stainmore

Angus, do you think this is an article? All I get from the sources is that is the place Roger of Wendover says Erik was betrayed. But a battle? The event and sources are covered in Woolf p. 190. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe redirect to Eric Bloodaxe? Or was there a real battle on Stainmore any other time? Not that I heard of, but... Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have Stenton? That's the reference used and I'm wondering if there is any other material, maybe from the sagas, that might at least give a saga battle. If not, then redirect for sure. Btw, just looking at the Erik Bloodaxe article, his story is almost identical in many places with the Siward saga stuff (article soon) ... a reminder that we gotta ban sourcing from sagas directly. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Stenton says this: "The tradition reappears in a statement of Roger of Wendover (footnote here says: Flores Historiarun ed. H. O. Coxe i, pp. 402-3. The entry recording Eric's death is wrongly dates 950, but there is no reason to doubt that it comes from the ancient Northumbrian annals distributed through this part of the Flores (and then he references Anglo-Saxon England p. 319 note 1)) that King Eric, betrayed with his son and brother by Earl Oswulf, was treacherously killed by Earl Marcus on a waste place called 'Steinmor'. Nothing more is known about Marcus, son of Olaf, though it is probably that either Olaf Guthfrithson or Olaf Sihtricson was his father. Earl Oswulf was the leading Englishman of the north. For at least six years he had been ruling from Bamburgh whatever lands were English beyond the Tees, (footnote here says: He is described as "High-reeve at Bamburgh" in 949. (Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. W. de G. Birch 883) and on Eric's final explusion he received the whole of southern Northumbria from King Eadred as an addition to his own northern earldom. (footnote to Symeon of Durham Opera Rolls Society ii p. 197, 382) It is possible that Eric may have been attempting an invasion of his lost kingdom when Oswulf brought about his death but a battle fought on the heights of Stainmore, where the Roman road from Catterick to Carlisle drops into Edendale, rather suggest the last stand of a deserted king on the border of his own country. Nothing is certain beyond the fact that the manner of his death gained him the sympathy of those who recorded it. (start of new paragraph) The battle of Stainmore close the phase of English history which began with the division of Northumbria among Halfdan's followers in 876." Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More a pointer than really a source for the article, but you might like to know that Michael Wood once mentioned the site in his documentary about Eric, the ending of which just happens to be available for watching here. The video fragment appears to start in the middle of a quotation from said chronicler. Two points seem to be of interest here: (1) It looks as if Stainmore is referred to in a (skaldic?) poem commissioned by Gunnhild, Eric's wife. Then again I'm not sure how much Wood actually cited from the poem (I didn't hear quotation marks...); (2) there is a figure cross - probably Rey Cross - at/near the site, now not much more than a stump, and Michael Wood ends on a tentative note that it may have been a memorial cross erected for Eric. Cavila (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a battle of Stainmore. Kirby, in The Making of Early England p. 89 says "It was only when Oswulf, earl of Bamburgh, betrayed Eric to Maccus, son of Olaf (probably one of the Norse kings of York of that name), and Eric was slain on Stainmoor, that Eadred was able to secure recognition as king over Northumbria in 954." Reading Stenton's statement above, it looks like he's speculating that there might have been a battle, not that there necessarily was one. I checked my copy of Simeon of Durham, but I don't have that edition (I have the Stephenson translation only) and couldn't find the reference Stenton is citing above. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ealdgyth. A battle at Stainmore doesn't appear to be in any of the sources, and Stenton is guessing; just a betrayal ... though maybe the saga material has a battle, I dunno. As far as I can tell, the death at Stainmore comes only from Roger of Wendover, and sounds more like he was killed in an ambush of some kind or someone turned against him. I guess if Stenton calls it a battle then, independent of what we think of Stenton's remark , we might have to keep it in location (esp. if the creator wants this). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

True, the account in Flores Historiarum suggests a skirmish or ambush (less plausibly an execution) rather than a full-scale battle: ... rex Eilricus in quadam solitudine quae 'Steinmor' dicitur, cum filio suo Henrico et fratre Reginaldo, proditione Osulfi comitis, a Macone consule fraudulenter interempti sunt, ac deinde in partibus illis rex Eadredus regnavit. (ed. H.O. Coxe. Vol 1. 1841. 402-3), "King Eric was treacherously killed by Earl Maccus in a certain lonely place which is called Stainmore, with his son Haeric and his brother Ragnald, betrayed by Earl Oswulf; and then afterwards King Eadred ruled in these districts." (tr. Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents I. 2nd. p. 284."). The location itself - on the summit of a Roman road from York to Carlisle - and the fact that it is specifically mentioned may be suggestive of a number of things but is ambiguous. The skaldic poem in honour of Eric is Eiríksmàl, in which Eric is welcomed by Odin in Valhall, but I don't think it is very instructive here (I'd have to look into that though). As for the Norse kings' sagas, whether historical or not, Eric's death in battle is mentioned in for instance, Heimskringla (Saga of Hakon), but not the name of the battle site. P.S. Michael Wood's discussion is no doubt to be found in his In Search of the Dark Ages, but I don't have access to it. Cavila (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so Stenton is essentially SYNTHing this without saying so explicitly, as older historians tend to do. The saga stuff is interesting of course, though as you may know the idea that the Erik of saga and Erik of Northumbria are the same is challenged by some historians these days. Reading Woolf's snippet, the "earliest Norwegian sources place his death in Spain" [but note the names for Spain and Stainmore are potentially confusable to the Norwegian sources]. If we were to SYNTH the article we could do as follows: We know from English sources he 1) was killed by Maccus 2) betrayed by Osulf and 3) Erik's enemy Eadred rewarded Osulf. Osulf was the ruler of Bamburgh over which Erik as ruler of Northumbria claimed domination. Either Maccus was higher ranking than Osulf or else Osulf was higher ranking than Maccus but wasn't present at the location (apparently Stainmore). Erik as king of Northumbria might have been expected to have patronage over Osulf, which could explain the "betrayal". If not, some kind of trickery is involved. Stainmore at the crossways of routes from Deira and Bernica into Cumberland and Dumfriesshire [and the other way around], marginal agricultural regions with access to the Hiberno-Scandinavian coast (Maccus son of Olaf), suggests Erik was going from a base in the south-east to the north-east (he wouldn't have been holding court there or anything). Maccus could be an ally of Osulf's invading from Dublin or Galloway or Argyll (though the name Maccus comes up a lot in the Dumfriesshire Solway region [for whatever reason]) whom Erik was going to meet in battle, though if so you wonder how Maccus benefited after killing Erik [presumably the new ruler, Osulf, rewarded him or his kin somehow]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eiríksmál doesn't give any place names. It does mention that Eric was killed in a battle and, in a sort of Norse theodicy (Why do Bad Battles happen to Good Warriors?), explains that Odin deprived Eric of victory because no-one knows when the wolf will come and Odin needs bold warriors like Eric in Valhalla. Haukur (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Historia Norwegie says that Eric was killed on a foray in Spain. I'm guessing Stainmore is not in Spain. Haukur (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ágrip goes with Spain too. Theodoricus Monachus doesn't say. Fagrskinna has a very similar account to Heimskringla. Nóregs konungatal doesn't say. Haukur (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My copy of Theodorus is elsewhere, but Downham [Viking Kings, 117-8) says that Theodorus says that Eric died when he got to England. She also says the post-Norway stories about Eric as "may belong to a genre of survival legends of medieval kings", noting Harold Godwinson and Olaf Tryggvason as others about whom such stories were told. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Today I printed off an article in that old Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society by W. G. Collingwood called "The Battle of Stainmoor in Legend and History". I guess that seals the life of the article, though has no effect on the believability of its existence and Collingwood does the same SYNTH thing Stenton did. He thinks Erik was "buccaneering in the Irish Sea", and that the battle happened after Erik landed in Cumbria and marched to retake his York kingdom, held by Amlaíb Cuarán, and was met and defeated by Osulf, apparently Amlaíb's ally. Not very convincing. Rest of the article is trying to extrapolate supposedly oblique references to the "battle" from other legendary sources. Although the Norse saga material is about as reliable for the 10th century England as Geoffrey of Monmouth is for late Roman Britain, there is a possibility that those Norse sources, using lost English material, took Stainmore (meaningless) and sustituted it in the text for Spain (meaningful and adventurous) ... this was suggested by someone, can't remember atm who though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Ágrip, Historia Norwegie and Theodoricus are all available in recently published English translations on the web at [4] Haukur (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't visited the Viking Society site for a while. Thanks for reminding me. There's lots of new goodies been added since I was last there. The Brittany paper looks very useful indeed! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So just to sum up, the Eric article needs a thorough makeover and the Battle of Stainmore article a disclaimer of some kind? I was thinking of working on the former myself, but I only have time to do so in small steps. And there's a few secondary sources on my wishlist, especially the article by Clare Downham (again), "Eric Bloodaxe - Axed? The Mystery of the Last Viking King of York." Mediaeval Scandinavia 1 (2004): 51-77. Cavila (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I found this article in my files - Downham, Clare "The Chronology of the Last Scandinavian kings of York, AD 937-954" Northern History .. RHS bibliography link here. It doesn't appear to mention Stainmore, but it does talk about Erik a bunch. (I pulled it because it talks about the first Wulfstan of York ... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The promised makeover is here, though I'm not entirely happy with the result. I've worked more or less directly from the primary sources and never got round to actually check some of the recent studies listed in 'further reading' (Downham for instance). Worse still, some of the opinions expressed in the article may be unsourced. Oh, and it's bit longish. Hope you enjoy reading it all the same.Cavila (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional time travellers

Hi again, Angus. The category was speedy deleted, presumably not reading my argument on the talk page I created for it the moment I recreated the cat. Sigh. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Monnaies françaises

Hi Angus! I am planning to use the following book of mine for referencing on French coins. This is a rather specialist numismatical book. Can you give me your confirmation? Cheers:

• Les Monnaies françaises royales de Hugues Capet à Louis XVI (987-1793) by Jean Duplessy, 1999, Edition Maison Platt, Paris, ISBN 2951035535

That seems like a good choice to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! PHG (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok

Angus, hi. Since concerns about this article were raised at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence, I have tagged the article as needing more third-party sources, and have left a note at the article's talkpage. Beyond that, I feel no need to get involved, but I did want to let you know. I would like to remove the article from the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. If you feel that the sourcing at Siege of Bangkok is sufficient, I have no objection to you removing the {{primarysources}} tag. --Elonka 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see this as what {{primarysources}} is really for. I would use it, or {{inuniverse}}, for the likes of Ragnarssona þáttr.

I do think it might benefit from more use of "According to [witness X]..." phrasing. For example, we have "Another 35 soldiers with three or four French officers were assigned to ships of the King of Siam, with a mission to fight piracy. [after Desfarges]" could occasionally be "Desfarges recoreded that another 35 soldiers with three or four French officers were assigned to ships of the King of Siam, with a mission to fight piracy. [Blah.]" to keep it in the reader's mind that this is the French version without needing have to qualify every single statement. On the whole though, I'm happy enough. Yes, it's based on primary sources, but on published, edited, commented primary sources, presented by a historian. Had the reports been found in some C17th piece of shock journalism, that'd be a whole other story. My main concern was to separate Smithies writing for himself and Smithies reporting what Desfarges et al said, and that's been done. I prefer rather more discursive footnotery, but that's a matter of taste. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I added wording such as "Desfarges noted in his account of the events" [5], "according to Vollant des Verqains" [6], "according to the account of one of his officers named De la Touche" [7]. It does help clarify who says what. Cheers PHG (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Angus. Voting has already started at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Proposed decision, so if you wish to review your statement as you suggested, maybe it's better that don't delay things too much :-) Cheers PHG (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Akkara Kazhchakal

I see that you are responsible for the deltion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkara_Kazhchakal. This is a legitimate and very popular TV show with over 50000 viewers weekly. I wish to expand the article with more content and citations. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks. --Ashlypat (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. That's not a problem. It wasn't deleted for notability, but because it was a cut and paste from this in The Hindu. Best of luck with writing the new article. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

New book

Actually very good. I'm sure you will be using it for wikipedia things. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect it to be wonderful (or should that be uuonderful?). I got an answer back to my quibbles about the BBC Scotland's History website. It has been updated so that it's Dunnichen no more: check the new map here where Nechtansmere is now in Badenoch like it was on TV. They also changed the link on their Constantine II page to point to our article instead of the generic Picts one. Now that's service for you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi Angus. Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. Do you think you can intervene in this matter? Best regards PHG (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Amlaíb Cuarán

Hello! I was just dropping you a note to check on the Amlaíb Cuarán GA progress. I left a note on the review page a few days ago, and hadn't received a response from you, so thought I'd drop a note here. If you're finished with your expansion and tweaks of the article, I'd like to move the review forward. Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I now have the missing book and will be able to finish the work. Should be ready mid-week. Thanks for your patience, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Adtwifyrdi

Thought I'd check with you before AfD'ing, since your library is better than mine; do you have any reason to believe this is notable? The reference simply mentions the name Bede gave to the location; there's no evidence this has any currency. Googling and subtracting references to Wikipedia and to the exact wording used in the article leaves just about nothing. Google Books has a single use from 1917 in a passage that recounts Bede's use of the word and then glosses it. Do you know of any reason to keep it? Mike Christie (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback would be especially welcome at the PHG case

In particular, we're uncertain on how to proceed with this proposal, but feedback on any aspect of the proposed decision would be very welcome. You can add a new heading at the proposed decision talk page. Cool Hand Luke 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Angus! And thank you for asking! I think the intention of this motion is highly laudable, although the process might become extremely cumbersome, and thus close to inapplicable in reality. I think the procedure could be much simpler (and, in my opinion, fairer): I am allowed to edit restricted articles under your supervision, but simply agree to withdraw if you judge it necessary to do so. I have a lot of things to do in real life besides Wikipedia (and you too I guess), and I'm just a volunteer, so if it's cumbersome, I will simply not bother with the procedure. What do you think? Cheers PHG (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too cumbersome for you. If you tell me what you want to edit, as I understand things, it's up to me to go off and look for the magical consensus that says, "Yes, PHG can edit here", or "No, he can't". I'd have a moderate degree of presumption in favour of "Yes", and I'd expect objections to have some logic to them. I can always ask to have the process simplified if it turns out to be problematic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But what would it boil down to? For example, I would ask to edit an article on the Crusades, and get the usual oposition from Elonka. She's already creating enough problems on Wikipedia with abusive warnings, misrepresentation of decisions, insinuations etc... [8], and I certainly wouldn't wish to feed her with more opportunities for such behaviour. She would almost certainly use my attempts at edits in this area against me as proof of, what was it, "combative behaviour" or "POV pushing", just as she used my (Arbcom-allowed) Talk Page edits against me this time. I despise litigation, but this would typically be a system inflating litigation. I strongly object to the Arcom's intention to prolong restrictions (even if narrowing them), but if restrictions there are, I'd rather just follow them than be subject to such abuse. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Elonka has expressed some interest in having "PHG help clean up". That might well mean edits which PHG disagrees with, but it might well be straightforward consolidation of assertions on the Mongols into articles on the Mongols, on which the two might be able to reach agreement. If PHG is not interested, no waiver can compel him to edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

You've done a great job as a mentor, Angus McLellan, and your opinion matters a lot—especially because this remedy would give you some additional responsibility. Would this remedy likely be good for Wikipedia, or would omitting it be better? Would it help to add language like "The mentor's decisions may not be appealed, although new mentors may be appointed if decisions are manifestly unreasonable"? What about a mechanism to add pages to the topic ban (which may or may not lead to fights)?

In any case there would be a baseline topic ban on PHG. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PMA has a point when he says that this is a no-go if PHG doesn't care for it. Given PHG's response, and the fact that he and Elonka don't get on, I am doubtful as to whether this will help right now. But nothing is forever. PHG and Elonka may be wikibffs in a week or two. So why not? If PHG never asks, then it never matters. If he changes his mind, then the door is open. As to the exact wording, that I'll leave to others. So long as there's a mechanism for PHG to get involved, if other editors agree, that's good enough for me. I have no axe to grind on the subject of Mongols, Armenians, Crusaders and Arab states, and no knowledge of the subject either, so I'm neither for nor against anyone's view. But I do have some understanding of WP:V and WP:UNDUE, which is what this is really all about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, User:Vassyana has posted a revised version that will probably pass.

I hope that PHG returns. Cool Hand Luke 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG 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.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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)