User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 6

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.

October to December 2006

Moving Pages

Thanks for the info. I thought there should have been a simpler way, but I didn't look very hard. I'll remember in future. Nick Watts 11:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christian Ireland

Hello Angus. If you look at the Timeline of Irish history you will see that I have made a start on that era, though only up to about 546. What I am doing is trying to add in as many stubs on poets, kings and saints as I can one at the moment being Cenn Fáelad mac Aillila - which I hope to finish within the next few minutes. However, my health is not good enough to do anything more than these small stubs, so I'm afraid all I will be able to do is comment and make minor revisons to your work. Do you think any of my latest contributions will be of any help? Cheers, Fergananim 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything on Fland Fina, aka Aldfrid son of Osuiu, King of Northumbria? Fergananim 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Máireg Béan Ó Conchubhair Fáilghe

Aengus, a mac! Ta bron orm, I meant to get back to you about your wonderful new article User:Angusmclellan/Early Christian Ireland quicker than this. A breif note about my illness; its bi-polar and depression, and has knocked sheer hell out of me these past several years, especially for the last four. Can't work, can't travel, or do much of anything so Wiki and our mutual interests are a great way of doing something, little as they may be. Heck, nowadays I DO read Playboy for the articles! Help!

Also would like feedback on the above, just finished.

Okay, your article:

1 - You might want to look up Attacotti, and if you can, Rance's article (cited by myself at the bottom) as it throws a whole new light on Romano-Irish contacts in the mid-to-late 4th century.

2 - Any chance of a translation of the Latin at the end of "Setting the scene"? Who is it by?

3 - "The evidence of the Irish annals and genealogies for this period is at best unreliable and at worst the victim of later manipulations." Very true, but not unrecoverable. It would seem that it was not until as late as 516 that the Connachta (not to be known as the Ui Neill for another generation or two!) seized Mide. And in the north they do not seem to have become a true power till as late as the mid-7th century! See The Kingship and Landscape of Tara, ed. Edel Bhreathnach, 2005; ISBN 1851829547 (if you can afford it!) or best yet, the section "Recent Theories" that I wrote based on it in Airgíalla

4 - The graphics are fantastic, especially those showing the various kingdoms. For my money, it would be great if you could divide them up into three: one showing Ptolomy's map, one showing Ireland around the time of Patrick, and one for the 7th century - you already have this in "Peoples and princes", though I think they could be far better defined by use of mountions, rivers and a colour scheme. Or is this a bit too much work?

5 - The photo of the Ardagh Chalice is superb!

6 - The latest issue of Archaeology Ireland has a great, indepth peice on the Irish bog psalter - which is now called Faddan Mor Psalter. I hope to add information in the next couple of days, all of which I hope will be of use.

7 - Is there anyway I can fax you articles on this era? I do have quite a few, just don't have much enegry to tackle a large article like this one.

If you have any other areas of concern, please let me know as I love to help. Is mise, Fergananim 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting my Talk page. I took this opportunity to archive my talk page - which was overdue anyway. I blocked that user for 3 hours to let them know we don't tolerate time-wasting. Best, Johntex\^talk 18:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting my Talk page. I took this opportunity to archive my talk page - which was overdue anyway. I blocked that user for 3 hours to let them know we don't tolerate time-wasting. Best, Johntex\^talk 18:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

Don't know why I didn't think of that... I usually do!

[1]

--Mais oui! 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grodan_boll

This user appears to be doing nothing but vandalism. I saw zir "work" on evil and checked the account's edit history. I saw your warnings on the user's talk page, but I'm wondering what are the criteria for blocking someone?

I'll watch your Talk: page for any response.

Septegram 13:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha

Thanks for your kind words. It's late here in Russia, so I have to go home. Will be back on Monday. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

You're right that number dashes shouldn't be hyphens (-) but en-dashes (–). What I was doing yesterday was changing the HTML entities (–) to Unicode characters (–, on a Windows machine hold down Alt and type 0150 on the number pad). It's like typing the character é instead of é (é). Don'worry, you didn't do it wrong; I just made it clearer :o) — OwenBlacker 08:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Good work on those articles!

Re: Carla deary

You're more than welcome to pursue {{prod}} or {{afd}} if you like. Luna Santin 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Máel Coluim of Atholl

I have no more information on this atm. I can get access to it though. What does LVED stand for? BTW, browsing through some of the charters in RRS, vol. 1, and found that Godred of Man appears as a witness on a charter to Kelso Abbey issued by Máel Coluim IV at Roxburgh; he's first on the lay witness list as "Godredo rege insularum". Just found it curious that he was given this title in this context. I don't know if you've ever browsed through the RRS volumes, but they are amazing. Ignoring the charters, the introductions are unbeatable sources for the king's they cover. E.g. the one on Máel Coluim IV's reign (v. I) is 128 pages long, and is definitely worth copying and using for wiki. Have a good one. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snodgrass

How curious that there was an article on Snodgrass already in existence, practically unlinked! But I am astonished by the statement in it that he is American. I heard him lecture once, and I would swear that he is English (West Country, from my memory, but it's a long time ago now) definitely with quite a strong regional accent. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPA

I suspect User:Chikinpotato11 is of an age to be receiving GPA's him/herself! The "GPA in ..." articles are simply cut and pastes from grade (education). The grade_(education) article is too big and does need splitting but I suggest: prod all the "GPA in ..." articles (I think Chikinpotato11 has now given up); revert grade_(education); wait for someone else to do the job properly. -- RHaworth 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relativité

Hello Angus- I chimed in my 2 cents on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/fr#4 -Eric ^(talk) 17:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus- No prob--hope it helps! -Eric ^(talk) 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved pages

Thanks for moving the pages. Is it OK if I delete your message from my talk page? Gkwikilab 14:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod compiler flag

Hi, I noticed you taged the page compiler flag for deletion. I merged the information into command-line argument and redirected to there. I would ask you in the future to consider proposing merges rather than deletion. The merge location was very obvious. Also, consider the potential for a page to expand. There is potentially a lot of information about compiler flags, but you obviously didn't consider that. Please just try considering those things in the future when you're thinking about proding stuff. Fresheneesz 07:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the watchful eye!

I see you've had popups reverting vandalism to my talk page, for which I thank you! RGTraynor 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hi, Angusmclellan! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Core des at 16:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Angus, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henri V

The addition of Henri V to the list of Kings of France was NOT vandalism, If you allow Napolean II and Louis XIX (fifteen minutes, according to the Guiness book of world records), and Louis XVII (NEVER) you have to admit that the future Comte de Chambourd, who was proclaimed king on July 30, 1830, and had a regent proclaimed by the general assembly (The duke of Orleans later usurped the throne and became king himself but he was officially regent) should be allowed a place on the list.

He was really king of France. I don't know what you guys have against him.

Education Act 1494

Thanks for the clarification/correction on this LeContexte 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gard du Corps?

Thanks for cleaning up my various cock-ups Angus, I'm not the cleanest keyboarder. Trying very hard to improve, similar to my piping and fiddling! Now.. I see that you've started that article about the 2nd Earl of Buchan. Do you know where one can find out more info about the 1st company Garde du Corps. It's something I'd like to play with, but there doesn't seem to be much reference online, and all I can seem to find elsewhere just refers to certain characters being members, but no gen about the body itself. It seems slightly unfair that the Byzantine Varangian guard is quite well recorded, and the French Irish, yet poor wee us... Slán.Brendandh 21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look I cocked up in the title of this bit! Anyhow.. thanks. I'll start burrowing away.Brendandh 22:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar

I want to expand this article slightly. I see you have made some good points and quotes, can you directly reference them so that I can add references to the expanded material without misleading the reader about the sources used?Also, apparently some extracts of Mar's Gaelic poetry survives, from the 17th century History of the Macdonalds; does your source have anything on this, just in case I don't get around to looking at the History. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Does Grant himself make the point that "Lowland" army, in fact that of the north-east and eastern Highlands? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did have something to say, on Karl Hundason at least. I think the compiler got confused because of something, and incorrectly put him in. I'll need to see if my notes see anything and see if my memory freshens up any. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I will add what I can to the Alexander Stewart article, and maybe you can improve it using your sources if you want. I'm not able as yet to get basic table information like when he was born, where he died, etc. BTW, I have Boardman's article on the Wolf now; I'd recommend you get hold of it if you can. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, lost my notes from the Woolf lecture. He did explain him, but I can't remember precisely what it was. It was something along the lines of, when the guy compiling it was putting it together he confused one story with another. That's all I remember. The Orkneyinga Saga is an extremely dubious source, essentially it's not a saga, but a compilation of all the material one guy could find about Orkney. Sorry I can't be of more help. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh and Edgar

Can you tell me the source for Étgar mac Maíl Choluim dying at Edinburgh? I was looking today at the (Latin) Chronicle of Fortingall, which seems to be right about all the other death locations, and gives Dundee.[2]. Any thoughts? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila

Is the fact that no other encyclopedia calls the guy Jogaila a reason enough? I also wonder whether the fact that Jogaila changed his name and did not use the pagan name for most of his life is a reason enough.. Finally, I believe it is a bad precedent. We would have to move all monarchs, including the English ones, to the names they had when they were born. Or am I wrong and this guy is an exception? //Halibu tt 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment above sounded a tad rude, that was not my intention. As to your arguments:

You write that he was Lithuanian and thus should have a Lithuanian name. Sure, but then we should apply the very same rule to all monarchs. Move John Paul II to Karol Wojtyła, move George II of Great Britain to Georg August von Brunswick-Lüneburg, move Edward VII of the United Kingdom to Eduard von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and so on, and so forth. However, I get an impression that this would be the only such article to be moved to the less popular and less obvious title. Double standards anyone?
As to the rules being disputed, I know that and I took part in the discussion there myself. And that's precisely why we dropped the title of Vladislaus II of Poland, which would be the title suggested by the rules. "of Poland" would only make our fellow Lithuanians angry, which is why we dropped it.
As to the complains you write about, do I get you right that you plan to hold the article on that particular Polish king hostage to your campaign of renegotiating the guidelines? "We won't change the name so that more people complained and so that we could change the rules one day"?
Finally, you didn't comment on the fact that the article should not have been moved to Jogaila in the first place. Does it mean that if this WP:RM would end in a stalemate, any admin would have the liberty to interpret it the way he likes? The last time we had a poll (not even a voting), the result was 16:16, yet it was moved. So, this time the article could also be moved back under the same conditions, right?

//Halibu tt 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it all prove that Jogaila is a solitary exception in wiki? Anyway, the Harald example shows that the best thing to do if the move procedure fails would be to move the article back where it was and then hold the WP:RM to move it to Jogaila, as apparently there are lots of people willing to defend the status quo regardless of what it is. So, if moving the article against the consensus is ok, then moving it back would be ok as well.

As to the proposal, I was the one to defend the "of Poland", which however seems to be a tad problematic as far as our fellow Lithuanians are concerned. So, to please them we'd have to include not only the royal title, but also the titles - in the case of kings of Poland the title would then be several lines long. Just imagine Władysław II (King of Poland, lands of Kraków, Sandomierz, Sieradz, Łęczyca, Cuyavia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, hereditary master of Pomerania and Ruthenia, overlord of Prussia). Nice one, isn't it. //Halibu tt 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Angus! You mentioned you're not averse to two names just not the ones I've proposed, that is, some combination of the Polish and Lithuanian in native syntax: Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło, and perhaps "Poland-Lithuania" (again, "of Lithuania" or "of Poland" alone is not historically appropriate). What would you like to see reflected in the Jogaila/Jagiełło title? Thanks!
Just a P.S., if you are of the "Władysław" is "not English" camp (gathering from the above), I've attempted to engage in a discussion in naming conventions and use of diacriticals (mentioned in the Jogaila talk page).
Best regards, Peters —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Reformation

Thanks for your encouragement! Slackbuie 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser (patriot)

Hi Angus, you mentioned in an edit summary that the article Simon Fraser (patriot) had a not-so-great article title. What would you say would be a more apt title? He was the 2nd Chief of Clan Fraser, but that's not usually a social standing referred to by article titles. Pater, possibly, as he is seen as the father of the Clan Fraser. I wouldn't say of Lovat yet, because he wasn't. I didn't create the article, and I'm usually somewhat hesitent to move articles if I've little business doing so, but I've cringed at the article title many a time. If a more apt title could be thought up, moving it might be a good idea. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand I

I created the appropriate link to Ferdinand I of Aragon at the Catalan nationalism article. With the death of Martin in 1410, the House of Barcelona was bereft of a male heir and representatives of the three realms of the Crown of Aragon — Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia — got together to elect a new king in the person of Ferdinand of Antequera in 1412 by the so-called Compromise of Caspe. Ferdinand was a son of John I of Castile and grandson of Peter IV of Aragon. He was thus Castilian on his father's side and Aragonese on his mother's. Srnec 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burkem

I'd welcome your thoughts on User_talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

Hiya, I wanted to make sure we waited at least a week, so that everyone had a chance to thoroughly ponder whether or not they wanted to participate. I also wanted to ensure that we had a more or less even mix of people from different sides of the debate. As for filing the actual paperwork, sure, go ahead, I like the subpage idea. We can also link it from Talk:Jogaila to let everyone else see it and ensure that they're okay on the wording as well. And thanks. :) --Elonka 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of Ireland edits

I trust I didn't offend with my attempts to explain your revert to Jreferee. Dppowell 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're over my head, Angus, sorry! I'm not familiar with those texts. I don't recall seeing them mentioned in the introduction to this Chronicle translation, and a cursory scan of the indices doesn't turn them up, either. I'm new to the study of the period; sorry I couldn't be more help. Dppowell 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers back to you

I haven't been around much though I see the AG talk page has not changed much...however the article itself has improved somewhat...though it has a way to go. Again - it stylistically conflicts with my approach and I find it hard to edit bits...plus anything I've ever edited has been reverted anyway (so not sure I will be doing much besides occasionally countering certain BS on the talk page)....still in the article itself there is need for some more background/context as well as a better feeling for the chronology and specific actions taken by the CUP (incl how they implemented the Genocide and how it differed in different geographic areas and over time...ie. how the Armenian populations were differently affected and experienced the genocide differently) etc. Anyway, mostly I just wanted to say hello back to you...--THOTH 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Óengus I of the Picts

I have nominated Óengus I of the Picts for WP:FA status. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need your help with User:Calgacus/David I.. I'm very unhappy with it, mostly because it is too long and I can't figure the best way to include the "Davidian reforms". I.e., at the end, where they are now, or integrated in the text on a chronological basis. Both seem to me imperfect. You're prolly getting impatient with it, as it has been there for months now. Do you think I should shorten it? Do you think it's too POV? Is it too heavily reliant on Oram etc? Any criticisms you have, please give them on User talk:Calgacus/David I.. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. How should I interpret your silence on the David I article btw? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I was thinking about moving the text there earlier. But I found another article on the BotS I wish to incorporate first. I'll try to get around to that as soon as I can. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Scotland

OK, problem. User:Mais Oui! Henry of Scotland, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon to Henry of Scotland. That isn't the problem. The problem is thatUser:Dimadick later in March converted the page Henry of Scotland] to a redirect and pasted the content into Henry of Scotland, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon. Because no-one at the time noticed, the latter has subsequently accrued a history, so that the article is functioning with two histories. What do you reckon I should do? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erlend Thorfinnsson

I made the move as requested, but this really needs to be expanded or it's in danger of deletion itself. Thanks. Chick Bowen 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm?

That may be so, but neither of those pages were attack pages. URNOBODY

Your opinion on mediating a dispute ...

I wonder if you grab your mediation boss's hat and skim over User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation, my draft proposal for mediating a page-naming dispute. Is this something that would be accepted for mediation once the i's were dotted and the t's crossed ? Thanks a bunch in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in order; I obviously don't comment on the merits of cases before they are filed, but as far as compliance with our format and the like, you have done very well. Essjay (Talk) 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wodehouse quote

Ta Angus. --Mais oui! 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.

~ trialsanderrors 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monifieth High School

Lacking in good faith? We-ell... you may be, but the fact that "Stonerface" answered my criticism of Manby by protesting that "I was not critisising [sic] him..." rather gave the game away in terms of his identity, I feel! <g> Loganberry (Talk) 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and cheers for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I feel like a proper Wikipedian now I've had that done to me! Loganberry (Talk) 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben More Assynt

Thanks for the Barn Star for the above article and the kind words. It is really appreciated. Regards Mick Knapton 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the help with the Miles Franklin Primary School article, I appreciate it mate! Drizzt J a m o 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perth

Just so you know, the reason for the unexpected appearance of a heap of links to Perth rather than Perth is the result of a new infobox template ({{Infobox Australian Place}}) - it's clearly been an unforeseen problem with its implementation. When it's fixed (I'd say sometime today) the problem should fix itself. There's 339 suburbs in Perth (Australia) of which probably about 1/3 are currently affected and another heap will be when the conversion bot goes through. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 02:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagiello/... latin?

Isn't the Latin form of Jog/Wla's name "Jagello"? Where have you got "Jagailo"? Could you give its supposed etymology in/to Latin? And again, isn't it "Jagello", as I have read years and years ago, and which it seems to be in Italian here, at least. Shilkanni 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(your answer was: from the styles given in the examples in Jogaila#As_monarch_of_Lithuania_before_religious_conversion)

Ah, the excerpts are victims of fluctuating writing in those decades. That source seems to have only one Latin excerpt of Jagello's letters, although there must have been plenty of them in various archives. I would not be surprised if monks have written the name in a different way in each different pergament, and sometimes in two different ways in one and same pergament.
However, are you refuting that the established Latin version of the name was "Jagello", which apparently became standard in Latin in the following couple of centuries, and has left its formulation actually in several Roman languahes (now that I went through several of them): French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian; as well as neighboring Czech and Hungarian, apparently. All those write it today "Jagell...", without -i-; and totally consistent with each other, which makes me think that it was the established Latin version before any of those other languages standardized their writing (as such "foreign" name has easiest come to each of those's writing through how late medieval Latin documents wrote it).
It will not be feasible to float around several Latin versions here, so what is your position now as to what is the Latin one, when you know the above and (hopefully) make your own survey over other languages and Latin sources that can be found. ? Shilkanni 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The authentic name in his lifetime very likely was pronounced in one way, not several; and there likely was not different versions of it for different languages; but scribes wrote it (its middle vowel) in slightly different ways, probably according to how the particular scribe had heard it. A proposition that the middle vowel(s) would have authentically been -ie- seems unlikely, because none of the excerpts show it or even anything close. The vowel appears to have been something that was easily heard or understood either -e- or -a- (could it have been -ä-?). Regarding "your" Jagailo, I am not much doubting that actually also it may have also existed in some original letter - we just seem not to have that letter's text here in our sources. And what is -ai- : it is actually something rather close with -e-, isn't it? Shilkanni 10:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Jocelin

I am well. How are you these days? Thank you for your comments on Jocelin. BTW, you have a few of those good articles only within a few edits of FAs. Anyways, have you thought about nominating yourself as an admin? I ask because our articles need one, and I probably have too many enemies to put myself forward. But our articles do need an admin nevertheless, and you are the only person who could do it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you should consider it. It's really no big deal after the nomination, esp. for a user with your good character. All it means is you can do a few extra things. Like I said, I believe that the growing section of articles we happen to work on a lot need a user with admin abilities. To mention nothing else, there are the Pictish and Strathclyde kings you believe should be renamed. Anyways, yes. Malcolm III is one of the articles you should prolly consider being your next FA. And yes, I too have a bunch of articles (esp. the ones I did when I first started wiki) that badly need revisiting; I'm thinking here of the mormaer and Galloway articles. SitHMA also needs reworked on some minor points of content and on citations, though it's already an FA. I nominated Jocelin for FA btw; had to so it now because I'm going away on December 12, and thus after that point won't be able to address any issues that may or may not be brought up. Take care. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you haven't done so already, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to get a slot for Óengus I of the Picts appearance on the main page. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

burgaz

Hey Angus,

Orhan Pamuk said that he never used the phrase "Turks killed Armenians." on a Turkish television(CNNTURK). Armenian genocide is an historical article and should not have to refer to present day talks. Kanal D - HaberYazar Orhan Pamuk "30 bin Kürt öldürüldü" sözü için merak edilen açıklamayı ... gibi "Biz şu kadar Ermeni öldürdük" demedim, soykırım sözcüğünü kullanmadım. ... www.kanald.com.tr/haber/guncel/2005.10.16/orhan.shtml

In English, Pamuk says "I did not say we killed that amount of Armeninas, I did not use the word genocide" as a translation of " "Biz şu kadar Ermeni öldürdük" demedim, soykırım sözcüğünü kullanmadım." demedim means "not say", and "öldürdük" means "kill". "kullanmadım" means "did not use" and "soykırım" means "genocide". burgaz 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clement of Dunblane

Hey Angus. Me again. Can you do me band wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a copyedit. I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. I ask you because you are an experienced FA writer and are one of the few people who might be interested in reading about a medieval Scottish bishopric. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks a lot. It shouldn't need that much work now, but we'll have to see what Tony thinks. Anyways, have a good night. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Thank you very much for your copyediting. That means like 4 people have went over it, as well as myself. Now I'll just have to wait for Tony1 to tell us what he thinks; he's a pretty astute critic, and since so few are voting, it may be critical. Anyways, all the best. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I'm not that clear what you mean by ¶. :) I will presently do a short article on Ewen MacDougall (he can be renamed later pending more systematic coverage of these rulers on wiki) and await your reply. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to implement your suggestions. I hope I succeeded. Please lemme know. Thank you for your help. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally ... I think Wedale is covered by Stow; at some future date, an article can perhaps be written on the episcopal manor there; but unfortunately I don't have the info available atm to write that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank User:Jaspe; if you think that's weird, check out ru:Список правителей королевства Островов; he's done practically every western ruler not covered by English wiki. BTW, are you satisfied with the Clement article now? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Tony is happier now. He changed his vote, but I don't think tbh he's completely satisfied. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've sent you an email with a christmas present attached. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RBS

I don't think it is a good idea to create 2 articles- which would basically duplicate another, especially just so we can insert some words in a language spoken by less than 0.1% of the population. Calgus is bascially removig sourced material so he can have his Gaelic in at the top, which I consider to be vandalism. Astrotrain 21:26, 5 December 2006

That's an incorrect and rather disingenuous summary of the situation, and I refer you to the talk page. Frankly, I'm not that fussed whether or not the Gaelic is there, but I'm not prepared to see the triumph of legal fictions over reality, nor to allow you to grind your anti-Gaelic axe against the will of the wiki community just because they have less will and persistence than yourself. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His version says "The Royal Bank of Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba[1]) is an Edinburgh-based company founded in 1727. The organisation has grown into the banking and insurance holding company known as The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS Group)." This is not true as the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC still exists as a fully owned subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. It is factually incorrect to state this. My version restored the truth, and Calgus is only reverting so he can keep his Gaelic in the first line, rather than the second para which was suggested by someone else. Astrotrain 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I would put the RBSG first, as this is the company quoted on the LSE, the lead in the infobox and logo, and the ultimate holding company, so a slight amendment to:

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (LSE: RBS) is a banking and insurance holding company based in Edinburgh, Scotland. It can trace its origins to 1727 when the Royal Bank of Scotland Scottish Gaelic: Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba was founded by royal charter of King George I. Today the it is the largest banking and insurance group in Scotland, the second largest in the UK and Europe, and the fifth largest in the world by market capitalisation. Its shares have a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC is the group's Scottish clearing bank and the second oldest bank in Scotland after the Bank of Scotland. The registered head office of the group and the clearing bank is located at St Andrew Square. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth II opened the bank's new head office building in Gogarburn, Edinburgh.

This seems more logical, as the Group traces its origins back to the Bank, and flows slightly better. What do you think? Astrotrain 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria

Hey Angus,

ODNB has (giving the name and description):

It doesn't have an article on Eadulf, but it calls him "Eadulf"
Ealdred, leader of the Northumbrians
Osulf [Oswulf], Earl of Bamburgh
Waltheof does not have an article, and is referred to as Waltheof, with no identifier, in Uthred's article. I assume "Earl of Bamburgh" would be an appropriate descriptor.
Uhtred, Earl of Bamburgh (the word "Bold" does not appear in the article)
not sure about the leaders between Uhtred and Siward
Siward, Earl of Northumbria.

Is that useful? john k 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. john k 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Angusmclellan. I have seen that you are doing good work on medieval matters, and I abslutely loved your comment on the Götaland theory. I am doing a major overhaul of Beowulf-related articles and begun with Hroðgar and Halga. I would like to have them peer reviewed. You may have opinions.--Berig 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confey / Ceann-fuait

Hi there. I created the page for Battle of Confey, and I found a couple refs saying that Confey and Ceann-fuait were the same place, which makes sense, as they are similar words. Do you think you could give the page a look and see what you think? Thanks --AW 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Hey Angus, if you have time, check out the history and etymology sections of Scotland. Yeah, it's funny, but they had it as "A-Class". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't need statements like "the word Scotia was used by the Romans as the name of one of the tribes in what is now Scotland as early as the 1st Century". BTW, just to let you know, the Woolf Fortriu article was published in the SHR a few weeks ago, though MUSE hasn't got it online yet. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandats territoriaux

Yeh i think it is a good idea to merge the two topics as they are quite similar.

Impertient Question

I've been reading up on some articles you've been working on (Dál Riata is beautiful), and then running across your comments on deletions and on AIV and AN. You have 15,000+ edits. I'm wondering if you wouldn't want to be an admin? Would you accept a nomination? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

It is a fact he has been blocked for incivility twice (although I understand the Tony's block was somewhat disputed). Nonetheless both of those cases are relativly recent - certainly more recent than many diffs he mentions in his RfC. Are you suggesting we should disregard all instances of disputed behaviour older then few months (weeks?)? This block is just one of many examples of a continuing trend - ArbCom comment and his RfC are much older, variou threads on ANI or mediations are both older and newer; trend is clear. PS. Yes, I agree this RfC is a good example of vexatious litigation (and no, I was not familiar with this term)... but based on my past RfC experiences even if the community condemns Ghirla it will have no effect - his own RfC certainly didn't.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget to mention that these blocks were incited by your habitual forum shoping for blocks of your opponents on WP:ANI and were subsequently decried by the community as abuse. Do you understand that your tactics have been exposed? Do you intent to apologize for such undercarpet maneuvres or will you continue them in the future? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia

Many thanks for your continued input on the Scotland page. I am on a steep learning curve here but I think we are making progress. I have no intention of making any further comment on the anonymous gripe (I wonder who?) but if you can see an signficant departures from the apporpriate style in the Geography section I'd be more than happy to attend to them. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I'd like to thank you for your comments regarding me, and for your support. I'm going to be on a two day wikibreak. As to our earlier conversation, while I can certainly understand your reluctance to get bothered with administrative crud, the current direction and state of affairs in some areas is becoming alarming. I will , as usual, continue to read your articles with interest. :) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Áedán mac Gabráin

Great article!!! I would gladly support it as an FAC. Enjoy Scotland! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Extracts

I have created a draft of ‘Key Extracts from the Talk: Scotland Archives’ here. My intention is to create something that could be used as a handy guide for new contributors to the Scotland article, which after appropriate discussion would be moved to a new page and referenced on the Talk:Scotland page in due course. I’d value your comments. Please feel free to direct other Scottish Wikipedians to it. Cc Users Mais Oui!, Calgacus, Globaltraveller, Angus MacLellan, Billreid, Canæn. A Merry Xmas to all. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vacations

Thanks for your comment, but I have to refuse. After it's been pointed out to me that casting absurd accusations here and there is absolutely acceptable in Wikipedia, I finally decided to follow the same rule that has been applied by the others for more than a year now. If others can, then why not me? If Ghirla, Renata, M.K., Irpen, Juraune and other nationalists are allowed to accuse me of a zillion of things over and over again, without posting a single piece of evidence, then why am I not allowed to do the very same thing? Who cares for evidence in Wikipedia, after all... Also, I don't think Durova, who started her first contact ever with me with a series of unfounded accusations and offences, would be the best person to judge my case - whatever it is. But, as I said, thanks for your attention. //Halibu tt 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally you were right to remove the names, but this only makes my point more obvious: various people have accused me of absurd things in the last 3 months or so, posting such hate letters in public, going as far as to blame me for their own failures, equating me with a Nazi, calling my parents commies and so on. All with names and in length. Yet, when after all this time I finally lost my temper as well, it is me who is moderated. Where were all the admins for the last year, when Ghirla continued his slander against me? Where were you when Renata accused me of hatred towards her nation and nazism even though it was a complete absurd? Where were you all back then? //Halibu tt 10:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for you to waste your time on me as I'm pretty much a lost case now. Perhaps it's because of Christmas, but I'm afraid what's been done to me cannot be undone. I've been waiting for some sort of an apology for ages, I've been waiting for the people who frequently offend me in Wikipedia to change their ways - to no avail. Now I lost all hope and I don't believe there's anything that could be done. Sorry, but after so much time I'd have trouble with assuming good faith on the side of a person who - so far - has never shown it. And that's the basic prerequisite of a successful mediation, isn't it. In short, I've seen it before: Ghirlandajo is threatened this way or another, so he steps back for a week or a month, but then his old ways return. And usually I'm among the first people to be targeted (along with Piotrus). Anyway, all the best in the new year and merry Christmas. //Halibu tt 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Motes and beams

Well, Dr. Dan, obviously...?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus, I can see nothing wrong with my post from 23 November - is it bad to point out who has done most of the work? It is Dr. Dan and M.K who have turned this exchange into a contest of sarcasm; I find persecution of Halibutt, a 168-most active editor of this project, by two users whose input into this project has been rather smaller - but who succeeded in forcing him into extended wikiholidays - a very negative outcome.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd think that if a user have written a good part of the article, which has just been recognized as a GA, and a relevant thread already created by the GA reviewer, the editors involved deserve some 'back-slapping' - after all, we don't get payed, so a few compliments from others are all we can count for, and the article's talk page is a good place to see how others appreciate one's work. Thus I am not suprized that after Halibutt has spend days expanding the article to a GA status, and then he gets a load of sarcasm and PAs instead of thanks, he takes wikiholidays... the question is, is this what we want? Because looking at Talk:Jogaila I am under the impression that unfortunatly, some are quite happy with what they achieved. PS. Building on what I and Halibutt said: if you have time to do a little mediation and such, perhaps you could also try talking to the other editors involved and ask them to stop harassing Halibutt and lessen the load of sarcasm in their posts - this would go a long way towards helping everyone. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/Angusmclellan/Archive 6, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi! You recently reverted my change on Roeland Raes. The link to the change is [[3]] here. I removed the "Anti-semetic persons" category from this article, because the article states: "Critics accuse Raes of Holocaust revisionism and being an antisemite." It seems to me that placing him under the category of anti-semitic people is a bit hasty and unduly prejudicial, given that only his critics call him that. Perhaps if it was proven or self-described, it would be acceptable, but I don't think labeling of this sort is proper just based on an accusation.

Anyway, please adhere to WP:REVERT, which states: "

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly."

So perhaps you'll discuss this with me on the talk page of the article? .V. 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a print citation describing Raes as an antisemite, and a court case where he's charged with negationism (and not historical revisionism as the article claims). Intangible (talk • contribs) felt that denier was unreasonable. If you'd prefer to classify him as a holocaust denier, I have no objection to the change; indeed I'd prefer that. You said that "[i]f he's only accused of being an anti-semite by critics, he can't really have the cat of "anti-semite" because it's not proven". This is mistaken. If the criticisms are attributable to reliable sources, then we can, and probably should, have him so categorised. If alphabet soup appeals, try WP:BRD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, as long as the category of anti-Semite has been removed. I'd rather not smear someone because their critics claim it to be true, even if it's in a print source. Holocaust negationism isn't necessarily antisemitism. .V. 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, and I believe most readers would feel the same way, which is why I don't mind classifying Jew-haters as Holocaust deniers. The category has been changed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing it. Although many people would undoubtedly think "Holocaust denier? He must be antisemitic!", given the charged nature of the term "antisemite", it's good not to use it unless there's verified fact (for example, him expressing it explicitly.) Thanks for removing the category. .V. 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: On disappointment

"Yes, he could be more agreeable, more civil, less suspicious, et cetera, et cetera...". - Trouble is, when one knows that Halibutt made several users (e.g. Renata3) go on wikibreak because of his stubborn pushing, it is no longer a random event, but a system. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the precedence

RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard_(2nd_mfd)#Third_seperation

User:Angusmclellan thank you so much for the precedence: ANI Userproject:Conservatives.

I knew it was out there, but I didn't know where. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AfD closures

Angus, you may not have known it, but only admins are supposed to close deletion discussions that aren't obvious keeps. It may seem helpful to judge consensus and close them, but an admin still has to go through and check the consensus, then actually delete the article in question. Full guidelines are at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. You're welcome to close clear keeps under those guidelines, and that would be very helpful. Thanks.--Kchase T 06:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:PAIN

Hello. I share different position. M.K. 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Anna Traquair

Your comment: I know you added some original material there, but the core of the article looks to have been cribbed. Would you have a minute to paraphrase it? Thanks a million! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply: I did add some info, but not the 'cribbed section'. This info is from http://www.mansfieldtraquair.org.uk and I suspect this was added by the Mansfield Traqair Trust who own this website! I'm reluctant to reedit their entry and material as they are the experts .... carena 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]