User talk:Brendandh/Archive 2

RE:Coldingham

If you mean do I think there should be articles on Coldingham and Coldingham Priory seperately, then yeah I do. The first is a village, the second is a religious house ... a whole range of things should keept them separate - besides the fact that Coldingham is a functional modern village ... there are things like categories, lead template (can't have a settlement AND monastery template). I think that maybe, though, Coldingham monastery could be a separate article, but that could be discussed; the Cowan and Easson Medieval Religious Houses of Scotland book - the standard scholarly reference book on the topic - treats them both separately. It is a bit of an anomaly that the Coldingham Priory article is atm devoted almost entirely to pre-priory days. BTW, to add to it all, I recently created the article Prior of Coldingham. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Scoto-Saxon monastery is not the same as the Anglo-French priory, which was no more the same as the former than Melrose Abbey was to the monastery of Old Melrose. And one would never make the Priory of St Andrews cover the Scottish abbey which lasted into the 13th century. Plus, there is a very important technical difference of status - at least as far as these High Medieval Anglo-Normans were concerned - between an "Abbey" and a "priory". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha!

Thanks for the boose star! I've stored it in the cellar with the "flood-damaged" vintage port. qp10qp 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Giffards

Some time back you asked me about helping with the de Giffard family. Tonight by chance I came across an article entitled The Origin of the Gifford family in Scotland in a December 1980 academic publication. I also have other strands on this family in other books. Let me know if you still want me to do something. David Lauder 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now commenced work on this family as you suggested. See Hugo de Gifford. Regards, David Lauder 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Douglas family

Noticed that you’re an expert on the Douglas family and wondered if you have anything on Sir William Douglas, Lord Douglas. My interest stems from Bricius de Douglas who was Bishop of Moray at the turn of the 13th century. He along with some brothers all occupied high positions at Elgin Cathedral. My query is this: the Registry of Moray says he was a brother of William Douglas, Lord of Douglas, (Reg. Moray, p. 43) but I think this was a mistake and instead of being a brother, he could have been his son. Have you anything either way? Thanks, --Bill Reid | Talk 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very informative reply. Archibald must have been up in Elgin for a family meeting because he is recorded in a charter with Lord Bishop Brice, Hugh his brother, Archibald de Douglas and Freskyn the dean, all as witnesses – Testibus Domino Bricio Moraviensi episcope, Hugone fratre meo, Freskyno decano Moraviensis ecclesie …

Could you check if Maxwell gives a citation for the second generation of William Hugh and Andrew de Moravia. I can connect William and Hugh with Gilbert and Richard as an extended group of brothers but can’t fit Andrew in.

I can help you with the Bothwell Morays. Walter de Moravia de Petty, son of Hugone II de Moravia, married Olifard, the heiress of Bothwell c 1250 – 58. Their second son, Andrew de Moravia had a son, the famous Andrew Moray who fell at Stirling Bridge.

I may have something on the possible Douglas/Moray tie-up but I need to be more certain. Once again thanks for your help and if I find anything in the Elgin records which I’ll be delving into again next week, I will let you know. --Bill Reid | Talk 14:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Prig

Hi, you asked what was considered OR in this article. Pretty much the entire beginning of the article, which is unsourced. Unless you have reliable sources on the following, it is pretty much just your own opinion: "Priggish-ness can be viewed as a symptom of Institutionalisation, whether that be in Politics, The Armed Forces or Public School.A Prig is generally a passive-aggressive, instigating fights rather than partaking of them. The Prig is a survivor and will unconsciously attach him/herself to any group that would seem to further his/her prospects.The Prig undertakes all projects with a definite sense of Smugness". --Xyzzyplugh 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might want to read WP:A or WP:V, if you haven't recently. Making conclusions based on examples is considered original research. To be able to state that a prig is passive-aggressive, for example, you're supposed to actually find a reliable source which says that. --Xyzzyplugh 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunbar Castle

Hello Brendan. Hope you're keeping well. Nice start to the article, but I'm afraid I can't add much to it. I don't think I've ever been to Dunbar Castle, which is odd when I grew up just up the river (somewhere that used to belong to your ancestors as it happens). Your work on the Good Sir James caught my eye yesterday, and very fine work it is too! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ada and Haddington

I think you'll have to give a good source for Haddington being a thanage. I cannot find that anywhere. In 1176 in the Taxation Rolls of the Deanery of Lothian it is rated next to Dunbar, which also included Whittingeham. "Hading" in Saxon signifies "ordinatio consecratio" or the giving of Holy Orders, while "tun" signifies indifferently either a dwelling-place or hamlet, a village or a town. Also, females come with a dowry, they're not given one. In Scotland it was usual to have a pre or post-nuptial marriage contract or settlement drawn up which provided the bride-to-be/wife with guaranteed occupation for life, rents and teinds for life, etc., rather than property in their own right. Regards, David Lauder 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here I can help! Haddington is listed as a thanage in Alexander Grant, "Thanes and Thanages from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries" (in Alexander Grant & Keith J. Stringer (eds), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community. Essays presented to G.W.S. Barrow. EUP, 1993. ISBN 0-7486-1110-X). It's named as a thanage in charters of David I (apparently ESC 122 and 134) (Grant, p. 81). Definitely a thanage. Barrow (The Kingdom of the Scots, "Pre-Feudal Scotland: Shires and Thanes", p. 29) concurs: Haddington was a thanage and the original shire of Haddington was a small one, not the later Haddingtonshire/East Lothian, but something comparable to Bonkleshire, Islandshire, the Shire of Yetholm, et al. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well I'll examine that carefully as I have that publication. From my own research I would be inclined to think that in fact Haddingtonshire was bigger than it is now and probably included much of what is now Midlothian, the whole being termed by the English simply as "Lothian". Regards, David Lauder 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Eadmund Margotsson?

Do you get Eadmund Margotsson from an actual source, or is this a form you've devised with your knowledge of 11th century English? Just curious. If so, did you pick a matronymic because his mother was English, or because there's no one established English form for Mael Coluim in this period? Only reason I ask is because it's usual to use patronymics. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Douglases

I see you've had someone querying illegtimacy. I have Sir Herbert Maxwell's two-volume set of the House of Douglas (1902) if you need any assistance. David Lauder 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Honorifics

The issue isn't whether he's the best known of those people named "Sir James Douglas," the issue is the use of an honorific ("Sir") in an article title, which violates WP naming conventions per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names, which I'd invite you to review. If the current name is problematic because of ambiguity (and, in any event, "Sir James Douglas" is also ambiguous), perhaps it could be changed to James Douglas (soldier) or something else equally distinctive. fishhead64 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Brendandh/Archive 2, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Castles

As a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles, I'd just like to draw your attention to a proposal, I have put forward on the talk page regarding infoboxes. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks, Edward Waverley 12:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Coldingham Priory

I've loaded an image. Regards, David Lauder 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Garde Écossaise

Interesting article you've kicked off. Was wondering, did France use other foreign militias in their army. The Scots Guards were disbanded in 1830 and a year later the French Foreign Legion was formed — any connection? Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 11:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for your adroit edits. This may seem picky, but it is considered polite, some wikipedians say essential, to include edit summaries when editing Wikipedia articles. This is true whether adding content, correcting a typo, or suggesting a merger. As the Help page says: "An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about." See Help:Edit summary. Thanks again for your useful edits. --Bejnar 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Malachy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Malachy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Coldingham Priory

Yesterday I spent 1 hour 40 minutes compiling a list of Priors, with additional comments, from an old record I have here. When I then tried to post it there was an edit conflict because you were deleting the Priors heading, and all my work was lost. Do you think there should be an entirely separate page for the Priors of Coldingham (which I was previously unaware of)? I wonder if you might consider its incorporation into the Coldingham Priory page. Regards, David Lauder 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out this page; been there for months. :)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I was unaware of it. Regards, David Lauder 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:Clan Douglas

Brendan, I hope you will follow my philosophy which, roughly speaking states that "if material is trash, delete it; it's better to say nothing than to mislead". This is too little followed on wikipedia.Wikipedia's openness means that there are more badly informed editors adding text than well-informed editors able to rewrite or correct text. In short, you should delete or "blank" crappy material on the Clan Douglas page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, would it were possible, to ban clan pages entirely on wikipedia, since they are crap magnets and every heritage conscious American with internet access feels they have enough to write authoritatively on the topic (and a good number of them actually consist largely of content pasted from websites). The article of a family I'm interest in, Clan Kennedy, consists mostly of simple historical fiction. Need I mention Clan Campbell, where the large amount of academic material should prevent the fictions contained therein, but don't? I've usually just left clan pages to themselves as an unfortunate, but unavoidable evil. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You could rewrite the article and put it in House of Douglas, then perform a "merge", which is practice turns Clan Douglas into a redirect; but that might be taken badly if Clan Douglas is on the watchlist of one or more tenacious users. I understand the term "Clan Douglas" might be a bit irksome for a family whose elite have traditionally been very proud of being Lowland Scots; certain border branches of the Douglases may have been referred to as clans in the early modern period, but no senior member would ever have styled himself a "clan chief". The word "clan" is Scots as well as Gaelic, though the Scots word order would be "Douglas clan", rather than Clan Douglas, and historically speaking, is informal. The ODNB uses "Douglas family", though that might be regarded as too broad. Perhaps you could put a move up for vote, or perhaps Clan Douglas might be tolerable if it is made clear that the term is a modernisation. An article History of the House of Douglas or History of the Douglases might work, but any such plan would leave the Clan Douglas article in tact with the same scope it currently has, which is precisely what you're trying to fix. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disappoint you on both couts. It's not online as yet. I'm hoping one of those fine Canadian scanners gets around to putting it up soon. I'm sure it will be up by the end of the year. Just google <Fordun archive.org> every few weeks. On Grayne, I'm not familiar with this term. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined towards individuals in families who are of note having their own pages and where there is a castle which was, say, a family seat, that some sort of potted history could be inserted on the castle (or tower house) page giving the history of the castle meaning. I am not so certain about Clan pages. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site - God knows there are masses of them. Also, I tend to agree with the comment above about those who see their family history/Scotland's history through rose-tinted glasses and start writing up fairy tales about them/it on WP without really good sources to support it. Regards, David Lauder 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

Marquess of March

Just a note of correction to my previous comment. I see that when the Earl of Lauderdale was created a Duke he (only) chose as a subsidiary courtesey title Marquess of March in recognition of the Maitland - Dunbar union centuries earlier. Regards, David Lauder 08:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith Marischal

Hi, that's pretty amazing- did you (or your family?) own the whole thing or did you just live in part of it? Do you have any pictures of it at different stages of construction i.e. before the baronial style elements were added, and the original construction of the 5th Earl (who I just made a page on George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done to your step-grandfather for saving it! Houses like that that were treated with unbelievable disregard back then- I suppose it was as you say for tax reasons but it is still pretty shocking (in fact User:Giano II has started a draft article on houses that weren't so lucky). Thanks for clearing up which are the Scottish baronial elements- what slightly confuses me though is that Scottish baronial style is supposedly echoing the style of earlier Scottish building- I assume that style was not the earlier style of Keith Marischal so it is not in effect reflecting its own style? The stone interests me as it reminds me a lot of Cotswold stone- do you know if it has a particular name? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add info to George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal if you like- I think it'll need to reference some published sources though otherwise it'll probably get labelled "original research". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)