User talk:Chrismccown

Chrismccown, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chrismccown! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clan MacCowan has been accepted

Clan MacCowan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Brad v🍁 03:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clann Iain Mhóir

The MacLellan Clann Iain Mhóir is not the same as the MacDonald Clann Iain Mhóir. The former descends from a seventeenth-century MacLellan, the latter from a fifteenth-century MacDonald. A son of the MacLellan in question is attested as "Angus Mc ean voir in Bellamore" in the 1700s. Another son may a "Donald Mclelane" whose attested on Uist in the 1690s and possibly later in the 1700s. This is all laid out in "Notes on North Uist Families". In short, they're two different families.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Uist MacLellans are a different paternal lineage than MacDonalds, but on Y-DNA the Uist MacLellans age much much older than the 1700s. Clan Iain Moir( of the MacDonalds ) claims MacLellans of Uist as a sept( as well as many their Y-DNA surname matches ) They may be a different paternal lineage than MacDonalds, but they appear to be a sept of Clan Iain Mhoir aka Clan MacDonald of Dunnyveg.

Only those from West Highlands and Islands. Clan Donald MacLellans derive from: Gaelic Mac Gille Fhaolain – "son of the servant of St. Fillan". Very numerous in North Morar – Clan MacDonell of Glengarry, to South Morar, Moidart and South Uist – Clan Macdonald of Clanranald. Also found on Islay and Kintyre – Clan MacDonald of Dunnyveg (Clan Donald SOUTH), and North Uist – Clan Macdonald of Sleat (Clan Donald NORTH). Not to be confused with the Clan MacLellan of Kirkcudbright and Galloway. Chrismccown

please email me at ChristopherMcCown at Yahoo dot com and we can share information easier.Chrismccown (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, there is no connection between the Uist MacLellans and the Dunnyveg MacDonalds. The Uist MacLellans were tenants of MacDonald of Clanranald and MacDonald of Sleat. You've simply misinterpreted Clann Iain Mhóir from the Wikipedia article, and have imagined it as a reference to the Dunnyveg MacDonalds. It's not.

As for DNA, in theory one would suspect that most of the Uist MacLellans should be patrilineally related, but even if they are it doesn't mean they are all Clann Iain Mhóir. Literally, it's only John Mor MacLellan's descendants who were known by that name. According to Matheson, there was a tradition that John Mor's grandfather, also named John, was the first of the MacLellans to go to North Uist. So, even isolating MacLellans who trace themselves back to North Uist might not necessarily identify them as Clann Iain Mhóir. To be clear, Clann Iain Mhóir is merely a branch of the Uist MacLellans, and it should be expected that the common ancestor of the Uist MacLellans goes back further than John Mor.

The Uist MacLellans and Uist MacAulays are traditionally said to have arrived on South Uist at the same time. According to Matheson, one tradition of the MacAulays was that the MacAulays came from Na h-Eileanan Tarsainn, which could refer to any of these islands (Matheson thought Coll the most likely). See here for another traditional account of the families (where the informant maintains that the first of the families came to South Uist together in 1500–1525, from Coll or Tiree, and were first cousins): [1].

The traditional Gaelic surname of the Uist MacLellans is variously rendered Mac Gille Fhialain, Mac 'ill' Fhialain, and MacIllFhialain. It's not Mac Gille Fhaolain (or Mac 'Ill' Fhaolain, MacIllFhaolain). I haven't come across an explanation for this differentiation. But it's a fact. Sometimes the Uist MacLellans are known as: Clann MhicIllFhialain (as accorded to them here: [2], [3]), or Clann IllFhialain (as here: [4]), or Clann 'IllFhialain (as here: [5], [6]).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I would like to see you expand your contribution to this section to explain the full history of these MacLellans and cite of the sources you've been sharing with me regarding the MacLellans of Uist. I think the lack of historical context leads to confusion. I'd also like to see you to modify and provide clarity regarding the MacLellans inclusion in List_of_Septs_of_Clan_Donald which I quoted above. Y-DNA is telling us that Uist/Herbride MacLellan surname is probably as old as surnames get. If you email me( address above ), I'd also like to get you involved in the MacLellan DNA Project as we don't have an expert on the Uist clan.

I still disagree with how you're alluding that Fhialain and Fhaolain are fundamentally different. Fillan name has rarely been spelt the same way twice in various archives. Mac/Mc - Gille/Goila/Il/Ol/El - Fhaolain/Felan/Felyn/Fillan/(Fhialain) etc and has become McGillolane/McClellan/McCleland/MacLellan etc. I'd prefer it if you phased this in a way that didn't suggest there were only two ways that it has been spelled. I have only once seen a Gille followed by a non-saint name( Gille Iosa ) where Iosa means Jesus. Are you suggesting there is a Saint Fhialain that is different from Saint Fhaolain? Even you claim use of the Gaelic form Na Faolanaich, which at it's root is Fhaol. Perhaps if your text was phrased "Historically, Uist MacLellans spelled their name as Mac Gille Fhialain" and make no comment on other MacLellans somehow being different in only using the form of Fhaolain which is somehow different from Fhialain in anything other than who was transcribing it at the time.Chrismccown (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing, wikilinks, See also's and new articles

Hi Chris, You need to be careful with sourcing these changes and additions. Please familiarize yourself with WP:IRS, and source your work. Personal genealogy and DNA sites, commercial heraldry / coats of arms sites, and unsourced clan or family heritage groups pages are not considered Reliable, usable sources for Wikipedia. I'm also concerned that you are removing Gaelic and substituting anglicized versions of names, and creating unnecessary duplications of names, links and pages. I haven't gone over all your contribs yet, but be aware of not creating unnecessary piped links and redirects when adding things like "See also"s and wikilinks. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? I doubt I have replaced any Gaelic names with anglicized names, if anything I've done the opposite, explaining the Gaelic roots of anglicized names. I have generally only used reliable sources. The name Eoghan has lead to the etymology of many people, places, clans and kingdom names which is why you see so many changes that seem connected, even though they aren't( except their etymology ).Chrismccown (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I am very concerned with the bad sources and misleading sources you have been adding. You have been adding links to English-language dictionaries, claiming they source Gaelic and Irish words. They do not. Then you are saying in your edit summaries that these "sources" now source what is in a number of places your opinion.[7]. If the source does not source the actual content, it is not a "source." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide an example as my changes are not disruptive and have reliable sources.Chrismccown (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples above. The English dictionaries and wicktionary, plus unsourced personal webpages and included diff. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are few cases where your sourcing hasn't been misleading, and has actually sourced the changes. For instance, the M'Alpin dictionary, was just a bare url of a pdf, with no page number. That was one of the few that was OK, and it still needed to be cleaned up. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Clan MacEwen, you may be blocked from editing. You need to back off on this group of articles now. You have declared a Conflict of Interest and now you are edit-warring to preserve content that uses a spelling of the name not even found in Gaelic (Ewyn). Your article on McCown includes content lifted from Ewen and MacEwen sources, and this entire cluster of articles are interconnected, so the COI is for all of them. Your the one who declared and started further linking and copying and pasting the same content into all of them, and using the terrible sourcing. Do not make it worse by undoing the cleanup edits. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one being disruptive. I'll be cleaning up my sources and resubmitting.Chrismccown (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hitting "undo" to re-insert unsourced content is not "cleaning up [your] sources". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. McSly (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Eógan, you may be blocked from editing. Wiktionary is not a WP:RS source. Stop edit-warring. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ewan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You redirected the name to an Irish page, not a Gaelic one. Different languages. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making disruptive edits. You are trolling me and my edits. My edits are constructive and informative.Chrismccown (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're spamming with DNA sites and genealogy pages. These aren't suitable External links. You need to learn basic WP policy and basic Gaelic linguistics and history. I'm honestly not trying to be mean here. But you are making big mistakes, and then fighting people to try to keep them in the articles. You need to back off and learn how to work in collaboration or you're going to have your editing privileges taken away. Calling admins "trolls" for cleaning up the messes you're making isn't helping matters. I don't bear you any ill will, seriously. But I have a job here, and that's to protect the 'pedia from disruption. If you keep disrupting, you'll keep getting reverted. If you continue after tha.tn and insult the team here, and remove maintenance templates, and lash out, you'll simply get blocked. I'm sorry, but that's just how it works. Editing is not a right. It's a privilege one earns by following the rules and working well with others. How about you take a step back and think carefully before continuing down this path? Slàn, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The DNA projects are relevant "External Links" to surname content wikis. One of them was approved by wiki admins when one of the pages was originally authored. I am not SPAMing. You are trolling. Please stop. I'm nore than happy to have someone review your reverts and your trolling of all my valid edits. I know a great deal about this subject and Gaelic linguistics.

Your recent editing history at Clan Ewing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Wikaviani He was reverting my work. I was not reverting his. I am restoring. Chrismccown (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the post you're responding to that you didn't read: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Undoing someone else's edits, whether it's removing something or adding something back, is reverting. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:9123:65D7:3AFF:88CF (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

by your definition , my work is being reverted, not the other way around. If your "work" is to revert, then yes, I'm reverting your work. My contributions are being arbitrarily reverted over and over again across all of my contributions on wikipedia. This is disruptive targeted trollling, not collaboration.Chrismccown (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chrismccown reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). Thank you. RolandR (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for You've continued to revert even after being notified that you were reported and engaging on WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrismccown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review the actual edits, I have been targeted across all my contributions on Wikipedia by this cluster of friends and or duplicate accounts. They should also be blocked if I am blocked as they have collectively done more reverts. Their goal was to get me blocked by teaming up. Please check their IP addresses for duplicate users. Chrismccown (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please talk about your edits, not those of other users. WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule - even if you were being targeted, that doesn't give you permission to break that rule. You need to understand that before you're going to make any progress here. As far as the sockpuppetry claims - if you suspect sockpuppetry, make a report at WP:SPI. Once you've made the report, and included the best evidence you can, you need to move on.

At the root of this dispute, I think, is an issue of sourcing. You need to rely on reliable sources for content added to Wikipedia. Please take a close look at that policy page. If you aren't sure whether something is a reliable source or not, there's a noticeboard where you can seek the input of other editors: WP:RSN.

Once your block expires, please read these pages, and rely on them to guide your editing.

If you want to be unblocked sooner, you need to (a) make it clear that you understand what went wrong, and (b) you make guarantees that you won't repeat the actions that got you into trouble. I recommend that you steer clear of these topics for a while and get more experience editing in other areas of Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Guettarda I understand but CorbieVreccan just made his 3rd revert( not including any potential sockpuppetry ) on the same source in 24 hours and likely warrents a block in fair play policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clan_Ewing&action=history and considering he warned me, he knows the rules. Chrismccown (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 is the limit (unless special circumstances apply). It's the fourth one that gets you in trouble. I think you could be a very good and valuable Wikipedia editor, but you have to realize that sometimes, people disagree. And if there's a consensus against you, you have to move on or try things a different way. I sincerely hope you can take something positive away from all this. That being said, have a great day! Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back from block and reverting again

So, you're right back at it. If you didn't see it on the other page: List of Scottish clans: Difference between revisions.

First from brand new account Silverfoxygen: . "Undid revision 876845512 - Clan MacCowan has separate and distinct origins from Ewen of Otter", which then you reverted to with Undid revision 877124048 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Otter Ewens have accidentally adopted the crest of Galloway Eoghans. But they are not the same clan. complete with more misrepresented sourcing. But all the info pasted in is exactly the information FOR Clan Ewen. That is the point. This Clan MacCowan is not the same clan, so why are you copying in the info from another clan, and now edit-warring once again to preserve it? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one constantly reverting valid content. If you didn't dismantle everything I've done on wikipedia you'd have less to complain about.

January 2019 (2)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrismccown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Chrismccown (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've been blocked for, as the message says, for edit warring, i.e continuing to restore your preferred version instead of discussing on the talk page. A review of the policy would be beneficial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter I didn't violate any edit warring rules. How am I being blocked for waring but CorbieVreccan is not? He is sytematicaly removing valid content with no discussion on talk. He has reverted far more work than I have. I am trying to restore what he is disrupting.

This is spectacularly unconvincing. What is your relationship with Silverfoxygen (talk · contribs)? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Silverfoxygen? I have made no contributions to Clan Ewing for the initial block( even though it was CorbieVreccan that should have been blocked but he is a master of abusing the Wikipedia system and rules to his advantage.Chrismccown (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the evidence provided above and at AN/I that denial is not convincing. And again, blaming others for your block doesn't work. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrismccown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only have one account, what on earth are you talking about? Chrismccown (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.