User talk:Oghmatist

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Oghmatist. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Oghmatist/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

March 2010

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:John Calvin, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Chzz ► 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin

I note that you started a 'Featured article review' on , but the review had not been listed; I added it, in Wikipedia:Featured article review#John Calvin.

Please note step 5 of the instructions in Wikipedia:Featured article review#Nominating an article for FAR - please notify relevant parties (if you haven't already).

In light of the ongoing review, and because the requests are not simple 'change x to y', I will remove the 'semi-protected edit request' templates for now; it would appear to be a content issue up for discussion, and can be done as part of the review. Thanks, Chzz ► 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your reply on my talk page - I moved it back here, to keep this in one place Chzz ► 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made several comments regarding the sections on John Calvin and the issues concerning democracy and the American form of government. I am not a registered user, and the page is still protected. I have laid out a detailed case for my reasoning. I would appreciate your thoughts. I don't think the article is balanced when it simply states that John Calvin had a "particular" impact upon the American form of government. There are historians who disagree (which I cite) that I believe are more influential and significant than a modern day Tennessee preacher who may or may not have a political agenda. I think the problem is that people are confusing Calvinist work ethic among the later generations of his followers with John Calvin the man. I don't think its intellectually honest to say John Calvin particularly impacted the American form of government. John Knox had as great, if not greater, impact upon it. The sources indicate that Calvinists went on in a direction that were not necessarily indicative of John Calvin's own teachings. Please look at the Discussion PAge for John Calvin again for much more detail. Thank you Oghmatist (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about the subject. As a content matter, please either boldly edit the article, or comment on the talk page. You are a registered user, and by now, you will be autoconfirmed, thus able to edit semi-protected articles. Sorry that I can't help more directly; best, Chzz ► 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin

The issues you've addressed are not issues that request a featured-article removal. Most of what you're citing is from the intro, which is supposed to summarize major points that are elaborated on later in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Michaelmas, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Onewhohelps (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of UIster

Got your message, but you seem to have realised and reverted yourself. As I'm sure you've now figured out, the Ulster Cycle and the Annals of Ulster are totally different things - the former being a body of legendary stories set in prehistory, the latter being a chronicle of early medieval Ireland. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Focal Project page is a better link, but spaces in the url were breaking the link in some broswers and sending you to the wrong page. I think I've fixed it now. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Wiktionary Talk Page is Different

I have a Wiktionary Talk Page as well, as I just realized that my contributions there are not being identified here or vice versa. My primary goal is to make sure that politically-motivated individuals or entities are not undermining the Gaelic language or history by reinventing back-stories or histories (or white-washing them) to redefine words and concepts or reimagine Gaelic history. That is my perspective, for those who need to know. Slainte.

Oghmatist (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goidel Etymology

For those interested, this is the place to leave me messages about the ongoing debate I am having with respect to the etymology of the word Goidel. Some theorize that the word "Gaidheal" which is derived from "Goidel" was originally a Welsh word which meant "Irishman." I have not deleted that etymology, but instead provided the earlier and older understood etymology that the word "Goidel" was derived from Goidel Glas, the eponymous ancestor of the Gaelic people. This etymological explanation has now been deleted twice. It is a 900-year old concept that has every right of place in Wiktionary. The impetus on the part of others appears to be a desire to remove this concept and replace it with a belief that the Gaelic people called themselves Gaelic because they were borrowing the name from Welsh. While that is interest, particularly for a "Your culture is derived from Brythonic" school of thought, it has not been proved, and has little merit. It would be no different than claiming that the Slavic people called themselves that because the Saxon people took them as Slaves and then the Slavic people derived their self-identification from the word, "Slave." As such, it is important that the other Etymology - the one involving the Lebor Gabála Érenn and Goidel Glas - continue to be referenced as a valid etymological explanation for the word Goidel. I am not advocating that one theory is more correct than the other. I am advocating that both theories exist, and that the older and earlier theory existed for 900 years before being challenged. And for that reason alone it should be allowed to be listed as an etymological explanation for the word, Goidel. An entire culture self-identified on the basis of that explanation for almost 1000 years, if not longer. That should suffice as a basis for etymological explanation. Oghmatist (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Scottish Gaelic, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]