User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 13

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

January 2008

I'm not sure it was a good idea coming back at all. I've had almost no opportunity to do anything fun. There's a couple, perhaps as many as 4, bishop articles I could prolly get to FA if I got the time. I don't really enjoy those any more though. It's kinda a project I feel I need to complete though. Hopefully, those two disruptive love bunnies won't stick around long. They've opened their war against sense on Style of the monarchs of Scotland. What can one do? They won't say anything on talk, and even if they did it would most likely be nonsense; as so much of the admin philosophy is so tragically well intentioned but mal-adapted, one really has no choice but to let articles decline or else get punished. It's very frustrating. Happy New Year though! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given the work you are currently doing, on and off I've been adding to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/List of Kings and Lords of the Isles. Feel free to make use of that as generously or ungenerously as you like. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I should try to acquire that at some stage. Yes, those articles for sure need a clean-up. Few things on wiki induce a cringe like Olaf II of the Isle of Man. If you have the inclination, another delve into my personal space will take you to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/King moves. I drew it up as a starter to try address some of the concerns about names and numbering you and I have expressed at various stages. If you feel this is a priority for you atm, you could alter or refine it. If not, I don't suppose there's any rush. One way or the other, these names are doomed to be bad, but we have to offer something acceptable. Didn't add Pictish monarchs yet. Feel free to add them if you like. It would be best to get this all sorted once and for all at some stage, whenever that is. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, did you ever get hold of Clancy's "Iona in the kingdom of the Picts: a note"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel. I've supposed to have done Nicholas de Balmyle. Anyways, it's short, I'll try and scan it if I can find it. Essentially, it's about a Frankish source calling Iona Insula Pictorum in the early 9th cent. (I think). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember ages ago me promising to send you it, and I forgot. Anyways, maybe I'm dumb, but I can't find the article for the Olaf/Amlaib guy mentioned in the Kingdom of the Rhinns - the guy who's the grandfather of Gruffudd ap Cynan? Is it buried under some silly name somewhere? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just wanted to ask you if you'd seen Woolf's suggestion that Mael Coluim mac Donnchada was installed as king of Alba by Magnus Haraldsson, "The Cult of Moluag, The see of Mortlach and Church Organisation in Northern Scotland in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries", at p. 314. It kinda makes clear/makes more explicit/elaborates on what he said in Pictland to Alba. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the book it's kinda hinted at, but is argued more directly in the article. Was just wondering. Btw, Benjamin Hudson's got an article now ... so he's linkable. :D Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! I hear you. There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article DamageControl, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to explain what my position is on these kings - I know I have said it previously, but it won't do any harm to repeat it, if it helps to make it clear that there is nothing personal about it (and certainly nothing anti-Scottish or anti-Gaelic). I foresee a time (perhaps as soon as 5 years from now) when the Gaelic names may well have become familiar enough to English-speaking audiences to make article moves sensible. I don't believe that time has come yet; when it does, I will vote in favour of a move, but not before. Recently someone created an article for Kenneth MacAlpin on the Welsh Wikipedia (where I am unfortunate enough to be the only active bureaucrat). After brief discussion (as there are only about ten regular contributors) we agreed that it was not right to use the anglicised version of the name, and we settled on the Gaelic, as there is no Welsh equivalent of "Kenneth". We were able to do this because it's Welsh wikipedia. We also now use the format "Siarl I, brenin Lloegr", rather than "Siarl I o Loegr", because the connotations of using "o" for "of" are subtly different in Welsh. Different reasoning has to be applied in different situations, and that's what it's about as far as I'm concerned. When I first created the article for Hywel Dda, I actually entitled it "Howell the Good", and it was an English person who moved it. That seemed fair enough to me; the spelling "Howell" is archaic and almost obsolete now, and people are becoming more familiar with Welsh names. But I couldn't have quibbled if the article had stayed where it was. That's where I stand, and I'm sure someone of your calibre can respect that position. Deb (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same comments I made to Michael could equally well have been made to you - but weren't because I considered you a more experienced user who wouldn't be so hasty in reverting other people's changes without discussion. Deb (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous dispute was something on which people could reasonably differ. This isn't. Columba didn't meet "Bridei I", he met Bridei (or Brude or Bruide) son of Maelc[h]on. Ecgfrith wasn't fighting "Bridei III", he was fighting Bridei (or Brude or Bruide) son of Beli (or Bili or Bile). Lest I should be being misled by modern works, I checked a 1963 history of Scotland. That had Brude, son of Bile, king of Picts; Brude, son of Maelchon, king of Picts; Nechtan, king of Picts. The current DNB agrees, no numbers, so do old Britannicas, and likewise almost every other reference I could find. It's not up to me to justify changes: I'm not changing things. Michael seems to have the Bold-Revert stuff down pat, unfortunately the Discuss part seems still to be a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending his actions, I'm trying to help him be as good a contributor as he undoubtedly has the ability to be. As to the naming conventions you prefer, we've been over that. I think you'll find most people are willing to be persuaded when the case is put clearly and dispassionately, without the accompaniment of denigrating comments about other people's knowledge and intelligence and the need to pick holes in every statement made by those who disagree; that's an approach that just puts people's backs up and makes them dig their heels in, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. And once again, I'm not specifically referring to you, I'm referring to a style of discussion that seems to be all too prevalent at the moment. Wikipedia isn't only about showing off individual expertise, it's about consensus and constructiveness and learning. But at the moment it seems like anyone who disagrees with a suggestion is immediately branded an idiot or "mediocre". It's hardly surprising if younger and less experienced contributors are having difficulty recognising what's acceptable behaviour. Deb (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd learn a lot from listing to Ghirla on this one, esp the part ::::Currently, even if you know you are right and have sources to back up your claim, you may still lose your dispute with a lunatic, just because your opponent is more energetic, has a number of meatpuppets, or simply has more time for editing Wikipedia.

And I'm not referring to the petty issue of spelling. The mood you got a taste of in that discussion had actually very little to do with that discussion. Sanders appears to be a tendentious and disruptive editor; now we have to put up with him and his like, but don't expect anyone to like or enjoy it or think tolerating it is the way forward for wikipedia. If you encourage mediocrity, you'll get it. As for me and my "rudeness", I'm just old fashioned and believe one should tell people they're messing up when they are; that's pretty standard everywhere in life except nursery schools; I don't see why wikipedia should be more like a nursery school than the rest of the world, esp. given the size of audience wikipedia has and the common criticisms made of it in the mainstream media. I'm going to stick to that philosophy as long as I'm at wikipedia, and frankly indignation from the Debs of this world is just something I've accepted I have to live with. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, I'm afraid Deacon & Michael appear to be heading towards destroying each other (they're ignoring my calls for a mediation). PS- Would you peek at Charles II of England, I've a discussion there, concerning Charlie's Scottish reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know nothing much useful about Charles II, but the discussion there seems to be going ok. It may be better if you can ask Deb and John Kenney for opinions as this is much more their cup of tea than mine. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angus, and a very happy one to you too. You are a busy fellow on here nowadays. I do not vouch for my accuracy any more!!! But I hope it's a good read, all the same. We will no doubt cross paths again soon. I get aches, but am not doing badly. Very best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I'm nearly done with a copyedit on Offa, and hope to take it to FAC in the not too distant future -- I'll probably wait till my current FAC is over with as I don't much like having two up there at once. If you have time to give it a quick look and tell me about any glaring mistakes, I'd appreciate it. I think I have it in decent shape, but he's the most significant king I've tackled so far, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some serious errors and omissions. If you don't have time, no problem. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ordinals are used in wikipedia, they are even used in the template, and they are far more usable than "x son of y". At the very least you could show some consideration to other readers by disambiguating the numerous Drests and Brideis with the patronymics. Michael Sanders 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole problem is that they weren't used in the articles - despite being used in the article titles. If an easy-to-use and unambiguous system of referencing exists, it is unreasonable to deprive the readers of its full benefits. It is also unreasonable to imagine that the Picts require any special measures in referencing, that an existing non-wikipedia-based ordinal system should not be used, when the same is true for so many other situations - just look at the Popes (in particular Pope-elect Stephen). There are plenty of other figures in history who are known by ordinals applied much later. The Picts are in exactly the same situation as "Papa Ioannis Iunior" et al. Michael Sanders 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I disagree with the decision to rename when closing the debate at CfD to Category:Intellectually impaired people from the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 31#Category:Intellectually impaired. It should have been renamed to Category:People with intellectual impairment as per valid reasons given in discussion. No opposition was put forward to my suggestions so I believe you made the wrong call on this one. I would like to have this reviewed please. Although I am unsure how I should go about this? Perhaps the category for discussion can be relisted to gain better consensus? What you did, didn't have consensus in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angusmclellan - I was coming here to chat about this one too. I let this one get past me, but the better format is "people with ..."; see Category:People with disabilities for related categories. Many of these have been through CFDs to rename them in conformity with the "people-first" style. I'd suggest re-opening this one today, to let a few more people weigh in on Sting_au's proposed name format. --Lquilter (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response please. I'm unsure if I should just relist at CfD? Sting_au Talk 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Angus. I've relisted it at CfD. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in having me take a pass at Aldfrith, and taking it to FA? I will have a look at it anyway, but if you have no objections will probably make this the next FAC after Offa. If you'd like to nominate it yourself, just say so; otherwise I will name you as conominator unless you object -- I can already see that I won't be doing much in the way of adding real content; it's just a polish job, so you should certainly get the credit. Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizing in advance if the info I need is available somewhere (I couldn't find it) I would like to know what is the standard procedure when you translate an article from one language to another (something I want to do often). Do I use as reference just the title of the original Wikipedia entry, or do I translate the original references too? I think I should do the second, but I am not sure. If possible, could you tell me where I can find the info I want. Thanks Urashimataro (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a Happy New Year to you too! I'm up to my eyebrows in pictures of Antarctica, but I would be happy to have you push the buttons on rollback. I didn't want to bother jumping through hoops, but I can see the usefulness of the feature. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, real life is still one night away! I've never heard of a Thingalith...I'm sure I would have come across it if it had anything to do with the Rus' or Varangians, but it doesn't ring any bells. I'm no Anglo-Saxonist though, so don't take my word for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honoured. Thank you very much for thinking of me and a happy new year to you as well. JASpencer (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I will let you know if I need it removed. Regards. JASpencer (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, thank for the suggestion / advice. Blewddyn newydd dda i chi. Rosser1954. Rosser (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Groovy! Yes, please! I've been using it on another wiki to revert vandalism - will be v. helpful here too! --Lquilter (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day Angus, yes please to the rollback permission. Thanks and a happy new year to you too. Sting_au Talk 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the offer. I've just started using Twinkle and have been cautiously using this rollback facility. It looks very similar - does the Wikipedia:Rollback feature have significant benefits that you are aware of? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK - thanks, and yes I'll take the red pill. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Angus, and a happy new year to you too. Yes please for Rollback. I'm just finishing a "beef-up" of Andrew Forman and hope to get onto our mutual friend, Mr Hundason. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 10:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already got myself +rollbackered at WP:RFR -- the notification came up with a link and I clicked through and was authorized almost at once. Thanks for the offer though. Hey, I see you're working on Beorhtric; glad to see it. I am really starting to think about trying to bring all the Mercian kings to FA now, though some will surely be merges to Mercia. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I know... wikipedia can be very bureaucratic sometimes, because there are so many nooks and crannies of it where people can create rules. I'll have to be try and use the rollback only for cases of obvious vandalism, rather than POV etc. All the best and happy new year. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For access. Will use wisely! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the TfD nomination. I agree with the other guy mostly, I just feel that "Wikiproblems" mostly needed invented solutions and not strict adherence to conventions. And as a non-admin/never-want-to-be-an-admin, I feel that I can do non-administratorial stuff. Besides, the criteria for template deletion are broad enough under interpretation...

As to Adelolf/Adelulf/Adalulf/Adalolphus, a good source for him which I have not read (only come across it cited) is "The Relations between England and Flanders before the Norman Conquest" by Philip Grierson in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Ser., Vol. 23. (1941), pp. 71–112, which has a JSTOR link if you have access. I do know that he was named after Ethelwulf, his great-grandfather through both Alfred and Judith. He was in England in 961, apparently on his brother Arnulf's orders, and he was abbot-elect of Saint Bertin. This is significant because it was a monk of that house, Folcuin, who wrote the Gesta abbatum Sancti Bertini Sithiensium which is a source for these events. The only other information I could find is online, albeit at the well-sourced Foundation for Medieval Genealogy website: [1]. FMG does not mention his abbot-elect status. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My information about 961, abbot-elect, and on Arnulf's orders apparently refers to a different Adelolf. However, it still appears that the Adelolf who died in 933 and was in England at some point (925x933) was sent there by Arnulf and was abbot-elect of Saint Bertin. If you are looking for the source which confused me, it's Elisabeth van Houts, "Women and the Writing of History in the Early Middle Ages: the Case of Abbess Matilda of Essen and Aethelweard." Early Medieval Europe, 1:1 (1992), pp. 53–68. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year. Thanks for informing me about rollback. I'd like it, please. Lurker (said · done) 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I've done a bit of work on a copy of Aldfrith in a sandbox. Would you take a look and see if you have any comments before I put any of these changes into the article?

The main change is that I merged the background and early life section, and then moved some of that material around. I felt that since Aldfrith was born so early, it was better to mention him as the background info allowed. That keeps things a little more chronological -- as it was I felt the article jumped back and forth in time a little.

That led me to write a new paragraph or two, which I haven't reffed yet, pending you having a look. Let me know what you think of this approach.

Also, on the maps, I have replaced the big AD 600 map with a close up of northern England, but I'm not yet convinced this is the right thing to do. The trouble is that there are lots of locations I'd like to put in that you mention in the article: Ripon, York, Catterick, Whitby, Bamburgh, Yeavering, and the rivers Don and Ouse. That would seriously clog up that little map. I can fix it by zooming in, but that would lose Forfar and the Trent. I think the bishoprics/monasteries map is good, as it has a specific function, and it gives me an excuse not to put those locations on the other map. On the other hand I could use a bigger scale, and put all the locations on one map.

Another approach I've used in the past is to have maps of different areas at different times in the article, but here 95% of the placenames are in the same part of Britain, so I can't do that. I'll think about this some more, but any more ideas would be helpful. And of course any other comments on the edits I've made so far. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus, I wonder if you could advise please? Once or twice when writing new articles I find that the bot which goes through and lists new articles in various different subjects fails to register the existence of the article, so it doesn't appear in the relevant new article list. Most recently, for example, my new article on Raffaello de Banfield (a musician) did not register in the new music articles list, but the article I wrote after that about his father Gottfried von Banfield (a WWI aviator) has been picked up perfectly well. (Written by my alter ego, now my usual username, for anonymity.) Do you know why this happens, and what can one do to correct it? I had the same trouble with Tivadar Nachez (musician). The same articles which don't get picked by the bot also don't appear readily on a Wikipedia search using just one of the keywords. Would be grateful for your advice. Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC) PS you can see what I mean y checking the 'what links here' for these articles.Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll contact him as you suggest. What I meant was, for instance put just 'Banfield' in the box on the left and press 'search' button, and neither of my candidates come up in the subsequent list. This may be because these two articles are recent, but I noticed it happeneing with quite a lot of searches - things you KNOW are there just not appearing in the list unless the full article title is used. That's a problem because one searches thus before creating new, and this might lead to duplication. Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look over William de Corbeil and tell me if it's close to GA status? Ideally it'd go to FA, but I haven't taken an article to GA on my own yet, so I'd like to get a feel for things there first. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! Guess it's sink or swim time... Ealdgyth | Talk 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not making myself clear. The article is excellently written, but I thought it might be a good idea to find some English references, if possible, for those readers who, like myself, can't read Portugese very well or at all. Again, my apologies; it was only a suggestion. Thingg (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm... I'm not sure what you meant with that last comment, could you clarify? Thanks. Thingg (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, my apologies for causing the trouble. Have a great day!!! Regards, Thingg (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that ref. Is his last name "Hunter Blair" or "Blair"? I'm sure I've seen it indexed both ways; I tried to find a listing on his old college website but no luck. Mike Christie (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. Peter Hunter Blair would be 'Hunter Blair, Peter'. Ciao, Eebahgum (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly sorry. I was looking for something else (his grandfather) when I came upon it. I'm afraid I did not look at the history until after I'd done it! Believe me no offence was meant. Also, I had no idea that work was in progress. There was no indication. When I looked at the article as it stood I felt it needed tidying to get it into proper and clear format, thats all. The date comes from The Complete Peerage. I had proposed to return there and enter more plus a couple of references. If you would rather I did not I don't mind. Let me know on my Talk Page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My other comment (having just looked at it again) is that Torrance is a great scholar and his book is a gem. Gruber is outdated and needs correction here and there (Sounds like you and the Deacon speaking to me, doesnt it!). I put in the 17th century references for comparison only. You could have removed that sentence and just left: Torrance, D. Richard, Weights & Measures for the Scottish Family Historian, Edinburgh, 1996, ISBN 1-874722-09-9, p.41: a merk was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence Scots. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, alright. Thanks for that information. It did look like db-nonsense, though, I was about to tag it myself until I realized it was a valid article. --Dan Leveille^TALK 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the prod2 you put on this article: while the {{prod}} tag is substituted, the {{prod2}} tag isn't. Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. Anyways, I fixed it, just giving you a heads-up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you previously removed my 'KingofEngland.jpg' image by means that it was "trivia". Please note that that this image is entirely suited for the overall article, considering that it is a respective part of the "Cultural Influence" category, and therefore is not something trivial and unnecessary, as you have evidently claimed it to be. If you wish to discuss these circumstances further, provide a rationale at the respective article's discussion page.User:Exiled Ambition 18 January 2008 (EST)

G'day Angus, I thought I might run this by you? I noticed an AfD that was a non-admin close. I think the user was a little preemptive of the decision? I left a note on their talk page and they suggested I have it overturned if I disagree with it. Well I still think what they did was incorrect. The user was involved with the AfD and gave their opinion that the article should be turned into a redirect. Then they went and did just that and closed the AfD themselves? I'm still learning how things work around here but I think that was wrong? Could you take a look if you're not too busy and tell me what you think please? Here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White leaf phenomenon. Cheers Sting au Buzz Me... 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I was on the right track. I'll probably add to the delete requests myself. I think redirect is the wrong option. I just wasn't happy with the way it was closed, delete or not. I've been thinking of having a go at some non-admin closures myself. But I think they would need to be pretty obvious as to consensus. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure when I could remove the 1911 banner from articles, so thanks for removing it. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend User:Exiled Ambition is at it again, he just hit Richard Beauchamp with a utterly innacurate rendition of a medieval bishop (Plate mail??? Where is the cassock???). I think he hit a few other places too. Since I got dragged into Franco-Mongol alliance, I just don't have the energy to devote to finding all of these pictures. I registered a protest on Beauchamp's talk page. Thought you should know. (Aren't you glad you're an admin??) Ealdgyth | Talk 22:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, keep me posted on this. I saw these the other day on Edward the Black Prince and so forth and thought, "Wow, that really doesn't belong." I don't know much about fair-use criteria, but I'm willing to put in my oar as to general suitability. Choess (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like according to the Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War article, the Richard Beauchamp was supposed to be the Earl of Warwick. I've removed the stuff again. By the way, that video game is .. my, what a mishmash of inaccurate time scales! Edward the Black Prince and Henry V of England are both characters, along with a bunch of others. Given the historical "accuracy" of the article, I'm guessing it really isn't a good fit for anywhere it's trying to be shoehorned. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, i'm planning on doing that but just didn't have time. Just got the actual revolt article up first and will probably add any valid info to the other articles by next weekend. Cheers for sorting the refs out as well, i knew i'd cocked that up :P regards, --Tefalstar (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Unattached footballers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Alliance for Lupus Research, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance for Lupus Research. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to ask you to take care when adding days to WP:CFD/W. For example, you added Jan 25th as awaiting closure, but it's still listed on the CFD main page as a current discussion. Technically, these are supposed to be current for five days. I've known users to gripe because a nomination was placed late in the day, and then closed prior to being listed for five full days. If you want, just do what I do and leave it for User:Vegaswikian, who does a good job of moving old days to CFD/W. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's always someone will complain. I was expecting the message to be "Why did you delete Category:People born in Belarus?" Still plenty time for that. But "about five days" is all they're promised, and right now they've had at least 98% of that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]