User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 16

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.

April 2008

Hi. I believe my edit to "Jones (surname)" was constructive. It was in regards to George Oliver Jones. He is in fact a very well known teacher, who has taught thousands of kids through several states. He commonly skips the Civil War in history lessons because he believes that Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. It was a constructive, informative edit, designed to bring to light an issue that is currently plaguing the school board of the state where he works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.59.121 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned with some of your edits on talk space, particularly those that discuss me (rather than my contributions). Do you really feel the need to try to undermine me as a contributor on that page? That's how I feel you are working at the moment. There is a person at the end of the signature and I would appreciate a little more dignity, perhaps the same I've given you?? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I think looking for the Scottish English definition of nation was a fair suggestion to be honest; at very least it was a suggestion. If one had been found that includes nation as a territory I'd have been quite happy to concede as the term is verifiable.

What seems to really let the section of the editting community that more geared towards the nationalist side of things down, is the way they treat those who may hold the alternative perspective. This mocking users and their suggestions does nothing but polarise the community moreso than is needed. Most of those involved in this recent bout of debate are intelligent and respectable editors; it should be within our capabilities to work out a compromise. I actually have the article's best interests at heart, as I'm sure you do. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this cfd, presumably as 'keep'. However Category:Sex offenders has now been deleted leaving Category:American sex offenders etc bereft of a parent. And Category:People convicted of sex crimes has been created without subcats. Could you investigate? Occuli (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you contacted me on the 14th March RE. the image uploaded for Jane McAdam Freud. I am indeed a little stuck at the moment; the author of this image (Jane McAdam Freud) has given me copyright permissions to use the image on her page but I am unsure on how to prove this when I upload it onto Wikipedia. Any help in the matter would be greatly appreciated. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishenson1 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help re locations. Could you also add the full citation for "Denajar 2005" to the article, rather than just the edit summary? Many thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad to help! Interesting stuff as always, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have to agree with the previous user that stated his edit to Jones (surname) was constructive. I have had Mr.George Oliver Jones for history class and I do remember him skipping the civil war. The man truly is quite well known by thousands of people. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.88.213 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I used a previous redirect page of Congalach mac Conaing to create one for Congalach mac Conaing (died 778) as distinct from Congalach mac Conaing Cuirre (died 696) but things don't link properly. confused.Timelinefrog (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok somehow it sorted itself out, guess I didn't screw up after allTimelinefrog (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, can you give me any reason why the historical High Kings shouldn't be listed in List of Irish monarchs? I posted a message on the topic on the article's talk page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make that list unwieldy and there is a natural break-point between native and foreign Monarchs; the High Kings list are all Irish - the "monarchs" are all foreign. In fact, I think an AfD for "monarchs" would be appropriate as all the information contained is already contained in "British Monarch". Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one is a Scot. ;) I don't buy that argument, unless the article is renamed something like "English monarchs of Ireland", which will never happens. Anyways, I smell that you don't like these guys, but just think, if Richard hadn't got that crossbow bolt through the neck when he did, John would prolly be seen today as the progenitor of a glorious dynasty of Irish kings ... I think that's what his daddy Henry had in mind anyways. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just about possible that I utterly detest and loath these monarchs but of course I'd never let that influence my Wiki-editing in the least. No, the Irish/not-Irish divide is much clearer than most things in this life. Striking really. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an anonomous user 71.184.57.171 (Talk) who is adding a whole bunch of red links to the various irish king lists and putting in requests for articles. i put a message on his talk page to find out if he wants to contribute told him there was a couple people working on these articles. i get concerned by all the red links becaeuse I've seen editors go bonkers over this. Timelinefrog (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I will review the situation if you are not satisfied with my oppose. However I retain the right to make my own decision. I have asked two questions and will decide whether to stick with my original choice or make adjustments thereafter. The "worrying" part of Q1 was "I don't actually think I'll be doing too much to start with" hence my worries about whether the nominee actually needs the tools. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) = ) I look forward to working with you on List of Irish monarchs!--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair-use claim for images of living people as per Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2. That's why! --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not do what they do in the Kiev article and confine all that pointless quibbling in the Scotland page to some kind of sub-page? The whole thing is distracting from the real purpose of wiki. We're here to provide encyclopedic information, not function as a platform for English nationalists and Scots to fight a discourse community battle. Sigh. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angusmclellan. I think sub-division would certainly be an apolitical term we could use. Nation and/or Country seem too disputable. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. You recently speedied this one. After seeing it pop on my watchlist, I salted Sobolsoft since it's now been recreated twice after AfD deletion. After doing so, I recalled that I voted in its last AfD, so I invite you to review my action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, this seems like a good idea! Thanks for letting me know, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit. Did you intend to remove my reference? (it is not clear from your edit summary). Aatomic1 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Angus, you have put a fair bit of research (the veracity of which I do not doubt) into the Cnut talk page. Firstly I hope you do not mind me adding links to enable me to follow the information around Wikipedia. Secondly there is some fascinating information, which I am itching to add to other articles, but may involve me using your references. I hope this will be acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I will chew what I have at the moment & email you when(ever) I am ready for the next bite. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! :) In March, Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to (see "Xag-ya and xeg-yi" towards the bottom of the page, which were the first two Energons). I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! :) Would you also mind redirecting Bariaur and Rilmani to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!  :) BOZ (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I was unsure why you unprotected this article citing that only one IP was vandalizing the article when I count at least 3 separate IPs just that day: [1] [2] [3]. Not long after you unprotected the article the vandalism started right back up again and a request was made at WP:RFPP, I was going to protect it, but did not want to wheel war over it. Do you have an issue with it being sprotected for a short period of time again? Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

204.211.27.131 (talk · contribs) had been busy when you protected it, so it looked like "one". Anyway, the history shows a lot more edit-warring lately than vandalism. There are a lot of eyeballs on the article, including several admins and umpteen veteran editors. The edit-warring proves that they can all revert edits quite successfully. The vandalism is the usual random silliness rather than being attacks or similar. This all seems quite under control. Left a note at RFPP as well. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey Dokey! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, good to hear from you. I'm not doing too much, but am concentrating on small stubs up to early modern Ireland. What you doing these days? Fergananim (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

On 13 April, you deleted my page, "Yakman" as 'vandalism'.

While I don't necessarily agree with this, I understand the policies more now and accept this decision to delete my content. However, it was the only instance of this data as I created it from memory that night. It is not recorded anywhere else and I would like to know if it is possible to have this content emailed to me or perhaps temporarily reinstated so I can copy it out to a text file.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience.

In advance, many thanks for your prompt attention.

Regards,

Yakman_GF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakman GF (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the Deletion Review on Swift's printers. DGG (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind, but thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know why my image page "Image:EpicaGroupShot Live 2007.JPG" was deleted and yet my image is still in use just with obscured information that should be more clearly visible. This was done by by a user that doesn't exist. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Sorry about the previous message, it was late and I was tired (and cranky). I would indeed like the original image undeleted for Wikipedia, but thank you for replying with the link explaining why. Also if you could shoot me a message at some point to let me know you've done this would be super. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Sounds great, even though it'll probably make clean up a complete mess. Do you know of anywhere a discussion is being held about this? I used to have something watchlisted, but I think I removed it. The wiken-l thread is great, but it's more technical than I'm looking for. --Kbdank71 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the information on Kamelot's band talk page is outdated and I'd like to move it into an achive, can you give me any guides as to how to do this or if it is possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnlivedPhalanx (talk • contribs) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw it was you, who deleted Image:Gelo.jpg. Can you please tell me, from its deleted description page, what was written about the source / author of the picture, because I have my reason to think that the Commons uploader hasn't transferred the information correctly:

• Author - Skara-Bira
• License - {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Davi|Davi]]}}

Thank you in advance. :) --Spiritia (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I continued my investigation of the case and found images from the same photo-session here and here (dated even earlier - 29 June 2007). And as I saw the long list of deleted images of Skara-Bira, I am perfectly sure that this is the subsequent copyright violation of his, he could not have been the original author. So I will delete the image from Commons, as well. Thanks again for your support. :-) --Spiritia (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume good faith and believe that you don't realize that I have the right to voice my opinion over what is acceptable or not during an FA review, and that only Sandy or another person who is given the ability to pass or fail has the right to deem if my concern is justified or not. ANI cannot bully a person into changing their mind or opinion. If you believe that I have misinterpreted something, thats your right. But your right is not to insinuate such things as you have. Furthermore, your claims about "familiarizing" show that you have not reviewed any of the FAs that were demoted. I hope that you will correct yourself in the future, before making such accusations about others. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments on the arbitration page but am now officially out of my depth. I wasn't sure where to reply which is why I've chosen to post on your talk page. I've read the arbitration on the troubles as suggested but find that the issues there are, whilst possibly related, are not recent or particularly relevant. I need some guidance.

GDD1000 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You closed the Columbine and Virginia Tech DRVs as "no consensus," but the impression I had from those discussions as with the AfDs being review was that there really is no consensus to delete and right before the closure and before anyone commented, I added reliable third-party sources to the discussion that could be used to expand/develope the articles under question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that more sources would help. Rewriting a memorial and adding references will still produce a memorial. Those may be fine for newspapers, but we don't do journalism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, however, that the claims of the lists being a memorial were effectively refuted and if we used these secondary sources to expand/revise the articles we could present them in an unambiguously non-memorial manner. Researchers look at victims' lists for statistical reasons that have nothing to do with being a memorial. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you or someone else could give a look over my recent articles and say what you think. Fergananim (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete foreign language article, as you've done with FastCGI의 이해와 구동환경 구축. Foreign language articles have to be listed for 2 weeks at WP:PNT and then they can be deleted if no one will translate it. So, please restore the article to main space or to User:Kubek15/FastCGI의 이해와 구동환경 구축. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but the original author blanked the page so it qualified for deletion under CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, please, can you restore it to User:Kubek15/FastCGI의 이해와 구동환경 구축? Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for upholding my decisions at the recent "list of victims" DRVs. While I have every sympathy for the universities, their students and the relatives of those who died, a cloud of "major event"-ness was covering the fact that most of the rest of the world (i.e. not USA) would not be able to point to Virginia or Colorado on a map, let alone refer to a tragedy there. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]