User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 19

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.

July 2008

Thanks for the note. The action taken seems hostile. Best, Leah —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus: I am Leah Dunsmore (Team underhill), this particular article has been on Wikipedia for years without being molested. Currently Michael Robertson has been in a lot of controversy and I have been helping to update his related page (Michael Robertson)...i feel that this may have been the trigger to the Underhill page being deleted, with all due candor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I appreciate your support and personal comment in my RfA. It means a lot to me that a bunch people gave a good, personal look at my work.

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

 Frank  |  talk  13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have called for a deletion review on Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska. 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. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. 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. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. 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. • Freechild'sup? 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post at WP:VPR.

The Transhumanist 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Category:Persons Taking Refuge in Diplomatic Missions. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eli Fucile, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Superpika66 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angusmclellan, and thank you for your proposal. As I don't know you yet from previous edits, could you just give me a few hints about the person you are? Best regards PHG (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PHG and Angusmclellan. Want to follow up with the two of you about working together. Have you all discussed this further. If you are both in agreement, then I will let the Arbitration Committee know of your plans. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I just happened to notice that some time ago you changed "Æthelburh" to "Æthelburg" in Eadbald of Kent. I don't have my refs with me (I'm away from home till September) but I seem to recall that the "urh" ending was a bit more common than "urg" among my more reliable references for names ending like this. Do you happen to recall what made you change it? I'm fine with it staying as it is, but I was curious about your reasons since I know you're a stickler for good sources. It did occur to me that there might be a case for consistency in AS articles -- Seaxburh, Æthelburh, Eadburh or Seaxburg, Æthelburg, Eadburg -- but I don't know that that's justifiable. The idea of orthography is so much later an invention that I suppose it would be unreasonable to apply it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. When I get back to Texas I'll take a look at my refs and I may move it then if there's a majority one way or the other. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Alison suggested that you might be the right person to help me with a translation problem I have. My Irish is pitiful. Not even that good really, nonexistent would be nearer the truth. Normally I can find a synopsis or a translation somewhere, but this from the Mionannála, which I'd like to mention in Mongán mac Fiachnai, has me beat.

I reckon the first sentence is along the lines of "Years afterwards a great fleet came from Britain [stuff] and was defeated by Mongán [stuff]". The rest is more or less a mystery, although I have a vague idea that his comment to his mother has to do with her praying at his grave. And then there's a stone in the story. So that makes me wonder. I know that somewhere, where I do not know, there's a story which goes like this: Mongán and his mother are walking on a beach; she picks up a beautiful stone and shows it to him; he tells her that some day he'll be killed by that very stone, so she throws it into the sea; years later it washes up on Islay and sure enough, Artúr the Britain picks it up, and throws it at Mongán, and kills him dead.

Is that what the text is about, would you know? If it isn't, do you have any idea what it is about?

Sorry for taking up your time with this trivia. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan 18:35, 7 Iúil 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angus, my knowledge of older forms of Irish is pretty vague, but it does seem to be referring to the story. Here’s what I’ve figured out so far, though I’m sure it’s not 100% right.

I might ask someone with better knowledge of Old/Middle Irish about this, but in the mean time it might also be worth asking User:Angr. Fascinating story anyway, especially the apparent resurrection!
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (Vicífhoclóir: Moilleadóir ☎)[reply]

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your expert handing of the situation on User:Onewillfind. Best, HiDrNick! 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to commend you on how well you handled the Onewillfind situation. It's a refreshing change. Hopefully your efforts will not be in vain. Angrymansr (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided i am not going to use MacCarthys dates anymore for the period before 665. Historians are still using the updated dates of the Annals of Ulster and though his theory may be correct I think individual events such as for example the Battle of Degastan or the Battle of Mag Roth would be better looked at on an individual basis. This means I have a lot of backlogged work ahead of me to correct this in articles but I think uniformity is better. Makes it easier to synchronize with your articles as well. Thanks for your previous advice on this, I will prpobaly just use a footnote at the beginning of the article.

I finally broke out my wallet and purchased some new books, found a lot of data I've been looking for. Timelinefrog (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick thanks for rescuing this article from reckless speedy deletion. All best to you -- --Lockley (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I walk past the 1935 Expo building every time I take the underground to work, so I was pretty certain indeed that it wasn't a fake. There's a nice night photo of the palais at Commons:Image:Luc Viatour Bruxelles Palais expo heysel.JPG, or alternatively a view from the top of the Atomium at Commons:Image:Centenary Palace.jpg. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion review concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angusmclellan, and thank you for accepting to work as my mentor. I will ask the commitee so that they can officialize our collaboration. I hope I will not take too much of your time! Cheers PHG (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. I wish to use a reference book in French about the French Navy for my work on the Sino-French War and France-Thailand relations. It is "La Royale", Jean Randier (de l'Académie de Marine), ISBN 2352610222, Editeur MDV. "La Royale" is a compilation of three of his books, starting with "La Vergue et le Sabord (des origines a 1850)" ISBN 291082117X. Could you confirm if it is acceptable as a source? Thank you. PHG (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad I can use this source. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New books I got actually are the Gill series first two volumes (second hasn't arrived yet) and New History of Ireland, Volume I. So you probably have these already. Mac Niocaill's book is a nice handy reference for following the Irish annals and has some genealogies for the Ui failge, osraige and ui Cennselaig I was looking for. I was a bit sceptical of O'croinin in early medieval ireland because he made some obvious errors that threw me off to his work but in a new History of Ireland I've only found two mistakes by him so far, one is a date and the other is a mistake of cousin for uncle but he elaborates on his earlier work in a way that makes it much clearer so I've regained some faith in him.

your Mongan looks good, very thorough, I'm not very familiar with saga stuff except for what I stumble across. All I know is some Briton threw a rock at him. Though for some reason i have the idea it actually occurred in battle with them. I'll have to recheck my annals on that one.Timelinefrog (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. Arra best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer - I had assumed there must be a way to revert other than using the 'undo' option but couldn't see what it was! Having that tool could certainly be helpful on occasions, so 'yes please'! Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It now appears as an option when I look in a history page so I assume it must be working. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete # "Image:August2004rs.png" (I2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons) and "Image:August2004 1-2.jpg" (I2: Corrupt or empty image, or image page for an image on Commons) despite my "Hang on" on their Talk pages? The images, or something very like them, are still at Thai lunar calendar and Thai solar calendar, so it is obvious I don't know what's going on. Please enlighten me so I can lighten your burden in future. Pawyilee (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me: I just read your answer on MY talk page that you put there before I asked it. Sigh. Live and Learn! Pawyilee (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. I am considering using as a source an article (in French) by the French historian and Inalco professor Jean-Marie Lafont [1], entitled "La découverte du bouddhisme par le monde européen", in Dossiers d'Archéologie, June 2002, to help document the article Christianity and Buddhism. Could you confirm if this is acceptable as a source? Cheers PHG (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angus for your feedback. I added some of Lafont's material to the Christianity and Buddhism talk page. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's okay - those manuals can be misleading, much to our inconvenience. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this, and though it seems a useful tool, for the amount of time I can foresee using it, I'm happy enough sticking to the "undo". Although I'll keep it in mind as a possibility in future. Appreciate the offer though, thanks. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for taking on the job with PHG.  :) Along with his work on new articles, would you also be interested in helping with older articles that he has worked on? For example, we are still reviewing several articles with POV issues, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. A couple of us are working on them as we have time, fixing the articles and crossing them off the list, but it would be nice to have help. For example, PHG created Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia, which are effectively duplicated articles that need to be merged. Would you be interested in helping with that? Thanks, Elonka 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the list and see if there's anything I can help with. If not, I should certainly be able to do the merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue is that Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia are not quite the same subject really. Nestorianism especially had a great role in Asia and has nothing to do with Catholicism... Also, if someone could work on these articles, these is a lot to say about Protestant missions in Asia, which do not belong to Catholicism either. Actually, Roman Catholicism in Asia should function as a sub-article of Christianity in Asia. "Roman Catholicism" also should stand in its own right, as it belongs to the "Roman Catholicism in ...." series. I would love to expand these articles, and make them quite different from one another... maybe sometime in 2009 I guess :) Cheers PHG (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I have concerns about a recent article that PHG created, Shanhai Yudi Quantu. It seems on first glance to be a good article (as PHG's articles often do). However, on a closer look, I have the following concerns:

• The entire article is based on just one source
• There was a better location for this information, in the parent article Sancai Tuhui.
• There is a lot of detail in the article, which makes it look a bit like a dictionary, which I feel runs afoul of WP:NOT.

I would recommend merging it into the parent article, and reducing the amount of "detail" information presented, since it's already available in the online source. What are your own thoughts? --Elonka 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shanhai Yudi Quantu (山海輿地全圖) is a type of map which is very well known in cartographic circles [2], quite independently of the Sancai Tuhui in which it was first published, which is a general encyclopedia. As far as I know, the usual practice for maps if to have their own articles (Kangnido, Wanguo Quantu, Cheonhado, Fra Mauro map etc... see Ancient world maps for a sampling), whatever their mode of publication. I am sure a lot more content will come (from me and others) on this fascinating subject so that the article will naturally grow. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the referenced document and let you know what I think when I get to the end of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've read through Ptak's paper. Here is what I think. Mileage may vary.

• Cave ab homine unius libri, or is a single source ok? This is not really an issue to my way of thinking. Ptak's paper is undoubtedly a quality source directly addressing the subject. I see no conflict with WP:V or WP:NPOV, so long as Ptak's views are fairly represented. The only thing that gives me pause is the unattributed quotation from Ptak's paper in the "Description" section. I would like it to be clearer when Ptak's work is being quoted.
• Forking and merging, or should this be covered in Sancai Tuhui? It certainly could be. My reading of Ptak's footnotery suggests that any substantial expansion of Shanhai Yudi Quantu will need access to Chinese language sources. We can reasonably assume that this, while possible, is not likely in the short term. On the other hand, even if the "Description" section of Shanhai Yudi Quantu could, and probably should, be pruned, one would expect that Sancai Tuhui would tend to grow as the existing article is only scratching the surface and could be readily expanded by anyone who cared to do so. This question seems to turn on personal preferences as to article size and eventualism versus immediatism. A merge is possible, but it is not necessary.
• The level of detail? Here I agree. The "Description" section is over-long and I have already remarked on the need to be more transparent as regards attribution of quotated text.

On the whole, my initial position is that I see no reason to merge the article as a matter of policy, although I do agree that changes to its current form are needed. I suggest that any further discussion might best take place at Talk:Shanhai Yudi Quantu. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I think that if the article would have been tagged as a stub, I would not have had as many concerns. However, one of PHG's techniques, is to make poorly-sourced articles that look like real articles, because he takes pride in getting them on DYK. As you may know, stubs are not eligible for DYK. It is my belief that this is another reason why PHG makes separate articles, rather than expanding existing articles, is because, again, he is aiming for DYK (as he successfully managed with the Shanhai Yudi Quantu article).[3] We had trouble with this in the medieval history topic area, as PHG would make articles that would make unsupported claims, so that they could have a good "hook" to get into DYK. This resulted in some DYK tags showing up with out and out false information from time to time, which is why I'd like to ensure that, with supervision, it doesn't happen again. I do think that PHG does a lot of excellent work on Wikipedia; however, I think that at times he becomes so eager to "prove a point", that some Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR fall by the wayside.

Another of his new articles that I have concerns about, is Cheonhado, another "single source" article that was not tagged as a stub, which I believe was a deliberate omission so that PHG could nom it for DYK.[4] I am concerned about a couple statements in it such as "Some scholars have attributed" (even though again, there's only one source on the article). And the statement "Such maps were produced in Korea only, and were never found in Japan or China" appears to be original research. The word "never" does not appear anywhere in the source document. I understand that it may simply be a paraphrase, but the word "never" is a WP:REDFLAG claim, that should be carefully sourced. Thanks for taking a look at these, --Elonka 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, thanks very much for your comments. They do help to put things into perspective. To be fair to PHG and his Cheonhado hook, the referenced paper does say (p. 10, first para) "...no identical world maps have been in China or Japan...". But, yes, never is a indeed a rash claim, and the source is more circumspect than that. I have to confess that I am puzzled by the mania for DYK nominations. PHG is hardly the only editor to have been bitten by this bug and, if it leads him into trouble, the Spears case suggests he's not the only one. It would be easy enough for me to read through PHG's DYK ideas before they are submitted. A second opinion never hurts. Anyway, I'd like to hear what PHG thinks before we go any further. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. And PHG's reply may be delayed, since I heard he just had his laptop stolen (a horrible fate that I would not wish on anyone, including PHG!). In the meantime, could you please point me at the Spears case? I would be interested in reading more. --Elonka 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about PHG's laptop. CarolSpears (talk · contribs) (you can follow it from the user talk archives) is a very strange story about FPCs and copyvios and general weirdness. Actually, it's not so like PHG at all now that I check, but DYK does feature in the story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No news of my laptop, so I'll try with my phone this time...:) Elonka seems to make multiple accusations here, but since none of them seem to convince Angus, she makes yet other accusations, and this time it's DYKs (this regular technique is what another editor qualified as "putting fires everywhere"). So, let's'try to address each little fire one by one :) ... DYK mania? I think in the four years I have edited Wikipedia I've had 50 DYKs or so, so it' about 1 per month in average. Since in that time i've created about 400 article, only 1 in 8 was put up for DYK... And only about half have been self-nom... So, no, I don't think there's'much mania here. Maybe it is more that i am rather prolific, and that i write about relatively original subjects. DYK trouble history? No i don't think that the case, and i am not aware of major issues. Deliberate non-stub tagging? Wow... As far as i remember article have to be over 1k to be acceptable on DYK, and i have always fullfilled this criterium (this is usually checked by those validating DYK). Any more little fires? Ah yes, "no such maps were found in China and Japan" not quite the same as "such maps were never found in China and Japan"? Well, for me these two logical are identical: "no hsitory of measles" is the same as "never had measles", but if someone is uncomfortable with the phrasing, please be my guest and correct it. One more thing: per decision of the commity my mentorship agreement with Angus is specifically targetted towards validating my sources (rare English sources or foreign language source) and that only, so i would appreciate if we could limit the discussion here to specific sourcing issues only. 0h, and one last thing... A big fire is now indeed raging at my fingertips with all this phone typing :)) Cheers PHG (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another diff of concern by PHG, as he is accusing Blnguyen (talk · contribs) of "slandering" him.[5] Just letting you know, so that you can go in and, um, mentor or something. --Elonka 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. I read what the mentorship entailed before I volunteered: "PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits." Yes, the "and/or" aspect may have been an error as the Cheonhado DYK showed. I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs. I am more than willing to help PHG, to the very best of my ability, to closely observe the verifiability and no original research policies at all times. I was not asked, nor I am inclined, to closely follow every edit that PHG makes. On this occasion, and it is an exception, I have left a note for him with what I believe to be good advice. No doubt he'll be along shortly to tell me what he thinks. If PHG is egregiously and repeatedly incivil, or makes personal attacks, or engages in tendentious or disruptive editing, he should be warned and blocked as necessary. I cannot see how it can be necessary that I should be involved in such matters.

So, would PHG agree to discuss sourcing for all new articles? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angus for your message. I think we should indeed stick to the content of the mentoring agreement. As requested by the Commity, I will gladly discuss the validity of foreign language sources as well as rare English sources. For easily available English-language sources (proper Internet sources, Google book sources, easily available English language books) I believe I have the right to use them directly, but I will ask you if in doubt. For the Cheonhado I believe the sourcing to be highly proper, as well as the article itself, despite Elonka's efforts at throwing a negative light on it. Regarding Blnguyen, he has been making what I believe are unfounded claims about my references in the Indo-Greek kingdom article. I am quite fed up with false claims being made against me, and it is normal that I react in defense (I am not a native English speaker, but as far as I know "slandering" means making false accusations at someone). I will be glad to discuss in detail with sources in hand once I am back from holidays. Elonka, I am afraid that you are again currently stalking/harassing me against the advice of members of the Commity: please kindly step away from this. Cheers PHG (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. I recently bought a book which I think will nicely complement my work on France-Thailand relations and the Siamese revolution (1688): Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era, Edited Anthony Reid, Cornell University Press, 1993, ISBN 0801480930. I am confident that it is a good source, but I thought I would let you know. Cheers PHG (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, you've helped me before so I feel comfortable asking for your help here. I need to propose this user be banned or suspended. I caught him trying to take credit of one of my images, and he's also a notorious vandal / promoter. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmiworld I would like to know what the policy for this type of stuff is so that I can handle it without having to bother you. If you'd be so kind as to drop me a message back into my box I'd GREATLY appreciate it. Thanks. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV for Burning Up Tour was 3 to 3 when you closed it as endorse. Since there wasn't a majority in favor of endorsing, I don't understand the basis of the decision. Everyking (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus means we leave things as they were. Well, it does at XfD anyway, and most everywhere else I can think of, so it seems reasonable that the same logic applied at DRV. For that reason I'm not going to overturn a close without some reasonable grounds, and there weren't any especially compelling reasons to do so in the DRV. So, the close is endorsed by default. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus I would like to invite you to a discussion on the talk harp page [[6]]. I am currently in discussion regarding an edit warring with an unknown poster relating to early medieval triangular harp instruments and origin in Scotland. As far as I can see and from multiple refrences and sources, the triangular harp was first evident in Pictland, and later spread to Ireland and the Anglo-Saxons. However user 93.107.129.136 states everything we percieve as being Pictish in art, culture and society is of Irish origin. To back up his point he has quoted one study by the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Invention of Tradition [7]. That all Scottish culture is of Irish origin and therefore the triangular harp, music, insular art and pretty much everything attested to Scotland (Gael or Pict) didn't originate there. Would you like to discuss the data as your well read on Pictish history. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Certainly The Invention of Tradition is a pretty much useless source for the medieval period. Déja vu all over again, like you said. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Angus for that note on the Harp page it’s most appreciated. With regards to my edits I have backed up everything with a lot of empirical sources. Actually the inclusion of pictorial evidence takes precedent over any written source as explained by the noted Harp and early European instrument historian Roslyn Rench in 1969 said “the best we can hope to do then is note what instruments are depicted in their art and ignore the written record.” So the early pictorial evidence of the Picts is actually quite imprtant as being the first and oldest verifiable evidence for a triangular stringed harp in Europe. Sadly a lot of confusion and nationalistic tendences from Hiberno-centric editors here as Eire adopted the harp as its emblem in the 14th century. Therefore everything relating to the harp in a celtic setting has somehow to be of an Irish persuasion.

Just an observation, but I have noticed a wave of unsigned edits on some of the pages I edit on as you have commented the unknown editor on the harp page is a banned editor. Some of them are quite childish [[8]] and others infantile [[9]]. While others completely take the reference out of context and meaning [[10]] and [[11]] by changing individual words or removing entire quotes to suit and change a quote to another pov [[12]], [[13]]. I think he could be using the following unsigned editors what can we do about him.

User talk:78.19.156.62 User talk:3.107.77.126 User talk:93.107.67.82 User talk:128.232.8.86 User talk:99.226.151.171

Thanks again for the comments on the harp pageCeltic Harper (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png from the Kevin Rose article and tagged it for deletion as (a) orphaned and (b) disputed fair-use. The picture is being used to illustrate an article which has nothing to do with Business Week. There's no need to use fair-use pictures for a living person like Rose. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 is not a blanket restriction on non-free images being used in articles about living people. The image in question is being used to accompany text that specifically discusses this BusinessWeek cover. It would greatly detract from the article if we just tried to describe the cover instead of actually showing it.

If you still disagree, please feel free to nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was new stuff there. Zazaban (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Manson's seventh studio album - was pretty clear about what was needed: sources, a name, a release date, that kind of stuff. The new version didn't add anything significant along those lines. WP:CSD#G4 says "substantially similar", which is definitely not the same as "identical". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that at '18:56, 24 July 2007 Angusmclellan (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Turkish battleship Mesudiye.jpg" ‎ (CSD I8 - image on Commons)'

The image currently does not exist, having been deleted from commons because '14:47, 22 March 2008 ABF (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Turkish battleship Mesudiye.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 14 March 2008; still missing essential information". using TW)'

I'm not quite sure what this means, but it seems likely the commons info was defective in some way causing the deletion. Since the image does not exist on commons, can you please undelete it here? Sandpiper (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it should have been deleted. The Mesudiye was sunk in 1915, so any photograph must be at least 90-odd years old, and could be much older. Anyway, the ways of Wikimedia Commons are very mysterious indeed: the image needs to be in the public domain in the USA (yes in this case) and in Turkey (no idea). Now undeleted. You may want to tag it with {{KeepLocal}} until you can figure out why it was deleted off Commons and whether that is fixable, or not. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksSandpiper (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source info is perfect so I am sure it will be ok on Commons as it is PD in the US where it was published. I've copied it over to Commons again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good if you have a recent biography of Edward the Elder. See Guthrum II for a confused area which this might shed some light on. PatGallacher (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's checkuser came back unrelated, and he's requesting unblock on that ground. Can you be more specific as to why you think they're the same person? They don't seem to be editing the same articles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me cynical and wanting in good faith, but I am unconvinced. IP addresses and user agents mean little. And if you're engaged in a wide-ranging crusade to add or remove British Isles in every article possible, you only need to edit once unless reverted. 192.44.136.103 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's spooky. Here I am in Brussels and some punter in Cincinatti is posting my answers before I do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is Chris Emerson and I, and I alone, own all rights, copyrights, and permissions to all of the photos which have been deleted from the Ken McKenna (attorney) page that I created. Every single one of them. From the one you just recently deleted to the ones I see were deleted over the past couple months in my absence. The site from which you claim they originated is NOT the photos' source. That site uses them strictly at MY discretion and MY permission, because, as I said, they belong to me along with ALL rights and permissions thereof. I find it very disheartening that Wiki is so quick to suppress my proper copyrights, while allowing cyber graffiti punks to add false, baseless, and source-lacking slanderous items in its' articles. Someone keeps adding that Ken McKenna has been repeatedly reported to the Nevada State Bar for fee disputes. Extensive research and a call to the Nevada State Bar turns up absolutely zero records on file of any such disputes ever being reported. I think this is a very unfortunate state of affairs and I hope you will be able to help me restore this page to its' proper condition with proper photos and sources as it contained a few months ago before all this happened. Thank you.--Adreamer323 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the photographs. Yes, the one particular photo in question is mine and permissions for usage were given to the RGJ for reprint purposes. Furthermore, used in the context of the article, being as it is a news story, copyright law says that it is now part of public domain usage. So not only do I own this particular photograph and retain all rights to it, but used in the context of the article, like I posted to Wiki, it is in the public domain. Once again I thank you for your consideration in this matter. Would you be able to advise me on how I may be able to get the other photos restored without having to re-upload?--Adreamer323 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I graciously thank you for your assistance. Similarly to what I told Milburn, as long as the photos appear on the Wiki page I am happy. No need for duplicates obviously. I have contacted Nv8200p in hopes of getting the three he deleted restored as well. Can only the editor who deleted the pics restore them? As for proof for further proof, just as I told Milburn, you can call (775) 329-6373. It is the main number for the Law Offices of Ken McKenna. Ask them if I, Chris Emerson, possess all rights and permissions to the photos that appear on their website. That is the best proof I have to offer you. Sleep well.--Adreamer323 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have belatedly noticed your tag on Thorstein the Red. A quick G-search suggests other sites seem to think he existed.... Ben MacDui 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started one on my own site at http://www.countyhistorian.com. I just wrote up a few bits, you can see them here Richard of Rheims Wjhonson (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, you're being caught in the crossfire of a larger debate, and your point that the dioceses are not in Great Britain will be moot, once the category is renamed. The Category Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain is under debate to be moved to Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom One of the consequences of the change is that 2 of the Irish dioceses which are solely in Northern Ireland, are to be moved into the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United Kingdom, once the move is completed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've understood the situation correctly. I'm sorry for the difficulties. We've been going back and forth now for a few days. I completely understand your point, and if it were up to me, the status quo would be retained. I think it makes way more sense, and I don't like this solution, because of the problems it creates for Ireland. If you can convince User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim to keep Great Britain, then none of these changes will happen. He has continually reverted List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain because he insists that Great Britain doesn't exist, without understanding why that category was created in the first place. I've been trying to talk to him, but he's an admin and refuses to listen. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, as an experienced admin can you have a look at this: [14].

Is this legitimate? I would feel a lot more comfortable with the result of the AFD if a neutral Admin undertook the closing. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. For my contributions to the history of Red seal ships and Asian trade in the 17th century, I would like to use a source in Japanese: 朱印船 ("Red seal ships"), by 永積洋子 (Nagazumi Yōko) ISBN 4642066594, 2001. As far as I know she is an excellent source on the subject, but can you give me your view on this? Cheers PHG (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus, on 31 January 2008, you edited the article on Aldfrith of Northumbria, adding : « Ruthwell Cross, estimating 730x750 » and « Bewcastle, estimating 725x750 ». Could you explain to me the meaning of these figures ? After a great deal of effort, I gave up ! Thanking you in advance. Elagatis (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. But, unless I'm mistaken, in your edit of Aldfrith of Northumbria titled « start adding Golden Age stuff » (31 January), you added, among others, the note : <ref>Ó Carragáin, "The Necessary Distance", p. 192, argues that the ''[[Agnus Dei]]'' imagery on both monuments places them in an 8th century context; likewise Ó Carragáin, "Ruthwell Cross", estimating 730x750; Bailey, "Bewcastle", estimating 725x750; more generally see Alcock, ''Kings and warriors'', pp. 377–382.</ref>. I don't understand the meaning of the figures 730x750 and 725x750. Elagatis (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I should have guessed ! Elagatis (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. You closed this DRV by pointing to the lack of consensus (I agree) and then saying, "closure applauded and endorsed by default." I'm just curious as to where this default position comes from, given that WP:DGFA suggests quite a different one: "When in doubt, don't delete" (emphasis in original). Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. I have filed a request for appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I'll be looking forward to your support. Cheers PHG (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are airports tourist destination? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Gone. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]