User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 21

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.

October & November 2008

For Commons, I think a tag {{Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be sufficient. The author of the photograph is not disclosed in the book and as it was no later than 1920, it would be impossible to verify the photographer and then find out whether he/she was still alive in 1938, the cutoff date for EU PD. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you had an eye on this account before, he showed up again. I might be wrong, but the coincidence seems strong... [1] HighKing (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, what I do with users, besides the obvious (contrib checking, block log checking, etc.) is try to see what role they would fit. Like if they're specialists, I check their contributions and attitude on the appropriate pages. If they're more all-around, I look more closely at general demeanor. When you're checking the edit count with interiot's tool, I look at the articles and spaces edited rather than the edit count itself. If you're not sure about a candidate, you can always give me the username and I can do a check to see if they'd be good. Though for me it's more a gut feeling with some candidates. Wizardman 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for all your work moving my pics to commons. They are all quite old & my more recent pics have all gone onto commons in the first place. I've been asked to consider adminship before, but don't really see any advantage from the tools for article creation & improvement. I try to keep out of some of the more "political" areas and discussions & although I know the mop & bucket work is important (& I'm aware of many of the relevant policies etc) it is not something I can get enthusiastic about.— Rod ^talk 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Poland perhaps? But it needs more info (that said, nobody is going ever to sue us over this forgotten image, so I wouldn't worry too much). Btw, which essay of mine do you disagree with? Have you seen my essay page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All help greatly appreciated. I'm not too hot on some of these tag thingies. Thunderer (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. If you worry about writing the stuff, some obsessive will add all the chrome sooner or later. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more worried about the objections I'll face now :( Thunderer (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to an article that big, there's no choice but either to take a chainsaw to it, which wasn't so popular, or to split it into chunks. Fair enough, there's room to quibble about what the summary section says, but it is a summary and so it should be short. It works for me anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree with it. I respect your opinion. Let's hope others do. Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:

Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.

Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?

On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?

On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.

I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first link right? I've never knowingly edited PalestineRemembered's talk page. The "Provisional" Sinn Féin stuff on Talk:Sinn Féin, which PR brought up, is a poor effort on your part. PR may not be of spotless reputation, but that doesn't invalidate the comment. That's disruptive, civil POV pushing I believe they call it. As for the rest, it's really nothing to do with me. My sole input has been to point out that (a) "broadly construed" would be punitive in your case and (b) that you'd been sanctioned before whereas BigDunc and The Thunderer had not. You surely don't want diffs for those? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply. Angus McLellan if you look at Talk:Sinn Féin you will notice that is my contrabution to a WP:3 which is here an option suggested by AE. Now do you still consider it "disruptive, civil POV pushing" when I point out that the opinions I express are not my own, but are in fact referenced to a number of respected authors on the subject? Since you did share your thoughts on proposed sanctions on me, would it not be correct to support this with diff's based on the current discussion? What are you basing your support for sanctions on. The time frame is from the last AE till now. So could you possibly have another look at the questions above, and give me your consider opinion as to how I have conducted myself. Thanks again really nice of you to help. PS I fixed the link. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit- the wording and spelling was consistent with reference 5- the City of Rochester Society, who must be considered the definitive source. The ligature Ǣ is repeatedly reverted here on Wikipaedia. Mange Tak.ClemRutter (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is called Æthelberht of Kent and there's a redirect from Ethelbert of Kent, but there's no King Ethelbert of Kent article. The article on Scandinavians who invaded England in the C9th is called Vikings. Danes is a disambiguation page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What say you to the anonymous editors repeated replacement of "Welsh" with "Brythonic" in the Wallace article? All of this speculation about Wallace's Welsh origins is probably inappropriate in the first place. Perhaps the whole section should go until sources are provided. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Richard "le Waleis", the presumed ancestor of the Wallaces in Scotland, came from Shropshire seems uncontroversial. I don't see any need to say more than that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus. A while back you asked me if I wanted to use the rollback feature. I declined at the time, but (typically) have since had several occasions when it might have been useful. Any chance I can take you up on the offer now? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're added now. Any problems, let me know please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angus, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw my iw edit inspired some more sources etc, and removal of some content that I didn't bother to translate - it could hardly have been this guy who was Guthfriths father, it would take some very solid references and a personal appearance from St. Cutberth to convince me of that ;) A question arose from my translation, do you know why it assumed that the Guthfrith/Gofraids etc are norse "Guðroðr", I would have assumed that "Guðfrið(r)" would have been just as likely. Second question, noticing you added a reference to Clare Downhams book from last year: I'm considering bying that book, is it a good one? Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Deacon just read Downham's book and liked it, as did I. It's principally based on Irish sources. It has a neat appendix of all Viking leaders mentioned in Irish annals down to 1014, which is very handy for Wikipedia. Her stuff on England is very interesting. So yes, it's well worth looking at. Hudson's Viking Pirates is not quite so good. I picked up a copy at a large discount, so there may be cheap copies around. Since we're here because of Guðroðr (as Downham calls him, Woolf says Guðfrið, Hudson Guðröðr), it's worth saying that Downham mentions Adam of Bremen's claim that Guðroðr/Guðfrið had sons named Óláfr, Røgnvaldr and Sigtryggr. Two of those are the names of the grandsons of Ívarr who ruled in York in the following generation. Downham is undecided about whether these are the same people. Woolf doesn't even mention it, but Hudson accepts it and also makes the second Guðfrið (Gofraid ua Ímair) this Guðfrið's son. So, between this lot, I have quite a lot of material on Guðroðr/Guðfrið, and on Hálfdan, but just at the moment - I have a new job that I'm still learning - I don't seem to be able to get much time to write stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well and good - I've ordered the book! I haven't had much wikitime myself until lately - and my tendencies towards wikiholism is something that comes and goes. It's been a while since I edited any norse-gael mediaval stuff, but I still have a rather ambitious but alas very unfinished "Ireland in the early middle ages" personal project over at norwegian wiki. If I manage to catch up with that you'll notice some more iw:no summaries on your articles ;o) All the best, happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Started reading and it seems promising, but I'm a bit surprised to see how much of what she's writing I've actually read (or even written translations of) before... I also ordered Ronald Williams "The Lords of the Isles", at first glance that seem to be more of a disappointment. BTW, Dowham seem to use Gøðrøðr as well, at least that's a letter (Ø) I've got on my keyboard ;). Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angus! Can you tell me how to download the rollback into my username? And I'm sort of pressed for time right now, but show me the WP internal link for proper usage? I appreciate the help!!! Cheers from Maryland, USA!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I got it figured out...was pressed for time earlier! Thanks for the rollback rights!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me tempted! The army of socks seems to have quietened down recently, but shows no signs of disappearing permanently, so rollback certainly would be useful. Cheers,  This flag once was red  18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and thank you very much! I've read up on it and promise to use it wisely. Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did throw some stuff up this morning, hopefully it helps. I really don't know what to do about the huge chunk about his "afterlife", it's beyond my sources. Not sure what else I might be able to dig out from what I've got with me, we'll have to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious case for blacklisting this book in policy for all articles covering the medieval period. This is not the first Lauder-esque user to use the two-pronged Burke (/other random peerage source)/WP:VER attack on the quality of articles, and certainly won't be the last. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone else was thinking that same user on this. My personal opinion is most genealogical works shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, unless they are from one of the top tier publications (New England Genealogical and Historical Register, American Genealogist, and the one from England whose name just escaped me). Some stuff from Genealogical Publishing Company is good, but some is bad. Even genealogists will tell you that you MUST go back to the original source, not just trust a published work, but it's obviously a distinction that folks on WP fail to get. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That name had occurred to me, although Burkem's the one I've gone hand-to-hand with for a while. I could get on board with this; where would we cut Burke's off? 1500? 1600? And should we make an exception for the 106th and later editions? [2] Although I suppose for medieval individuals there should really be no reason to resort to Burke's as a source. Choess (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred choice would be the CP with corrections and the Keats-Rohan book on early medieval nobles, which I'm still trying to obtain a copy of. CP, while not perfect, at least is better than Burke's for medieval stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think cutting Burke off for "medieval" (whatever that means) can be sufficient. It's quite difficult to go way off this late in the game as the sources are so extensive. 19th century/early 20th century peerage or genealogy writers can still be cited by the historically competent ... you just gotta be able to tell when to do it, when there is nothing else to use and at the same time make the relationship between source and interpretation clear to the normal reader. Some of these guys, like for instance James Balfour Paul, can be used because even though they often contain stuff which now looks daft; these guys usually tell you the source from which their readings are derived, so you can evaluate for yourself (hence why a late medieval [though never an early] historian can cite Paul, but rarely guys like Burke). Unlike modern history, in high medieval history there is an expectation that, even in a medium like this, you discuss the sources in some way. Most importantly, it should be easier to prevent less experienced editors stating certain things as facts [when they are not] and giving undue weight. Some guideline or policy to "prevent" this should be easy to write. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus McLellan! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I wish to withdraw my proposal for a change from the RoI because several editors who favour change are unhappy with pursuing this while a Task Force is 'active' (in the possum sense t'would appear). If this is do-able, could you please do the necessary barking? Sarah777 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian article about Angus Og [3] offered the interesting explanation that "Angus" is a gaelic derivative of the "norse name Magnus". I've taken that part out, and will inform the editor who put it there (Finn the first), but you would probably know: Are there examples of "Magnus" (after coming in popular norse use) being confused with the gaelic Aonghas/Óengus? The closest I've come (in 5 minutes) is Aengus aka Maccan, allthough I'm not sure Wikipedia is a very reliable source ;)Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this is far beyond my sketchy knowledge. The Deacon might have a better idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Your edit (as Amcl) modified the category of that page. Neither category seems appropriate. The page now gets listed in Category:Wikipedia administration templates. Would you mind explaining? Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a template, or at least it functions as one, so I suppose that will be why it was categorised that way to start with. And having been categorised that way, it was changed when the category was renamed. Since most pages are in some category, it won't have struck me as being unreasonable that this one should have been.

But Portal-space template type material is not generally categorised that way. They aren't categorised at all. That page, and all the other similar header boxes and so on, would be best categorised somewhere under Category:Portals. That would be a lot of work for little gain, so I wouldn't recommend it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus,

I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the above article which you deleted at 20:58 on 25 Oct 2008 on grounds of copyright violation. I do in fact have copyright permission from the author to use material from his website in this article. If necessary, you can contact him for confirmation through his website contact address: [email protected]. Many thanks. Jack Pippin (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus McClellan,

Below is a copy of the email author Peter Marshall has sent to'permissions-en(at)wikipedia(dot)org' which confirms that he has given me permission to use material from his website in my article 'Peter Marshall (author)':

'To whom it may concern,

I would like to confirm that I have given copyright permission to Jack Pippin to use material from my website (www. petermarshall.net) for his article 'Peter Marshall (author)' which was deleted by Angus McClellan at 20.58 on 25 October 2008 on grounds of copyright violation. I would therefore appreciate it if the article could be reinstated as soon as possible.

Many thanks,

Peter Marshall'

I appreciate your vigilance; I agree copyright is a very serious matter. Can you let me know when you will be able to undelete the article in question?

Best wishes,

Jack PippinJack Pippin (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Brockhaus material, nineteenth century writings by Nikolay Kostomarov Actually IIRC Polonisation article is largely based on his writings including wholesale quotations in the article brought by Irpen. Do you believe it is correct and reliable source as well as way to create to create this article ? I wouldn't mind seeing your opinion there.

--Molobo (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of those articles which reminds me of wandering through the National Museum's ghastly collection of heroic-pathetic C19th paintings of the January Uprising, nationalist victimhood myths in paint and canvas. Now, instead of being like that, it should be more like the awesome medieval religious sculpture hidden away down in the basement, speaking a near-universal language.

Just looking at the refs, it is not good. Citing general encyclopedias is just lazy, and of Kostomarov the less said the better. There is an insanely great book on identities by Patrick Geary called The Medieval Myth of Nations. Unfortunately it doesn't have much on Eastern Europe. The text is like you'd expect. When Polish rulers attempt to polonise their subjects, that's self-evidently forced polonisation from above, but when Władysław Warneńczyk doesn't attempt to polonise Ruthenian nobles, that's a subtle approach to polonisation. *yawn* So far as I can tell, there are no articles about the francisation of France, although there easily could be (cf. Peasants into Frenchmen et cetera). More East European exceptionalism? Probably.

To fix it will need some plausible sources, which means avoiding impressive-looking but shallow cherry-picking from Google books excerpts. That may be good enough to make GA reviewers happy, but really it's not a sensible way to do things. The book, the whole book, and nothing but the book. Yes, this does mean either a trip to a major library or even buying the book, once you've figured which book it is. Although you probably don't want to hear this, I have to tell you that you'd be much better off asking the Deacon than asking me. I am a dabbler, but he's actually studied this sort of stuff. I have a few general books on EE history, but nothing particularly appropriate to this subject.

I'll leave my opinion at Talk:Polonization after I've read Germanization, Russification and whatever else we have in the same vein. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, just wanted to express my appreciation for your last contribution to the talk page of Great Famine (Ireland)...particularly the last paragraph. Though I casually monitor the article and its talk page, I've long since suspended any efforts to seriously work on the article and consider its elevation to GA/FA a lost cause until certain "editors X" (to borrow your phrasing) are permanently proscribed from editing it. I admire the enormous well of patience you've displayed during your mentorship of the article, but I'm relieved to know that the "nuclear option" is on the table. Dppowell (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope I did not offend you with my comment on arbcom. You are a great editor, and while I do think you made a mistake there, we are all humans, and we err - it's not like I haven't made mistakes myself. I hope my comment there - in retrospect, perhaps not the most diplomatic - will not impact the respect I hope we both feel for each other. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I agree of course that it is greatly improved.

I see that my statement that Edward's reign saw grants of land to monasteries is an error based on the Ethelred article, and I have edited the Ethelred article citing the online Oxford DNB. I have made many minor edits and raised points on discussion pages, but this is the first time I have tried to insert a source in an edit. Any advice on my contribution would be welcome. I accessed the source through my online local libary, but as it is a subscription source, I assume I should not show it as a link. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have changed the reference as you advise and also added the article to the bibliography.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angus McClellan,

As you can see in the above commments, I have permission from Peter Marshall to use his copyright material in my article on him which you have deleted. I have also sent an email with the message giving his permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org" . I understand from the Wikipedia deletion policy that this is all that is necessary for this deleted article to be reinstated.

I would therefore appreciate it if you could undelete the article in question forthwith. If not, could you please tell me why not and how I can challenge your decision in keeping with Wikipedia protocols.

Many thanks,

Jack Pippin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Pippin (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing, but the name is not that rare. This is my sock, for the record.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you possibly step in here, since they seem to be ignoring the strong advice being offered here. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers bru, I didn't realise, sorry Zolstijers (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

... = User:Nimbley6?

The usual boxes are ticked: sub-headings, Scottish issues, speling adn gramar; infoboxes, persistence/brinksmanship.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's that man again. Blocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm always a little hesitant with registered accounts. And it had been relatively quiet recently... (sigh). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anyone else do the heading stuff. It's a dead giveaway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One give-away for me is the spelling. Talking of which, have you seen this? I think our mutual fiend believes that registering accounts makes it invisible...

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a longer summarisation of your thoughts in closing this? MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At bottom, the arguments in favour of deletion seemed stronger than those in favour of retention. But that, I suspect, is not the sort of vague non-answer you're wanting. Many of the comments left me unmoved. The ones that had stuck in my mind when I got to the end were your original comment, your reply to Ynhockey, and the comments by Vegaswikian, Good Ol'Factory and Flowerparty. Now some might say that's because my attention span is so short that I forgot all the earlier stuff, but I would disagree. I did think quite hard about listifying it, but maybe I didn't think hard enough because I can see how a list would have addressed some of the arguments for deletion. If a list would make you happier, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Angus. Many thanks for mentioning DYK on my Talk page. Actually, that St Mary's Cathedral, Tuam, article was the first I'd nominated for it. If you would like to find the pretext for nominating Áed Ua Crimthainn, I'd be flattered. Strawless (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never yet written an interesting hook. So long as they're coherent, they usually get accepted. So I went for a summary of the lead. Can't argue with that! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. We do not need to scintillate. Strawless (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, only till four at my age. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angusmclellan, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your message on meta regarding Wikimedia UK and your offer of a donation. We are currently arranging approval for Gift Aid and will be in touch again when this is complete. Regards, AndrewRT(Talk) 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC) (Company Secretary, Wiki UK Ltd)[reply]

 Done

Please undelete Image:5-cube solved close.png and Image:4-cube horribly scrambled.png as I wish to challenge the speedy delete as I indicated here. SpinningSpark 20:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fix the truly unsupportable changes made recently and yes, then take a hike. Overall, the article is in far better shape now then when this version first was launched, not to mention the first version which had to be deleted entirely (it was a massive COPYVIO cut and pasted from a fringe website!) thanks Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. Thank you for your comments. Your reassuring statement that Jean Bureau is "borderline medieval" is kind of funny though. Are you aware that I was once blocked following the claim by someone that my article France-Japan relations (19th century) was "related to medieval history", and that there was "clearly a section on medieval history within the article", whereas it only started by mentioning events from the second half of the 16th century? [4]? Cheers PHG (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the photograph, I could find the message "Photo by Plate Ltd" in extremely small characters. The issue is February 1926 and the page number is 170. The name of the article is "Fishing for pearls in the Indian Ocean" and the author is Bella Sidney Woolf.

The issue is listed here. Well, it would be great if I could get some help with the fair-use rationale though. Thanks.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! :-) Expecting it to get resolved soon.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account in Commons. So, I wish to ask my question here. How shall we be able to verify if National Geographic Society purchased the copyright or not? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi here are my Flickr agreements: at User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Flickr agreements. Its not your fault all the images should have been tagged properly. I had a nightmare trying to sort out the agremeents. These days I refrain from making any new agremeents which is a shame because it takes so long to sort out and the sort of people you mentioned start sniffing at them. If you could add the proper ticket using the code this would be great .Best Count Blofeld 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started this article. I thought I should point it out to you, as I see the image from Commons I've used is one you uploaded. Strawless (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at this for us here. We created an article here which came out of this discussion here. Another article was just created to day by Rock here based on the same discussion. The Lead section I've been working on with Rock here bottom of the section, and as you can see from the first diff, has been replaced with refs and no page numbers, and no attempt to join the discussion. I don't think the discussion is going to go well here, having directed them to were the information is they were looking for, they ignore it, and repeat the claim? I did provide the editor the oppertunity to illustrate their concerns to editors here but that offer too was ignored. I'll walk away for a bit, as no progress can be made at the minute. Advice and suggestions are welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cross-posted to James F.'s page, Angusmclellan's

It was a comment in response to Sam's:

I'm afraid I see this as a ludicrous remedy. Piotrus has been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and an administrator since January 2005. If his understanding is such that he still needs a "mentor to assist him in understanding policy" now, then he is never going to understand it. Better to give firm instruction as to future conduct.

My point was about the Committee's and community's appetite to engage with and attempt to reform long-standing users, and how Sam's comment would suggest a strengthening of our will.

Sorry this wasn't clearer.

James F. (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James, that makes perfect sense. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a "work in progress" that has already been cited with a DYK and a spot on the Wikipedia home page. And, quite frankly, I have a huge dog in the fight -- the article. I am sick of seeing both sides bickering and calling each other names. Getting lost in the shuffle is the actual story of brave people who stood up at a time when it was more convenient to hide. I want their story told, in proper historical context and with all of the facts presented in a scholarly manner. I rewrote the entire copyrightvio-pegged article because I wanted the subject presented properly. That's my foundation at the base of the current article. I don't believe the article is "dreadful." What is dreadful is the attitude of too many people who prefer a good fight to a good article. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Angus. I don't cry so easily. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spare a thought for other people. What about the poor arbitrators who might end up having to hear a case over this? Or the editors who might be blocked? They might cry. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that. How's about mentioning this at Matt's page. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me by investigating the copyright status of the 1926 pearling image and in getting the Madras Presidency article back on track for the next stageRavichandarMy coffee shop 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a bit ill and preoccupied. Haven't had much time to edit. I've just been monitoring my watchlist. Hopefully I can find some time to pick up where i left off. I'll probably just keep my edits simple at first. Thanks for your support.Timelinefrog (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]