User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 3

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 2006 to June 2006

Woops ! There are several Owains. I made Owain of Strathclyde a dab page. We're missing Owain the Bald (Eugenius Calvus) of the C11th, otherwise we're ok. He'd be Eógan II of Strathclyde by analogy. Sorry for any confusion. Somehow I missed your question earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I started dabbing to the appropriate Owains on pages that linked to Owain of Strathclyde.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have done Owen the Bald in a few hours. I need to do Máel Coluim I first though. BTW, does Duncan mention anything about Máel Coluim II? I have Oram and Broun arguing for his existence, so a Duncan reference would seal the deal on his article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for all that info. Very useful. I've done all the kings up to Máel Coluim II. I would do the latter too, but I can't find my David I book (by Oram). Broun's article has interesting stuff. You might wanna consult it for your Strathclyde article. He argues that Strathclyde was destroyed because of the Norse-Gaels/Galwegians, with some part of it coming into Scotland; he even puts the idea that Prince David conquered it from the Norse-Gaels with the help of his Norman patron. BTW, there is a new, quite awesome book out called Viking Empires, partly written by Oram, which has interesting stuff on the 10th and 11th century, similar to the Broun stuff. I haven't properly consulted it yet, as I just glanced at it in the book store. I'm gonna order it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind words, Angus. I have three very good sources in Spanish, and I've just been reading those, then writing new articles in English. Unfortunately, though, my sources cover only Mexican viceroys. What information there is on the viceroys of Peru was already there before I added information, or was sketchily mentioned in passing in my sources. I would like to write on them too, but there is no more about them in Mexico (where I live) then there is in the U.S. (where I'm from). Oh well, maybe I'll get to Peru sometime. Rbraunwa 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am surpised that this article is not protected from edit wars. It's a hot button subject. - Sal 09:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that your recent edit on the Armenian Genocide opposition section was fair though I think the comment that few of these historians considered as authorities is highly disputable. But I am Ok with letting the facts speak for themselves and I'm not going to dispute this charecterization. There's small typo in your edit: In the second line "cconsider" needs to be corrected. I did so many recent edits, I hesitate do another one. If you find the time, article might benefit from fixing this typo. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Best Deepblue06

You beat me to it. The thing preventing me doing these articles was that I still haven't worked out the early MacHeths, since Oram says something completely different from everyone else, but doesn't resolve the problems he creates. BTW, can you give me a few days to do Harald Maddadsson; I got the SHR article and other stuff in order to write it. BTW, since you're now taking an interest in the High Medieval stuff (the most fascinating period in Scottish history in my opinion), do you have any thoughts of changing the titles of the Mormaers from X n of Y, to X n, Earl of Y. Totally against the X, n Earl of Y, because it is totally inappropriate for lords of this kind. I based my titling of these articles on the French and German aristocracy on wiki, where X n of Y is common. - 12:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgacus (talk • contribs) .

Hey thanks. I came across a great book (dating to 1914 however), that finally enables me to make lists and articles on Scotland's medieval bishops and bishoprics, so I think I'd better get engaged on that. Therefore, feel free to do Harald; although I will of course get around to it soon if you do not. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna do the MacHeths, by all means. I've already sorta written an article on Máel Coluim, but I gave up on it after reading Oram's treatment. Here's a quote from Orderic Vitalis in case you don't have access to it: "But Máel Coluim, base-born son of Alexander, affected to snatch the kingdom from his uncle [David], and fought against him two sufficiently fierce battles. But David, who was loftier in understanding and in power and wealth, conquered him and his followers"<ref>Orderic Vitalis, ''Historia Ecclesiastica'', VIII. 20; tr. A.O. Anderson, ''Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers: AD 500 to 1286'', (London, 1908), p. 158.</ref> Wiki will prolly be better served if I concentrate on building up lists of bishops for now, as these lists are extremely difficult to get hold of, and are not, so far as I am aware, available anywhere on the net. BTW, if you happen to come across any info about obscure pre-Davidian Celtic bishops of any Scottish see, drop me a note. :) And yeah, that's looks like it might be him. I'm gonna just leave him alone though, best to let sleeping dogs lie; he is, besides, a distraction for fruitful work. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, you might be interested in looking at or modifying this page: Mormaer Beth. Also, have you come across any comments on the quite interesting fact that the Mormaers of Ross after Ferchar bore only two names, William and Hugh (Aodh). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, in summary, is the other evidence for Áed? This Mormaer Beth on its own is pretty spurious. Is it just the later Máel Coluim's patronymic. I'm not sure people have theories about this guy under control: check out fr:Angus Mac Aedh and, especially, fr:Aedh mormaer de Moray. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still confused as to why Áed could be the father of Óengus, as well as the father of Máel Coluim, and witness two charters under David. I've been distracted with football and bishops though, so haven't given it my full attention. I feel pretty bad making you do the Harald Maddadsson article, since I have all the resources for it. If you get the opportunity, you should consult Barbara Crawford's "The Earldom of Caithness and the Kingdom of Scotland, 1150­-1266" in Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland, and Patrick Topping, "Harald Maddadson, Earl of Orkney and Caithness, 1139-1206," in The Scottish Historical Review, 62, 1983. They might help, although the works you have are definitely enoguh to do a decent article. BTW, have you found a decent list of Orkney earls anywhere? BTW, the bishops work is extraordinarily tedious; I can't wait to finish it, so I can get on with normal articles. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That site you linked seems like a safe enough basis for a list. BTW, do you think it would consitute original research to title Earl "Gilbert" (mac Gilla Brigte) "Gilla Brigte, Earl of Orkney"? It seems to be pretty obvious that was his name rendered "Gilbert" by scribal convention (and there was no Gilbert in the Angus or Orkney family), but I've never come across any historian using this name. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to prepare a speech in the RfAr and have time right now, do it so, because this time I'm afraid I have to do it. You will hit your head on a wall if you read all the evidences I have accumulated and what can be concluded from it. Fad (ix) 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what specific points/issues are to be arbitrated? I have to admit I am not Wiki knowledgable as to how these things work. Is the issue the article itself (content) needs arbitration (I say it needs a total re-write) or does this have something to do with vandalism and banning people from doing such etc? Or is it something else? --THOTH 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your message on Thoth talk page about RfC, don't waste your time over it, it has been tried, this is not a RfC material, Francis was handling the issue and bringing what should be changed before trouble makers came in to make working on the article impossible. And when I say trouble maker I include Thoth, because I do think he is a trouble maker, that he is good intentioned in this doesn't change a thing. I don't think any experienced Admin will disagree that this whole issue is about people not understanding why a talk page exist and what are the guildines and policies and above all what is an encyclopedic article. I will probably be 'sentenced' because I did not assume good faith in some instances and for incivility, but I consider this a little price to pay for 2 years of failure. I expect from the Arbcom to indefinitly block the article from new registered users and unregistered users, as well as placing undefinetly at a minimum one experienced admin, I am thinking either Francis or El_C on the talk page and deleting right away materials that have nothing to do with the article, not moving them, deleting them. ... or even better yet, the article be blocked totally and new edits being decided over the talk page and then after decision those edits being done by the admin in question. I doubt there is any article in Wikipedia being abused the way this one is. Anyway, I am editing my speech after Francis recommendations and will be filling it today if everything goes well. Fad (ix) 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis is out of town, can you comment my modifications and proofread? (I'm on Linux and without a corrector). [1] Fad (ix) 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent improvements to old de la Reynie -- "..economic police(?); manners(?)" => "trade and public decency" -- sounds so much better! And many thanks for the missing paragraph as well. Now if only we can get the Murchads and Flaithbertachs sorted out we'll be golden :) Bookgrrl 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For tireless work which has established Scotland among the best historically represented nations on Wikipedia i award you the Epic Barnstar. siarach 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt realize you had this one staked out, looks like I accidentally beat you to it, though at the moment I cant recall how or why I ended up doing this one...o wot a tangled web we weave when first we begin to wiki... --Bookgrrl 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your conditional support of Chew Valley for FA status, I've removed the majority of "include/includes/including X, Y, Z" as you suggested & would be grateful if you'd take a look & see if this has addressed your concerns? Rod 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edit of residents - it reads better than mine - however I don't understand your comment about Lord George Sanger Rod 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not someone thats come up from any of my sources & maybe another one to add to a "To Do" list Rod 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. As you had said in the deletion debate you would rewrite the article if it were kept, I have put a copy of what was there at Ivy Close/temp. If you are able to rewrite using the extra sources etc you found, it can then go back into Ivy Close (which has been deleted in its current state). Then tag the temp page for speedy deletion. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Proto||type 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the article is one short line, it's not worth saving. But feel free to produce a new article, if you are able. Proto||type 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll get googling and see what I can find on the other Ivy. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm not entirely convinced they are anywhere near being the same person, though. I still get the feeling the 'Miss Great Britain' Ivy Close that has been deleted was a hoax. Proto||type 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was fishy ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Karatekid7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BiII the Bear (talk • contribs) .

Angus, what do you make of this new Category:Scottish Catholics? I cannot say that I am too impressed: 99% of notable pre-Reformation Scots, and thousands of notable post-Reformation Scots were Catholcs. If there are thousands of relevant biography articles that can be put in there, what on earth is the use of the cat? I nearly CFD'd it last night, but went to bed instead. (I must be grumpy lately: I have seen several things recently that I thought ought to be AFD's or CFD'd, which is unusual, cos I am certainly an inclusionist.) I may be wrong, so would value a 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, 5th... etc) opinion.--Mais oui! 09:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I'm inclined to leave it and see where this is going. What do you mean by "no William Wallace or James I"? Were they not Catholics? --Mais oui! 09:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... that wouldn't be very useful or informative". Mmmm... just have a look at who has been put in the cat already, and we are only on Day 2. For how many of those people is Roman Catholicism a notable attribute? - Matt Busby? Alexander Fleming?

I've just seen this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Scottish_Catholics_to_Category:Scottish_Roman_Catholics. --Mais oui! 10:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you quote any source regarding your last edit at Charlie Burchill ? Brian W 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

Yeah, 'tis nonsense. But he moved the pages, and then visited the old page, edited it why a null redirect so that it couldn't be moved back. Now I have to go around moving Mormaer pages pages to "Earl" pages, which is fine for later on, but doesn't make that much sense for, say, Dubdon of Atholl. There's so many to change, that it'll prolly take lots of time to fix the redirects and page links. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some of this work. BTW, I've decided unilaterally to use Gille instead of Gilla for Scottish names. This is a Scottish historical convention that I was hostile too, but as it is now becoming totally dominant, I must yield. So if you see any medieval Scot called "Gilla", can you tell me so I can change it to "Gille". Thanks. :) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you medievalists have not bothered with discussions about guidelines, and now you start to be unhappy when people put articles under titles they actually are supposed to be under. Look upwards your this talkpage, I informed you that soon medieval ladies will have "Princess" titles. That's something I feel strongly, against. I am not so bothered with earls and so forth, as they actually were then or at least retrospectively called earls. But have you done anything for preventing medieval ladies to get princess... Soon there will be Princess Bethoc of Scotland and Princess Gruoch of Moray, or something like that. ObRoy 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two things, I don't know why ObRoy thinks that discussion is going to be applied to medieval "princesses", and even if it is, I think it's fairly obvious to all the wikimedievalists that it would be stupid and we would move them back. Anyway, for Marrtel's page moves, I don't know what the names in these particular cases should or should not be, but yes, it is preferrable that the interested parties dicuss it first (as an example, see Talk:Constantine XI, where there was a lengthy discussion on Greek vs. Latinized names, and even though I don't really agree with the result, at least we discussed it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Bishop (talk • contribs) .

I would have agreed with you at 18:46 UCT yesterday, when ObRoy wrote that, but now, having seen Marrtel at work, I'm not so sure I do. Moving them back isn't an option unless the mover leaves well alone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you are intending to move Gilla Coemgáin of Moray, please open first a discussion at its talkpage, and then wait for results until any move is made. I believe his naming will be a more complex issue than the routine ones. Marrtel 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's just about changing Gilla to Gille to put all the wikipedia names in line with the usage of Scottish historians. As Moray was definitely a Kingdom, and "Earl" is certainly inappropriate, they won't take the "Xn, Earl of Y" formula. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as humour given the circumstances. I need to sort out Gruoch et al. Still horrible old stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wish I could help ... but the only books with me now are some Whithorn lectures and a crappy life of St. Kentigern. What do you think of the Wimund (bishop) article btw? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimund fitz William ? Wimund mac Uilleim ? Wimund Willelming ? I think you suggested Wimund of the Isles, which seems more reasonable than my original research. At the moment it's just a dump of the annals but Oram and MacDonald have a fair bit on him. It was on my mental to-do-list, but I really, really need to finish Flann Sinna first. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Wimund is fine for just now (sorry, I forgot the page had been moved). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Angus, I simply grew up knowing he was a Catholic to be honest, and the fact his life was spent before the Reformation always led me to think of him as a Catholic of course, as well as all the other Scottish monarchs until John Knox's arrival, and even afterwards (we all know the House of Stuart was almost entirely Catholic, with some striking exceptions who should be considered). If you feel it is wrong to have the Bruce under the Catholic category, feel free to erase him. We will discuss about it later on, when I'll start adding all the Catholic Scottish monarchs quoting the source of course. Bye! Gianmaria Framarin 2:59 3 June 2006

Dear Angus, I quoted the source on Robert Burns entirely on his section: I have Scottish Protestant relatives from Ayr, and though I always knew he was a strong anti-Calvinist I couldn't really imagine he was also a Catholic. Please check the quote, and feel free to do whatever you please.

On the other hand, there are some Scottish monarchs who were outspoken Catholics (as I had said, almost all the House of Stuart), you will already find these monarchs (James I, II, III and so on onto Mary of course) under the category "Roman Catholics" (which I didn't create), and I wouldn't dare denying this myself (what would William Wallace be then?). I will probably find some resistance in quoting pre-Reformation figures, but I don't think I'll find any speaking of outspoken Catholic and Jacobite kings. Bye. Gianmaria Framarin 3:27 3 June 2006

I'll get back to you on this, prob tommorrow (something just came up - like you I spend my working life waiting for things to go wrong). First thoughts: we perhaps should look at the wider picture: ie. this is not a Scotland-only phenomenon (mis-spelt).

"All that stub cat stuff you did today has got me started on unstubbing some of the easier candidates". Excellent! That is indeed the whole point: ideal number of stubs and stub cats = zero. Je renvoie Illegitimi non carborundum. --Mais oui! 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your input/commentary I had some hopes for you. But you made a few good points - ran face to face with the ugly and persistent denial that we have to deal with every day - and you scampered off...shall we call you Sir Robin? --THOTH 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda new at this, so if you can point me to some general guidelines on linking, I'd appreciate it Hobomojo 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Hobomojo 02:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink would suit. Nope, you lost me there. Sorry to show my ignorance but where does the green ink reference fit in ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging fan films by the porn test. That's pure genius. Ha ha! -- GWO

I've added a few more stubs, and hope to have a few more done before too long. Nothing too adventerious, but hopefully of interest. Knock yourself out. Fergananim 17:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mac an Bhaird
• Diarmaid Mac an Bhaird
• Leabhar Cloinne Aodha Buidhe
• Clandeboye
• Mac Aodhagáin
• Leabhar Breac
• Murchadh Ó Cuindlis
• Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig
• Leabhar Clainne Suibhne

It looks to me that the en-wiki article Maison du Roi is too focused on the military division, while the fr-wiki, on the other hand, seems to be scattered over too many pages (Maison du roi, Département de la Maison du roi, Grand office de la Maison du roi de France, etc.). Instead of doing an isolated translation of the "département" page, I might make (depending on size of the page... you can always break into separate pages later) a major revision to Maison du Roi, with divisions into civil, military, ecclesiastical and ministerial (putting under this latter heading the département information, with "Ministry of the Maison du roi" as a possible translation of "départment"). To help you in the task, see the presentation on the fr-wiki "Maison du roi". Additionally, I would make sure that Early Modern France (the section on the structure of the Ancien Régime) has a good link to these governmental/royal articles.

That's my 2 cents, anyway. Also, I don't know if you're interested, but feel free to join and/or promote the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board.

Thanks for keeping up the good work! Cheers-

--NYArtsnWords 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick question: Frank Byrne refers to the Clann Cholmáin king Conall son of Suibne (died 635) as Colman Guthbinn. Is that still current os should I say Colman mac Suibni ? Also, other than Mide, was he king of ? Uisnech I'd guess."

Actually I'm not too sure on either of these, so I'll have to look them up, health permitting. A way around it would be to call any article on him as Colman mac Suibni, but place AKA Colman Guthbinn in the explanatory heading. Not too sure of the exact range of his kingdom/s, either. A good person to ask would be User:Aine nic, who, despite being a redmark user, seems to have some interesting material to back her up. I think she could fit into our informal medieval group very nicely. Keep up the good work! Fergananim 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, the Flann Sinna article is brilliant! You sicken me! Right, I'm handing in my long-article volunteer status to Wiki, and will stick to wee stubs I have the health and patience for. Seriously though, it is a damm fine job, far and away the best I have yet seen on any Irish leader prior to Daniel O'Connell.

As to the book of Leinster I have some interesting material on it, but I've noticed a few errors in the source, so I'm going to spend some time double-checking it. Mostly what I think I'll be doing from now on will be thrawling through academic articles and condesnseing them for individual articles. Some of them, even those recently published, are very obscure to most people but are far more up-to-date and interesting that generalised histories. Its sure a nice way to spend an otherwise unbearable day. Will get back to you on these. Meanwhile, here's a quick list of my other additions, which I humbly offer for your edification.

• Eibhlín Dubh Ní Chonaill - really love this one! Must work it up big time!
• Ó Cléirigh
• Tadhg Ó Cianáin
• Ádhamh Ó Cuirnín
• Ó Dálaigh
• Ó Duibhdábhoireann
• Nicholas Furlong
• Cúán úa Lothcháin
• Colmán mac Lénéni
• Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig
• Blathmac mac Cú Brettan
• Annals of Connacht
• Annals of Lough Cé
• Niníne Éces
• Máire Bhuí Ní Laoghaire
• Annals of Clonmacnoise

Really want to set the scene for my favorite poet of the 10th century, the notoriousFlann mac Lonáin. You'll love him! Fergananim 12:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few queries:

1 - Flann's mother was called Land? Do you mean Fland, or indeed Flann, which was a name used for both sexes?

2 - His children; list them all in order, instead of later introducing Gormlaith seperatly from the male offspring. Might not be a bad idea to revise the "Family" paragraph so as to make it read more smoothly.

3 - In the "Reign" section;

• Leargus, Bishop of Kildare - surely Fergus?
• Tarrytown Fair - do you mean the Fair of Tailtiu?
• Mael Ruanaid mac Flan killed by the Eoganachta of Connacht???
• Cormac mac Cuilenan, not Cormac MacCuilenan.

That's about it. Interesting, the relationship between Mide and Connacht in those times, as Mide was entering its apex of power and could dictate to Connacht. Later on, during the reign of Tairrdelbach mac Ruaidri Ua Conchobair, Mide was frequently cut up to serve Connacht's interests, so much so that it was reguarded as annexed to, and thus part of, Connacht. The kingdom came to an inglourious end with the murder of Domnall Bregach Ua Mael Sechlainn in 1173; however, it did enjoy a brief and savage twilight under Cormac mac Art O Melaghlain who nevertheless died in Connacht, showing just what a strong part the latter kingdom played in the "special relationship" that had developed between the two.

Keep up the good work, you don't know how delighted I am to see someone writing articles of this quality on these subjects! Fergananim 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. Thanks for the welcome. Well done on Flann Sinna; most of my changes were to the family section. I'm afraid my HTML skills are, umm, nascent, so I think I screwed up some of your formatting. Apologies. Am a bit distracted at the moment by being in (false) pre-labour with first child.

Aine_nic23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]