User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 5

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.

August to October 2006

Hey Angus, wondering if you know something about Domnall Bán being "Earl of Gowrie"; the claim occurs in many internet sources, but I've never come across it in any proper sources. Seems to me intrinsically unlikely, as Gowrie was the core province of the medieval Scottish kingdom, containing centers such as Scone and Perth. Do you have any idea why this idea exists? The claim is still contained in the wiki article, Domnall III of Scotland, though it is uncited. I notice this article is one of the few early Scottish kings articles that have not been brought up to proper standards, so I don't take this as a sign of it being correct. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing of relevance in pp. 164-5 is a citation of himself to p. 156. There he quotes the foundation charter of Scone Abbey where King Alexander grants a portion "of my oats and my bere and of the cain of my hides and cheeses" from, according to Duncan, the king's manors of Gowrie "as much as from my earldom as from my royalty". On page 126 Duncan says "Ethelred and Alexander were invested in the earldoms of Fife and Gowrie respectively", but gives no evidence. Bannerman ("Macduff of Fife") has since shown that Ethelred was not earl of Fife, and as you say Duncan has now changed his mind about Gowrie. What strikes me is that if Gowrie were a mormaerdom, the Scottish king would have no desmesne land in Scotland-proper that wasn't part of another historically attested comital province, excepting the Mearns, which is very far north, appears to have been a royal forest and was a mormaerdom in the reigns of Domnall III and Donnchad II. He doesn't seem to say anything about Gowrie in the reign of Domnall, so I think I'll just have to assume for now that someone writing between Bower and those Victorian amateur peerage historians made it up. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't mind writing that article on Domnall Bán, but don't feel I should without having access to Duncan's Kingship of the Scots. No, I was just asking because I wanted to feel more certain before removing the claim from the articles. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Royal naming so that further discussion can take place on the most appropriate names for the early monarchs; I also reposted there one of your earlier posts on Talk:Cináed I of Scotland, which got lost among the Cináed versus Kenneth discussion. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on Douglas (mythology)? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks/Diolch. I must figure out how to do that myself some time. I was just logging off anyway. Deb 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it, as it seemed to be a duplicate anyway. Deb 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm Sri Lankan Sinhalese, So wht you wanna know about Saliya Aladeniya? Darshana (Talk) 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep what i found was these, http://www.lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2399&/ and http://lakdiva.org/suntimes/001001/plus4.html only. Believe me those two articles are very reliable and accurate, according to me. But someone already add those links to Saliya Aladeniya. And i'd like to tell this too. I talk with few people about him(Saliya Aladeniya), those guys also agreed with that author. Darshana (Talk) 06 Sept 2006

I don't really have any thoughts except on the first, which I've wondered about previously. I would favor "of Deira", except that it doesn't tell the reader that he ruled Bernicia as well; "of Northumbria" lets us know that he ruled both, even though the term itself may be an uncomfortably fitting anachronism. "Of Northumbria" seems to be a simple and clear way to identify all the kings who ruled both the components of the territory during the period, same with Aethelfrith and Oswald, for instance. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but in the past I've favored the "of Northumbria" designation. Everyking 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggestion here that rcp be listed, as you'll probably know the outburst linked seems to have been sparked by this disagreement. As shown in the section below that, I hope as a first step to improve the tag concerned. It was undoubtedly applied with the best of intentions, but has contributed to the loss of a prickly editor who had contributed a considerable amount of work of excellent basic quality, even though much is sorely in need of copyediting. Those who use such tags are understandably defensive, and I'd be grateful if you could consider contributing to this discussion. ...dave souza, talk 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, I noticed that you created St Fillans. I had already done St. Fillans back in November last year. Obviously we should merge the contents and create a redirect. The question is; which is the correct name - St or St. ? Any thoughts? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've deleted your article and done the move. I thinks St Fillans is preferable to Saint Fillans. I added in your external links, but I'll leave any stuff you think should be merged over to your good self. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, thanks for flagging up Clunie. I've done a small bit of expanding and added a photo. I'd never even heard of Clunie before, but quite an interesing wee research project with some fascinating history. BTW, for your information, I source a lot of photo's from Geograph. It's absolutely perfect for Wikipedia because everything is released under a Creative Commons, Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. If you're looking for UK related location photos, it's a great place to start. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - lol - thanks for putting some "real" refs down!! Springnuts 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not snippy at all! Best wishes, Springnuts 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to Warren, I've been moving quite a few pages on Baronets because it's quite common for them to be incorrectly disambiguated with middle names that weren't used instead of by their titles, but if you say he's known by his full name I'm quite happy to accept that. As to Ormonde, it's already been moved back by Berks105, as it's our practice to use numerals in all cases, even with single holders. Proteus (Talk) 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of fiaf Chivista 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September 2006 you tagged the article Anecdotal cognitivism with Template:notability and Template:cleanup. I agree 100% with the clean-up tag. The notability tag is more problematic. The discussion of a scientific term, maybe especially a 19th Century one as this one is, is not within the guidelines enumerated by the Template:notability tag. However inartfully the editor expressed himself/herself, this methodology was the one that Darwin employed, as well as George Romanes and others, and it is in stark contrast to the Behaviorism research model that was the predominant one in the XXth Century. I believe that it is important to document the history of science, especially since the pendulum often swings back, a classic example is Continental drift. Are you aware of any guidelines for Category:History of science articles? Unless you object, I will remove the notability tag but keep the clean-up tag. The work of historiographic researchers like Colin Allen, D. Jamieson and M. Bekoff needs to be reviewed, and the connections to modern Ethology need to be explored in the literature. No, I am not suggesting original research, just a review of what exists. I have placed a copy of this in Talk:Anecdotal cognitivism. Signed: Bejnar 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that in the future, sorry! Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the book! I was hoping to hit the library this weekend to see if they have it. Otherwise, I can order it from abebooks or something. I was working on the article to see if I can meet Danny's challenge.  :) I have much more research to do. Thanks for the nice words. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not subject to copyright protection. So the dates of his employment and the places are not subject. If there is anything of a narrative nature, constituting artistic effort, or anything of opinion or speculation, than that would be subject. Wjhonson 16:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bal o dia ar on obair, a Angus! You're a treasure; its sheer delight on my part to come across such well-written, incisive and deserving articles on Wiki! My health, however, is still not good; frankly I have being suicidal on a number of occasions over the past few months. Yet tomorrow is always a new day. I might be able to add a couple of supplementry articles as sources to all of the articles though I doubt I'll be able to contribute to the actual articles. Keep the faith! Fergananim 14:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just spent the past couple of hours reading through your many contributions. Well done! Great articles well written; maith an fear! Fergananim 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also; the only full article I have being able to do lately is the above. I would sincerely appreciate any feedback. Fergananim 14:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Cerball mac Dúnlainge! Thank you for recommending the O'Corrain article, which I will enjoy reading. I am working on a couple of writing projects surrounding Ragnar and I'm trying to figure out if Thora was Ingjald's wife (and thus Olaf's mother) or his mother (and thus Olaf's grandmother). The text of the Penguin Classics version of Eyrbyggja saga doesn't agree with the Norse versions available online. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved the issue. the Penguin classics was in error. Thora was INgjald's mother. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this as well. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

On 20 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Máel Sechnaill mac Maíl Ruanaid, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure what the procedure was for AfD articles, so thought it best to simply stick that up and let an admin take a look. illspirit|talk 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added thirty further dates at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Years_in_Ireland before I ran out of steam. Hope to do more soon. The Chronicle (vol. VIII N.H.I.) is fantastic. Fergananim 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angusmclellan... Thank you very much for the constructive criticism in your oppose comment in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your coments. I will strive to better myself in all areas, especially Mainspace. Yours, Thε Halo Θ 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent message regarding sources on Death toll of the Enlightenment. Looking over the article, all of the statistics are sourced. What remaining elements do you think need references? --Tbook 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the title of the article is the thing that is problematic - I think it is commonly accepted that a number of modern governments have been genocidal or at least engaged in mass executions of those whom they considered threats. It seems that a catalog of such events is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. I chose the title under the presumption that the most definitive philosophical character of the modern state is its origin in Enlightenment philosophy - which characterizes the modern conception of the state in both its good points and its bad points - I can see how the article could be perceived as an attack on the Enlightenment because it illustrates a negative aspect of it - although I would be the first to agree that there are many positive aspects, as well. It seems as though there might be two ways to go with it - recast the title and introduction as relating to the modern secular state, without focusing as much on the Englightenment, or restricting the examples to governments more immediately associated with the 18th century thinkers - most obviously the French Revolution, reign of terror, etc. - or maybe doing two separate articles - one on each topic. What are your thoughts on that? --Tbook 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article was deleted (unfortunately, I was unaware of the discussion, which I would have liked to have taken part in.) However, I would still like to continue our discussion so that I can get a better sense of what seemed objectionable in the article. I have posted it in user space at User:Tbook/Enlightenment so that we can continue to talk about it. I assume that is acceptable. I am looking forward to your comments. --Tbook 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking these accusations of lack of process for using IRC quite seriously. Whether IRC should or shouldn't be used: the fact is it is used, and not just by me. Instead of debating whether using IRC is against procedure, I've proposed a procedure for when sysops use IRC to listen to Move Requests, which for now I've put on the village pump (policy) page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Requesting_administrator_assistance_on_IRC. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I had a bit of a trudge through. I do agree about transparency being important to Wikipedia's functioning too, of course, and I especially don't see myself attempting to join any private admin-only IRC channels. Cheers. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two and I will submit a more cogent article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]