User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Allow me
2 MacHeths
3 New Article
4 For your historical contributions
5 Middle Ages did not call younger members of royal families as princes and princesses
6 Okopy Świętej Trójcy
7 Hello
8 mormaer vs earl
9 Harlaw
10 I vs elder
11 Celtophobia
12 Blind reverts are reprehensible
13 Gille/Gilla
14 kindly tell your precise objections
15 Heads-up
16 Jagiello
17 Irish Stubs
18 Jogaila
19 Harp
20 Re: Braveheart
21 Island Lords
22 AAVE in Anglic languages article
23 Mediation Cabal
24 Polish medieval monarchs naming
25 Heraclius of Jeruslaem
26 Bluegold, u.s.v. ...
27 Wikibreak?
28 clannish inheritance pattern
29 Diocese of Brechin
30 regarding a user
31 Page moves
32 Piotrus
33 Vote
34 Thanks !
35 John Trevor(s)
36 Gilbert de Moravia on DYK
37 Byzantine names: suggested moratorium
38 Thomas Stewart
39 Anglo-Welsh
40 Pages listed on Categories for deletion
41 Congrats
42 Urgency
43 Re:Bacler move
44 Talk:Jogaila
45 Pre-Norse languages in Orkney

[edit] Allow me

For contributing so many articles related to the Russian

history, I hereby award you the Hero of the Russian Federation barnstar! Enjoy, abakharev

Since you did the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba page, you might want to take a look at the Synod at Scone page. I think it needs fixed. --AJN 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacHeths

Archie Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, pp. 66–67 makes MacHeth and mac Alasdair different people, in line with Oram, David, p. 115ff., including the presumption that Máel Coluim mac Alasdair was the tool of Somhairle (and Óengus of Moray) and that Domnall mac Maíl Coluim was his son (and presumably Somhairle's grandson). Although MacDonald and Barrow use Occam's Razor to combine the two, they don't agree on how, as the sole explanation in the case of Kingship and Unity, as one of several in Outlaws. [Which reminds me that I still need to sort out the MacWilliams to represent MacDonald's version (Adam/Áed a son of Domnall son of Máel Coluim MacHeth.] All of MacDonald's versions make MacHeth Somhairle's son-in-law and Domnall mac Maíl Coluim of 1156 his son. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I'll have a go at Harald Maddadson and his brood this week; I have the Orkneyinga Saga and MacDonald and Oram which should do for a start, but I expect that it'll need sorting out aftewards. Does this mean you won't have a go at the MacHeths ? If you won't, I'll have a go in preference to Harald, if that's ok. Which would you prefer ? And if so, MacHeths or Meic Áeda ? I think I may have spotted a new sockpuppet — User:Red blaze — being manufactured by you-know-who. If so, while an improvement on the last lot, he's still got a long way to go. Cheers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Mormaer Beth (or Eth or Áed) is the supposed father of Máel Coluim MacHeth, assuming, as Oram and Archie Duncan do, that he isn't the son of Alexander I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No other evidence basically; just the name and the charters. The French articles follow MacDonald, Outlaws of Medieval Scotland, pp. 78–79, who thinks Áed would be Lulach's daughter's husband and Óengus of Moray's father. Now that is reductionist ! That doesn't fit with Oram, who marries Somerled's daughter to Alexander's son and makes Máel Coluim MacHeth the son of Mormaer (B)eth. Duncan thinks "just a Mormaer" and never says who married who. Grant thinks "a Mormaer" and maybe, but he doubts it, a descendant of some Cenél nGabráin king, like the meic Duib, to account for Máel Coluim being accepted back into the king's peace in 1157. Unlike Oram (and Woolf according to the notes), Grant thinks MacHeth married Somerled's daughter. I'm going to stick with Oram/Duncan, just this guy (a Mormaer of Ross of unknown ancestry), and mention the rest as I go along because that narrative makes the least assumptions. Correction: Oram says Áed witnessed two charters under David I (p. 232, note 27, cites Charters of David I, p. 72) Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Harald Maddadson hasn't got very far yet, but I should be done by the end of the week. Next thing, I suppose, would be to tidy up Wimund with some stuff from MacDonald and Oram. I see the bishops are progressing well. Did that nonsense above about Beth/Eth/Aed make sense ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Áed would be a busy chap. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I'll reread it just in case I've missed a generation somewhere. Two Máel Coluims seems so much simpler. A list of Earls of Orkney, unfortunately not, and neither does the the norsk Wikipedia. The index to the Penguin Orkneyinga Saga is fairly good though, tagging dates on to them should be easy enough and there's always the web, like this for filling in the gaps. For Harald, I have plenty of material for a first effort. MacDonald has a fair bit on him, and it doesn't seem too creative and there's Oram for background. There's also Finn's norsk article, which I can't read as such, but I can tell what it's talking about more or less. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert: well it was probably in French or Latin anyway, so you'd have to translate it. Why not Gilla Brigte ? I'll get round to the list before I head over to Scotland. There's an outstanding merge for Earl of Orkney and Earldom of Orkney. I think it would be as well to have two articles since there's a fair bit can be said. I'd as soon have a list of earls with a short paragraph on each one that didn't justify an article as create a heap more stubs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Article

Well, hello to you too. Nice article. Mak (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gregoir, Bishop of Dunkeld. Someone's got to write articles on 12th century bishops. I just do the ones on 12th century composers. Mak (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your historical contributions

		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)

Hey ! That means you got two, or one and half anyway, as this one is at least half yours. Cheers and best of luck ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Ages did not call younger members of royal families as princes and princesses

please check the ongoing discussion about "princess" title on Talk:Margaret of Connaught - it will have implications that many medieval women will soon get the courtesy prefix "princess" before their names in article names. ObRoy 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okopy Świętej Trójcy

Hello there, I noticed that you moved the article on Okopy Świętej Trójcy from its original name to a name you invented. Could you move the article back - or at least explain some rationale behind your violation of wiki naming conventions at the talk page? Thanks in advance. //Halibu tt 20:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

hello!Nice community,I want be a member in it. I come from Greece and I love the Scotish Gaelik language. I would like learn to speak and read but I don' t know the way. Here in Greece is impossible and the only way is your site. Please help me!(Kanathos- 28 May 2006) If I make any mistake, sorry, is the first time where I use this page. Kanathos.

[edit] mormaer vs earl

I have an understanding that these early Scottish lords have since then dubbed as earls in authoritative works of reference and also by later generations in Scotland, including their own successors who count them as earlier earls of those places. That is usually sufficient for titling them as earls here, as all other variants of titulary are to be explained in the article itself. However, I understand that mormaer might be a title of which the "translation" earl may create some confusion (certainly not much?) though those titles are of the approximate same level and, for example, no loss of understanding what was the guy's position is caused by naming them earls. If you feel stongly that the better English variant of the title is mormaer rather than Earl, you are welcome to submit your request for exception to for example the talk about names and titles naming convention, or to UseEnglish policy talk. (It will be in vain if only editors of these specific nations try to make an exception for themselves.) Whereas I will be adamantly against using Gaelic or other native name versions of medieval persons if an English one exists. Marrtel 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that titling a biography of a person who was at least some sort of ruler, as X of Y, you do make an implication that he was King of Y. This is a matter which has long been established in policy about "names and titles" in article titles. Those rulers and chieftains who were not kings but under that level, should never be without a title to indicate that point. I do not believe you will succeed in obtaining any exception to that. On the contrary, a number of editors have been working to move various sorts of counts and princes to locations which include a title. When working here with only my IP in editing, I realized countless of times that the policy actually helps when making links inside article text. At least, it is something that already has consensus, and i find it quite disconcerting that some isolated groups of biographies use a contrary logic. Marrtel 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You hopefully are not indicating that these Malises were kings? If there happens to be a couple of examples such as Jogaila, who after all was king when died, those are not sufficient to push the same to a countless number of petty lordlings. How about you follow the convention for peerage titles when creating (or defending) articles about persons who, after all, are in Scotland's own historiographies dubbed as proto-peers and treated as peers. Marrtel 14:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always been willing to grant that medieval petty rulers could be at format "X, Prince of Y" and not necessarily at "X, Nth Prince of X" as indicates the much later peerage usage. Do I understand correctly then that our only difference re these article names is actually between "Malise" and that almost unintelligible goidelic variant of the same? Marrtel 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A piece of nonsense if you want my opinion. People who rename articles and don't fix the resulting double redirects, never mind the single ones, aren't to be taken very seriously. If you need links fixed, let me know. My spiffy AutoWikiBrowser can do it very quickly. Remind me, but doesn't the Mormaer article say "King" ? I was sure that it did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Now these are starting to look good enough. At least, those petty rulers of semi-Anglic era have a title, so they conform with the NC, being analogously named with Margaret III, Countess of Flanders, Arthur II, Duke of Brittany and Stephen II, Count of Blois. Of course, I would feel more comfortable with first names in variants such as Malcolm and Duncan, but I am too tired now to check how common they are in literature. Whereas I do not particularly like to use Nth Earl of somewhere -format to medieval persons. There could be some pressure from peerage enthusiasts to have those changed, so I propose that a policy be eritten that "Lordships, Mormaerships, Earldoms and like who do or may derive from time immemorial, shall not be designated by format "Nth Earl of" but are to follow practice of continental fiefs and principalities, until the first clear peerage de novo creation. (Namesakes are to be disambiguated for example by ordinals.) This is to avoid problems that not necessarily is it known who was the first holder of the lorsdhip - the line we know may start just from midst of actual line." Would someone know where to write such guideline? Is there some manual of style for Svottish affairs? Marrtel 21:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlaw

Thanks for reading through it. The stuff bigging up the Gael vs Gall dimension to the battle seemed highly dubious to me both in the previous version of the article and in some of the references used but as none of the (admittedly limited) works i have to hand while im still in London seemed to contradict this view i felt best to leave it in. Anyway, i can sleep easier at night knowing that the jawdropping reference to a Pictish(!) element in the "lowland" army is no longer there ;). siarach 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I vs elder

Soon someone will change the place, they simply are not used to Henry Sinclair I mode. Suggest something like Henry Sinclair the elder, Earl of Orkney... Marrtel 00:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtophobia

The article was deleted. But I did have one thought. As you mentioned the formation of the word is obvious to anyone with basic English language skills. So I wondered what you would think about creating the article as a redirect to Celt. As the meaning of Celtophobia is so obvious, at least anyone searching for it could find out something about the people who are the subject of the phobia. Alternatively it could be redirected to -phob- or Phobia What do you think? Alun 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blind reverts are reprehensible

Galgacus, please read first what is in the edit you go to revert. Your behavior of blind reverting is not acceptable. You put yourself at risk of being regarded as vandal, if you do such reverts. Marrtel 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gille/Gilla

What we seem to have left is Gilla Coemgáin of Moray, and I will move that tomorrow and fix the links. Perhaps I'll tidy up Lulach and Gruoch while I'm at it. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kindly tell your precise objections

Please explain your objections at Talk:House of Dunkeld. Realizing that you possibly need some help, I already provided those sentences there for you to dissect. Meanwhile, of course blind reverts are always close to vandalism. Marrtel 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-up

May want to check this out: [1]. --Elonka 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Stubs

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 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jogaila

I'm beginning to regret that I was not more resolute in supporting your efforts on this matter, earlier. I felt that this nationalistic cabal was too overwhelming to bother arguing with, and wasting time over. I see now I was wrong. Perhaps you may have caught my recent contribution on the talk pages concerning the name "Jagiello", which evolved into "Jagiełło", with later changes in the Polish alphabet. The King never called himself Wladyslaw Jagiello, this was added later to distinguish him from other Wladyslaws, and simply took his original name and Polonized it. This was done in much the same way as adding the "Great", the "Bold", etc. Can you imagine some King referring to himself as "wrymouth", "elbow-high", or some such other later "poularly" applied nickname? Since he did change his name to the Polish Wladyslaw, I still think Wladislaus II of Poland works best in the Eng-Wiki. Any thoughts on these points. Dr. Dan 14:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harp

Hello. Would you mind expanding on the article talk page what exactly the source quoted said about the making of the harp? As it stands, "good reason" is a little vague with the wording, and might be better if expanded what the good reasons are (or explicitly adding in the text who thought they were good reasons) If other sources given in the article give different information, it would be better worded as such, e.g. "historian(s) A claims X, historian(s) B claims Y". Other than that, I've for the inclusion, and am indifferent to its truth, as WP:V is clear on that inclusion is based on verifibilty, not truth. All that might be of debate is how widespread each view is, to avoid giving undue weight to any viewpoint, as per WP:NPOV Regards, MartinRe 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. The query I had was about the "good reason of being made in Argyll". I agree with you that the reversions of cited material is unjustified, my above comment was a suggestion for improvement, and I was hoping you might be able to expand the above, if you had access to the source material. I just thought the wording "good reasons" by itself was a little too vague, in the sense that it requires use of the reference to find out what the actual reasons were, whereas I would normally expect an article to mention the reasons, with the reference supplied to allow people to verify if they choose. For those of us without access to the source, it would be nice to know what the reasons are, even if we can't verify them, as opposed to just reading "there are reasons". I guess I just like articles to be as self contained as possible, so if the reader can't find the references, they still have all the information, but just can't personally verify it. I hope that clarifies what I meant, but it's late, so I may be unclear again :) Of course, it could be that the reasona are too involved to summerise, especially in an image caption, in which case this might be a moot issue. Regards, MartinRe 00:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Braveheart

Apologies for whatever I messed up. My question remains: Which political commentators do you suggest 'credit' the film with 'playing a significant role' in 'the Scottish political landscape'? I won't even comment on what one might suggest 'a significant role' is.

My original point stands: that this is POV and is faintly insulting to suggest Scottish politics needs Hollywood to help it along. It doesn't, and didn't in 1997; hence (I assume) the absence of any sources for your comments. --Stevouk 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Island Lords

Thanks for your response. I've left a more detailed note on the relevant page. You clearly have an impressive knowledge of early Scottish history. But have you actually read and digested the article on the Lords of the Isles? It was abysmally ill-informed and atrociously written. It's not a lot better now, but at least I've cut out the worst of the errors. Rcpaterson 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AAVE in Anglic languages article

I invite you to participate in the discussion of having AAVE in the Anglic languages article. Please participate. -- Crushti 01:02 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hello! I wanted to make sure you were aware of this mediation cabal case which might include you. Any comments/opinions from you would be appreciated, and I hope whatever dispute there is will be resolved quickly. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish medieval monarchs naming

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 19:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclius of Jeruslaem

Calgacus, did you read the discussion on the talk page? Adam Bishop 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(And Talk:Constantine XI for that matter, now that I see you moved the other Heraclius too...it looks like our naming patterns are fucked up everywhere, I can't figure out who is on what side anymore!) Adam Bishop 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No real "side" exactly, I just thought it was funny that I was arguing against moving the Scottish kings to their proper names, and you were against moving Heraclius. And at the same time, there has been a big debate about how to spell the names of the Byzantine emperors, so it seems like all the naming conventions of figures I am familiar with have gone out the window. Silverwhistle's reasoning is not really flimsy, by the way...it is spelled Eraclius in all the newer historiography, but Heraclius in the older, more accessible stuff. I assume that is also the case for the Scottish kings. Adam Bishop 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluegold, u.s.v. ...

Fergananim is too old and ill to get involved in such energetic discussions. But thanks for the vote of support, Calgacus! Fergananim 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak?

Just thought I'd let you know that your Wikibreak template is still up on your talk page, says you'll be gone until May 12th. :)

~Kylu (u|t) 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Yeah, I'm always forgetting that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clannish inheritance pattern

Hi. I have edited the description and features about the clannish inheritance pattern known in Frankish tribal world as Salic patrimony. Now I am well aware that similar or almost similar concept of inheritance and succession has been regular in almost all other clannish societies. You seem to know much about a non-Germanic clannish society. Therefore I ask you to browse your knowledge/ sources and to dig what concept(s) are used of the resembling thing in societies you are knowledgeable about. I mean (1) partitioning pattern (2) male-line circle of eligible heirs (3) succession concept when something, like chieftainship or kingship, was not possible to partition (4) concept or concepts which describe the understanding of the nature of the "patrimony", and the lands in question, and their possible inalienability. Please respond. Suedois 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocese of Brechin

I notice that you have made a wholescale revert of articles around Diocese of Brechin. The problem is that there is a mediaeval Catholic diocese of that name as well as a modern Episcopal one. I proposed that the extant diocese should get the main page with a clear link to the mediaeval diocese. I feel that current existence is worth priority. You will also see in the edit summaries that I explained this. While you may not agree with my thinking, I notice that you made no argument against them either on any talk page or in your edit summaries: it would help to know why you make certain edits. As I'm sure you're well aware, the modern Catholic and Episcopalian dioceses of Scotland are mostly nineteenth-century creations, and are not claimed to be descended from the pre-Reformation dioceses by either church. Therefore, when there are dioceses of the same name in any two of these three streams they should be disambiguated. Perhaps the compromise would be to use the main name page as a disambiguation page to link to the relevant dioceses. Also, in disambiguating dioceses of the Scottish Episcopal Church it is preferable to name them Diocese of X (Episcopalian) or Episcopal Diocese of X rather than Diocese of X (Anglican). Please let me know your thoughts on this. — Gareth Hughes 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding a user

hi Calgacus, I see you have been having some problems with User:Marrtel and the unilateral moving of pages without any prior discussion. Please let me know if you have further problems with this user and if you require any assistance. sincerely Gryffindor 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We could continue discussion about her at Talk: Ingeborg of Austraat. Marrtel 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Hello, I noticed you recently moved the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Licheń article. When moving articles, would you mind updating the redirects as well? Otherwise we are left with those messy double redirects. Appleseed (Talk) 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries; but if I don't know where the redirects are, then its up to the creators or else the bots.;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just click "What links here" in the "toolbox" on the left to get a list of links (including redirects) to a page. Appleseed (Talk) 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Didn't know 'bout that. Thanks. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus

Hiya, just curious, did Piotrus ever apologize to you for his uncivil behavior? At the mediation, we're currently discussing the issue of which things need be apologized for (or which posts need to be removed) from the various disagreements over the last few months. If you'd like to see him remove any of his posts, or apologize for anything in particular, now's a really good time to ask. :) --Elonka 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as part of the mediation discussion, we're agreeing to refactor/remove several messages on Poland-related talk pages. This might make a few of your own messages look kind of odd as a result, as they'd be kind of "flapping in the breeze". A couple in particular would probably be your messages of June 6 at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). May I have your permission to refactor those along with everything else? Both Piotrus and I have already agreed to remove several of our own messages from that thread. But again, let me repeat that if, in return, you'd like to get Piotrus to remove some other insult somewhere (or apologize for being snarky in an edit summary), this is a really good time to ask. :) --Elonka 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Hi, Calgacus. I admire your scholarship. You help to see Lithuania's history in a broader persective. I will vote for sure, just the whole frustrating experience I have with these votes stop me from hasty decisions. I support your and Dr. Dan oppinions most. Best wishes! Juraune 06:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks !

Hurrah ! Papers arrived the other day, great stuff. Thanks very much. I'll get on with muddying the waters at Battle of Dunnichen. Dunachton is a red link, but we do have Ruthven. One other thing, I had thought to write a Restenneth or Restenneth Priory article, if you don't have plans for that. Hope you're enjoying your break. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Trevor(s)

You are correct! I was confusing their 'real' names with their article names. The I and II should only apply to St Asaph. Thanks for spotting that one! -- Maelor 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert de Moravia on DYK

On 11 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gilbert de Moravia, 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.

--Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Stewart

"Low-profile entertainer", you say ? He was one of the most acclaimed opera singers of the 1960s and 1970s, having sung several times with Herbert von Karajan, Rafael Kubelik, Hans Knappertsbusch and Pierre Boulez. It is not that i have discovered him, it is that you have missed him ! Regards, RCS 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Welsh

Hiya. You expanded Anglo-Welsh from a redirect into a stub. General feeling (well, four people) on the Welsh Wikipedians' notice board is that the term is only ever heard in connection with Anglo-Welsh literature. You write a lot on history, so I wondered whether this is a term found in contemporary history books, or whether it's a term that was used in the past, or what? Discussion is here, if you want to chime in? Telsa (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

I congratulate you that the long overdue move is effected. A notice at the top of the page says that you will be absent until 26 June, but today is July 27! Please make sure that you are not mistaken. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgency

Thank you for letting me know that the vote will be up again. I thought that the unecessary future poll was agreed to be held off for a month or so. Did something change? Did someone shit in their pants after the last votes were tallied and can't wait a month for a new one? How dreadfull! Dr. Dan 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bacler move

I'd have preffered he didn't move the page, and the move was done by some neutral party. Nonetheless I agree that we need a proper RM. I think you should agree with me: if a proper WP:RM will indeed confirm that Jogaila has a majority support, this will end this long and tiresome debate once and for all. And the multi-poll has two many holes to give the move such legitimacy, as you can see it is questionned by many users, not only Poles :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jogaila

Let me paraphrase the comment you left at several users' talk pages: Hi there. Despite an attempt to throw the wiki rules and the idea of consensus out of the window and promoting the name of Jogaila, the Polish, German, British, Jewish, Czech and Belarusian users have got upset and did not let that situation remain unnoticed, calling for a proper vote to be held. They want to get it moved back to the old and stable name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in helping them defend the rules of wikipedia, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, //Halibu tt 11:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen only dissapointed Polish editors, no Brits included:) --Lokyz 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, hiya, I just wanted to verify something. Is it your opinion that I am opposed to the name "Jogaila", simply because of some "pro-Poland" bias? --Elonka 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) And I agree with you that I want to make sure that whatever name is chosen, is something that has the backing of a genuine cross-cultural consensus. It appears clear to me that the diacritic version of the name "Władysław" isn't it, and I can respect that. So, for the next RM (maybe a few months down the line), if it's a one-to-one "Jogaila" against some other name, would you be willing to support "Wladyslaw II Jagiello", without diacritics? Or if not, what would your next choice be, not in terms of personal preference, but what you think the next best name might be, that could garner consensus? --Elonka 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "problem of the Ladislauses" is a difficult one! One of my projects over the last few weeks was to untangle several other Ladislaus names, and as a result, I ended up creating the following pages:

It took quite awhile to compile all the names! If you'll scan through the lists though, you'll see (as I found) that there are indeed several different spellings of the various forms of the name, but I think that the combined list shows that it is possible to have several variants, and still have "stable" pages. The main sticking point is Wladyslaw II, though to be honest, I feel like much of the controversy was caused not by specific disagreement about his name, but backlash against the improper actions that several Polish Wikipedians had taken earlier this year (such as non-consensus page moves, and sockpuppetry in voting). In short, I think that a defensive reaction against "another naming controversy on yet another Polish monarch" was probably justified by the Wikipedia community as a whole, because there'd been so much messiness in other Poland-related articles. Once the dust settles though, I'm hoping that cooler heads may be willing to see that for this one particular monarch, that the name Wladyslaw II Jagiello is probably the best choice, simply because it's so often used by outside reference works. But it may still take some time for old wounds to heal, and for trust to be rebuilt. --Elonka 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Norse languages in Orkney

Do you have any References for the pre-Norse languages of Orkney? If you do , please see Talk:Orkney Islands#POV. --Mais oui! 13:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.