User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI

14:55 Monday 11 November 2024

Archives: I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV

As long as we're in the neighborhood

Hello Deacon, perhaps you'd be interested in another small effort that I think would help understanding overall. Your section Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick#Geographic and cultural background is informative and useful in understanding Scottish history, beyond its use in this one article. I think that a reasonably decent map would complement the section, enhance reader understanding, and be useful elsewhere. If you have too many other irons in the fire at the moment, we can let this pass for now.

Otherwise I suggest the following, perhaps out of personal frustration that I came so close to getting the Atlas immediately but now must wait a while longer:

• I see that you're using File:Provinces of South-West Scotland.jpg, which was the starting point for File:Strathclyde.kingdom.influence.areas.png, which has most of the information needed on regions. The map is already set up, and I can add the remaining regions, plus others that you might want, with very little effort.
• Based on the description in the article, I can add area colouring (soft edges, no hard "borders") to show the cultural/linguistic regions/impact that the article mentions. You've tied this to topography (eg, Brythonic survival in the uplands), and we already have the topo information, so placement should be no problem.
• For regions that you want to specify but are not on the map you used (eg, W coast of Cumberland and points south), you can place the regions on a different, existing map for purposes of communication (eg, File:St.Ninian.dedications.jpg or File:Britain.northern.walls.jpg or anything of your choice).
• I suspect that you have some ideas of your own beyond this, as well.

Sound worthwhile? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess a map of languages and settlement by English and Continentals would be worth it. Is that what you were thinking of? Yes, I am unhappy with my map on the provinces. The map I was using didn't have rivers on it, so though the borders are probably roughly accurate they are unlikely to be more accurate than this. Perhaps then just a map like that but with no borders. Lennox is mentioned in the text, I noticed, so it should probably go north to include that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm thinking of. Let me put something together and get back to you. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at File:Notuncurious.Collaboration.png (don't worry about the file name for now) and see if you think it has positive possibilities. I think I can make it more eyeball-friendly, and perhaps with less "borderlike" lines between different languages, but didn't want to go to that much trouble yet. I tried to make it complement Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick#Geographic and cultural background where this is discussed, but a larger hope is that it can be used elsewhere to avoid repeating explanations. Ideas welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Strathnith, Kyle, Cunningham, Strathgryfe, Lennox should definitely not be English, but the Gaelic color. The zone of Tweeddale, upper Annandale and the upland region of Clydesdale (which I think it should be called) could be marked as potentially British (historians use "British" rather than Brythonic). The area around Falkirk is also still Gaelic speaking c. 1250, likewise is the area west and north of Glasgow (e.g. including areas like Whiteinch, Scotstoun and Yoker north-west of Partick, and the area of Glasgow Green [-> Gillemachoi]). I'd reserve the dots for marking "English and Continental settlement" (lots everywhere east of the Clyde, one each for Cunningham, Kyle and Strathgryfe, regions where Anglo-Normans took charge but did not settle at this point in large numbers). I'd also head the map early 13th-century (or "c. 1200" if you like) rather than 12th century. I'll draw a line through the map to indicate (check [1]). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could color the circle area as English and put some dots around Peebles (which is the area where the Glasgow Registrum indicates possible survival of British, see online Cumbric_language#Date_of_extinction para 7). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Plenty of info for a revision. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I revised File:Notuncurious.Collaboration.png ... let me know what you think.

I also got rid of "Medieval" in File:Carrick.Medieval.13th.century.topo.png, and I uploaded a topo map for Kingdom of Strathclyde (File:Strathclyde.kingdom.influence.areas.png), with all labeling the same as before ... topographic maps accent certain kinds of errors that aren't generally noticed otherwise ... will adjust "Tweeddale" on the map to be more consistent with the topography soon.

Also, I uploaded File:Scotland.south.Ptolemy.map.topo.png ... don't feel obliged to comment, but any comments you have would be of interest. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Template: English and British monarchs

The pro-England biasness of that Template, is quite apparent. I'm planning on deleting the British monarchs from it & re-naming Template:English monarchs (as there'd seemed to be only 1 desenter). GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This Template has been re-duced & changed to Template:English monarchs. Also, a Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs is in the works. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No dice

I've spent some time looking for him but cannot yet locate anything as comprehensive as your article. And any references I can find are ones you seem to have already used. Sorry I cannot yet help, but at the same time fair play to ye! Fergananim (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

British peerage

How about changing the titles of the articles to British higher nobility.... or some such, if you don't think the colloquial term applies. or Even : English Earls... or English Earldoms..... I don't see why you think it either unmanageable or nonsense. With the ODNB the sources can be listed easily enough if you don't want to simply trust to the articles themselves. DGG (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I call "peerageism" is a bit of an internet virus, spreading by mindless replication from crummy unprofessional ancestor and peerage websites. Almost everything about these articles, content and form, is wrong. There were no peerages. Moreover, earldoms weren't "created", they existed and were either held by the king or a magnate, or they were offices filled or unfilled. Moreover, a comital position was not a title, it was a hereditary holding, an office (in England). Let's ignore the fact that England, Scotland and Ireland were three separate entities whose systems of nobility were entirly unrelated until after the period of most of these articles. The entire framework on these is developed by modern heralds and is anachronistic. You might as well include pictures of various earls and kings holding muskets. Moreover, these articles each average about 10 hits a month, and given there are so many of them and so few knowledgeable wikipedians for the topic, these articles are unmanagable in the face of the above virus and keeping them would very much be a self-inflicted wiki wound. Why do you want to keep them? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to keep them because history is interesting, and the basis of history is prosopography, knowing who was who and when. Genealogy is not just a hobby of the foolish, though it can be that, but a serious study. It is very much possible to find out who held what title or position during what year in 11th & 12th century England, for at least everyone who held directly of the King (and, yes, I know that this included many smalllholders also). Knowing this ties together everything else--without firm dates, history becomes legend.

I'm just concerned with England. There were not that many people, 1 or 2 million; there were very few Earls. It was a real office, and it was hereditary, more or less, except when it was interfered with--and when it was, there were records. Remember, there was Domesday as a pair of snapshots, there were charters, and there were the series for ecclesiastics, there was still the AS Chronicle. Given the concomitant development of the common law, it mattered very much who everyone's relatives were. I do know about the gradual formalization of the aristocracy, but both Anglo-Saxon and Norman nobility were pretty much formalized before 1066, though entry was still open to a good fighting man, and the transition after 1066 left quite a bit of records. The ODNB gives a firm account of the life of all or almost all of them. I know the difference between the ODNB and the dubious information in Burkes. We do know when they succeeded to or were granted a title, and when they died, if not necessarily just when they were born and the names of all the illegitimate siblings. From this we can say who held what title in any particular year (± a year) I know the difference in Scotland, where moramer was still transitioning to Earl under David I. I know Ireland was different, and Wales of course, but I don't know that part very well & I don't plan to work there. These pages are not going to change very much. If anyone wants, they can easily be brought further--as soon as the Rolls of Parliament begin, it gets much easier. If you know of any errors, fix them. I intend to check them all eventually myself.

The only real question I have, is whether this can be done as a table or timeline for multiple decades at a time. DGG (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an earl is an important position, 2nd in the kingdom behind king. Earls are effectively regional rulers, and so on. I'd think it'd be better to do it by reign than by years; far easier to link them into wikipedia and get more trafffic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that we should try to preserve this info. I've let the article creator know about the prods. The format is no good, but a record of Earls of England from the time would be good to keep. Fences&Windows 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm fighting a losing battle here. The guy who removed the tags didn't provide an explanation, and appears to be an anti-deletionist. While anti-deletionism is all very well as an ideology as far as ideologies are ok at all, I think when you remove the tags and scupper the efforts of others to solve a problem you should make an effort yourself to solve the problem. Editorial responsibility appears to be lacking in many users. As for cleaning up the articles, I suggest reorganizing them by reign (I intend at some point to create lists of Anglo-Saxon ealdormen by reign, though in this case their ealdormanships are usually not known so this is the only way to give the info). In these cases though I'm in no rush to fix the content that other editors wish to save, esp. when it'll take so much effort and the articles only get about 10 hits a month (presumably mostly editors). So this self-inflicted wound will have to remain on wikipedia's face until someone else fixes it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly it was a sock of a banned user, there's a couple who serially deprod. The article creator supports deletion, so AfD might be the best thing for them. Fences&Windows 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the deprodder was Colonel Warden, who is often well-meaning, but definitely an inclusionist. Fences&Windows 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Beg a favour...

Can you look over Liber Eliensis and tell me what else major should be included? I'm not specifically aiming for FAC, but it could happen. I at least want to make sure I've got all the bases covered for a medieval manuscript/work/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I'll look over it later 2nite. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

As the blocking admin of User:HanzoHattori, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_HanzoHattori_continued_if_illegal_editing, where the issue of the unbanning of the foul-mouthed one is being discussed, yet again. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember this user, and judging by the block log I don't appear to have blocked him at any time. The last blocker was User:Keilana. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, you were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Productive_socks as a blocking admin of User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, and I took it that you were the admin who indef blocked them, rather than simply being an admin (one of many) who had blocked at some stage for 3RR, etc. Feel free to ignore report. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Since we clearly need more opinions, I've mentioned the merger dispute at ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to deliver an official mea culpa for making this more confrontational than needed. I'm in a bad mood IRL, and I think that contributed a lot. Still, I recognize that it's not fair for me to dump my real life crap on others at Wikipedia, so I won't try to excuse myself that way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Historian of Scotland

You reverted some of his edits. He is now blocked for disruptive editing but also a sockpuppet of User:Scotland Rules who has been editing also through IPs, eg the now blocked after I found him 70.68.12.46 (talk · contribs). Two other IPs have also been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I again

Akerbeltz is probably the best guy to go to for an authoritative opinion on this. I see he's already involved in the talk page and chances are that what he says is correct. siarach (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:AE "uninvolvement"

Now that uninvolvement has been defined, I'd would, but I guess somebody beat me to it. In the spirit of good faith and all, could you stop personal attacks and refactor comment on "Piotrus and Radek are long-term edit-warring POV buddies"? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed you weren't going to as you were editing without removing it after my message. BTW, I don't know if you've noticed, but I only point out your history in these respects when there has already been an attempt to paint a false picture (e.g. that you and Radeksz are uninvolved). I would not have commented on that Radek thread if this hadn't been done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Please note, however, that your allegation about me and Radek being tag team itself violates arbitration, see Principle 7 and Findings 4, 5 and 25.3 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. An AE thread is an assessment of behaviour, and users are quite entitled to make their contributions on such a forum even if the comments are not positive. Neither WP:NPA nor WP:AGF are there to prevent honesty on such a platform, as that's were it's needed. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs

Hiya Deacon. Would you know how to split this Template into Template:Pictish monarchs & Template:Scottish monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No. It shouldn't be done. This has already been extensively discussed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And the discussers have agreed to this latest change. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I don't think so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's commence there, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll hope you'll appreciate that this is not something I wish. I want to focus my wiki-time just now on article building, not going over old ground in a talk page. The resurrection of this discussion is really demoralising. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: we've got seperate articles, List of Kings of the Picts & List of Scottish monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Deacon of Pndapetzim. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of Abbots of Glastonbury

Hi, I moved Abbot of Glastonbury to List of Abbots of Glastonbury following Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions and then noticed that you had previously removed "list of" in the title and I was wondering why & if there was a special reason I shouldn't have done it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodw (talk • contribs)

That guideline page wouldn't reflect the reality of wikipedia practice if that's what it recommended, and would have no authority. But Abbot of Glastonbury is the natural title, the one that would be excepted from the list. Unlike, say, "Scottish inventors" or "Men in space", there are no resultant problems of ambiguity from using such a title. The article should go back to Abbot of Glastonbury. It is more intuitive, can be searched more easily, can be linked more easily, and is indeed the article's primary title, which is not ambiguous. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand why it wouldn't reflect practice or have authority. It is clearly a list & several other articles I've worked on have been changed to reflect the list nature in the title. A similar example would be List of Bishops of Bath and Wells and precursor offices. I certainly don't find it more intuitive - if was about the role/functions of the abbot then I could go with that. I'll start a discussion on the talk page & perhaps we could continue this discussion there.— Rod ^talk 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just check the cats for this very page. As this isn't full, check others like Category:English_abbots or Category:Scottish_abbots. The English bishop-lists are abnormal. In a way, that's ok, because the title itself still exists and other details are primary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I slightly prefer to leave off the "List of ..." parts, if possible, but I've had enough on my plate that I haven't worried about the English bishops' titles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd prefer typing Bishop of Lincoln to List of bishops of Lincoln and precursor offices? I dunno, the English Bishop of ... articles are usually pretty useless, duplicating content from [or that could be from] Diocese of ; I'd think the vast majority of people would be interested in the list, not the info on those pages. The current system for English bishops means they have to click several times, assuming they can find the list page. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Read it again, Deacon .. "I'd prefer to leave OFF the "list of..." parts" (grins).... I just have enough issues keeping the actual bishop names straight, no time to worry about the weird system of "bishop" "Diocese" and "list of bishops" I inherited. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha ... silly me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

I've completed an initial run through for GA review. Have a look, and let me know if you want to discuss. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Going through them. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tidfrith of Hexham

On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tidfrith of Hexham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A few words

This latest RfC is bringing an odd set of people together. Just wanted to say how refreshing it feels to be on the same side of the issue with you. Thank you for your eloquent statements. These last few days they've often expressed my sentiments very well. Durova²⁷⁷ 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Your own comments have been very pertinent. I think the proposal brings great sighs to many lips. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

Hello. You're doing a great job here, (and at Siward). I've responded to your GA review responses, particularly where you've sought input. Most of it is all fine. While I have wanted to go another round on a minority of points, there's certainly nothing that will hold up the GA, so I am now just awaiting your revisions to the section on Irish involvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Will get to it. This section is troubling for me. Still thinking about how to redo it. It may be become unduly long. Do you think it would be a good idea to get rid of the source quotes? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cyneweard of Laughern

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyneweard of Laughern, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Deeply obliged for your unsolicited support. I will let you know if I quote it (as I may have to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vita Ædwardi Regis

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vita Ædwardi Regis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bencherlite^Talk 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop moving dioceses around again

I've reverted all the moves you've made. This has been the agreement for a long time now. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing this dispute. I've put this up for a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_vs_Roman_Catholic_dioceses. I will go along with the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Earnside

Could you please clarify the source you claim to have found for this battle in the deletion discussion. These online books are quite difficult to read. At the very least, could you give us a page number. Better, quote the relevant extract from the book. PatGallacher (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can. You said, in the course of the deletion discussion "It is based on one historical source, found here, s.v. Yrenside ". When I followed this link I found an online book which was difficult to navigate, and I could not find mention of Earnside or Yrenside. Could you clarify what you are quoting here? What does "s.v." mean? PatGallacher (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That link takes me directly to p. 477 of volume 4 of the Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, a list of sources for Scottish history preserved in English government archives. By s.v. ("look under") I meant find the bit on the page that mentions "Yrenside" ... which is line 3 of paragraph 5. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Sorry... what does "dab it ffs" mean? I didn't intend to cause offence, and have seen the {{dn}} template used elsewhere; indeed the page Template:Dn implies that its use is not forbidden. Please see Talk:Mandate for my reasoning: perhaps you could help me to find the best page to link to in the case of a Papal mandate? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed you. Thanks. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks; have replied similarly. A while ago, admittedly. Didn't think to pop a message here too --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Relevant to Ailred's Life of Saint Ninian, I was struck when I read his account of "Plebia" as a fellow traveller of Ninian, and it must also have struck a note with his early readers who were familiar with British stories ... it immediately evokes one of the impossible tasks that Culhwch must accomplish to win Olwen:

"Though thou get this, there is yet that which thou wilt not get; the two horned oxen, one of which is beyond, and the other this side of the peaked mountain, yoked together in the same plough. And these are Nynniaw and Peibaw whom God turned into oxen on account of their sins." (from Guest's Mabinogion, see this page).

I've seen the name spelled "Phibas" and "Phibas" and similarly, so it looks like there's been a transcription error somewhere, in someone's account ... at any rate, I speculate that Ailred was familiar with the story (or one based on it) before writing his Life.

There must be a way to incorporate your material about Ninian in your new Vita Sancti Niniani into the the Saint Ninian article, where it seems to properly belong; I think it's a bit tangential to the thesis of the new article, and it would complement the present article material, which deals with the origins of the traditional stories about Ninian ... perhaps you'll do that, and if you are so inclined, please proceed.

btw1, this may be of interest as another means of access to information, including current but out-of-print books.

btw2, don't feel obliged, but comments welcome on File:Northeast.Irish.Sea.Norse.placenames.jpg ... some of the sources of information are cited. Dates are for settlement, not first invasion/occupation. It's consistent with wikipedia articles on Cumbrian place names, but not with Gall-Gael settlement in Dumfriesshire and Cumbria. The 1092 date for Dumfriesshire immigration is apparently due to the repopulation of Carlisle (seems to have been done by forcing resettlement from Cumbria, which was not popular), and similar circumstances at that time. The author of the book on Upper Annandale notes that the "Norse" walked right by the towns and headed into the uplands, looking for a place to settle. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about Plebia myself. The wording implies this guy was another holy man; I was thinking maybe he was the author of the original Celtic life, the reason being he was present at the miracle. I assume the Mabinogion is influenced by the Vita in this respect, or by a source used by it. The current Ninian article uses only sources which are incredibly outdated, but are in fairness available online. I've no idea how the article could dbe structured, as Ninian himself isn't a real saint but rather an English ghost doppleganger of Uinniau/Finnian of Moville. Should all the pre=English historical stuff be in the Ninian article, a new Uinniau article, or in Finnian of Moville? Should Ninian just be about the post-Ailred cult? It's a toughy.

I'll try to comment on the map tomorrow.

All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

You're still thinking about the Irish question. What are your plans? cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I did some reordering and contextualising. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've been back over it, done a little copyditing, and made some further, hopefully final, points to pick up at the bottom of the GA talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All good, thank you. I've passed that at GA. May keep an eye out for it at FAC at which point, no doubt, I'll be reading about the Irish again. Thanks for your fascinating entries. Hope your doctorate is progressing as well as your contributions here... :-) regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work and input. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC. I took a quick look earlier and I saw that you'd kindly listed me as a co-nominator. Naturally I'm happy to take whatever credit's going, but I really don't think I did enough to justify your generosity. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think of it as me giving something. It's just a plain factual acknowledgment that you, as well as I, contributed significantly to getting the article to where it is. This is undeniable. ;) Anyway, I'm certainly not assuming it's just gonna pass at this stage. There may yet be more work for us both. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand it's fairly obvious that decent prose is a given for FAs, and I can help a bit with that by moving a few commas around, but on the other hand how many commas have to be moved around to make the comma-mover a significant contributor? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When you're removing my liberal sprinkling of commas, not very many! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt texts

I just noticed your comment about alt texts, and I somewhat agree. Some claim they're easy to write, but they're talking bollox. Just how do you describe the frontispiece of a book for instance? "Four paragraphs of centred text in an archaic font describing the subject of the book ..." actually that may be it. :-) It's certainly quite a bit of additional work though, and I think FAC really did jump the gun on mandating it, without much discussion that I recall. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the distinct impression during the alt text discussion that anyone opposing it was evil and against the poor folks using screen readers and that I shouldn't rock the boat on this issue. I really don't wanna see this a requirement at GA. (Oh, gods, I'm going to have to do one for Chicado V aren't I? "Four legged quadrapod with long hair on the neck and a long haired tail"?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to demand it, satisfying a feeling of righteousness on the cheap; but quite another to actually have to do it. I didn't even know about this until someone raised it on the Siward page. What did its proponents argue was its main purpose? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The main use is for screen readers, used by visually impaired Wikipedians; see WP:ALT #Why it is useful. Thanks for writing the alt text for Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick: it's fine work and is appreciated. It didn't have to be that fancy: you can save yourself some work in future when describing maps and images by omitting irrelevant detail like the colors of regions. See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #6, the demineralization diagram. Maybe I should add a map as an example there, come to think of it. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad reason I suppose, if such things are going to be commonly used (I've no idea). I'll probably get used to it eventually! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a worthy goal, but it's been rushed and ill-considered. All images ought to have a default alt text, as one obvious example. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that images ought to have default alt text, which would be specified in their File: pages. How can we get this to happen? Do you have contacts among the Wikipedia admins and programmers, who could help us get this to work? Eubulides (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, it came out of the blue to me - I think I discovered it at Deacon's Siward FAC too.I thought it was a good idea and have started adding it to articles I've been looking after, but Malleus is right that preparing such text is indeed hard work. A friend of mine does this kind of thing for the visually impaired, as a volunteer, 'describing' theatre events. The volunteers were screened for skills and suitability and then did full-day training followed by mentored 'apprenticeships' before being let loose on their own :-) Not a simple task. As long as it is kept as a requirement up at FAC, fine. But stand by for policy creep. A better option would be for it to have its own Wikiproject - or, as Malleus (I think?) is suggesting, encourage it to be dealt with (I don't mean mandatorily - is that a word?) at the point of image upload. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No Eubilides, I have no contacts who could help to do what obviously ought to be done. All I have is knee-jerk opposers. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See (and vote for!) bugzilla:19906 which would allow alt-text to be provided at the image description page (after which, a firm prompting to provide it at upload could be provided). –xeno^talk 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bigger issue than a straightforward bug fix or request for enhancement, because it's been mandated too quickly and without sufficient thought. Editors are now being asked to do busy work that simply isn't either necessary or desireable. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really follow FAC but I understand your concern. I don't think it should necessarily be a requirement, at least not without the bugfix in place and broader awareness of the alt text issue generally. Strongly encouraged - yes; and required for any image appearing as a caption to the FA, but not required. –xeno^talk 03:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin

Re your comment "Interestingly, while researching this, I've discovered that apparently the English word "iron" is a borrowing from Celtic" -> you may wish to add that word - suitably referenced of course ;) - to this article:

• List of English words of Scottish Gaelic origin

Belated thanks for the Autoreviewe and Rollbacker authorisation. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd assume it was a borrowing from British Celtic or British Romance, rather than Goidelic. The English called it ísern in the early Anglo-Saxon period, but this changed to iren in conformance with the Celtic neighbours (Old Welsh: hearn; Old Gaelic: íarn). Germanic languages probably originally borrowed it from Common Celtic, so it was a double borrowing (though isern to iren is arguably as much an accent shift). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Scots immigrated from Ireland... apparently

Just thought you'd like this rather bold gem:

• "During the 5th century, the Dál Riatan Scots started raiding north-western Britain from their base in north-east Ireland. After the Roman withdrawal, this developed from piracy to full-scale invasion and, within a hundred years, they had established a kingdom in Argyll."

... at: Historical immigration to Great Britain. Have fun. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I tend to avoid this type of article. I think one sooner or later one has to accept that wikipedia will have a lot of mince in it, especially in those kinds of articles. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to accept it? Surely we should have to balls to cut all the mince from the encyclopaedia and turn the mincemakers into mincemeat. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for every piece of mince one fixes, ten will be added elsewhere. No-one who matters will actually read such text and believe it. One could remove it, but then some idiot will probably reinstate it anyway, and if one tries to do anything about it another bunch of idiots will admonish "one" for edit-warring. ScrewFuck that for a game! Just let it be. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

The RfC over the policy council has been a bit divisive. I am trying to bring some good out of it, and created a project page - and I think you could be a valued contributer (it is open to any editor): WP:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I'll read it through, think about it and maybe you'll see me there. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs

That template has been going smoothly. Why are you trying to stump on the Scottish monarchy? For goodness sake, James VI/I, had both Scottish & English royal DNA. Anne, was the first British monarch & the Last English & Scottish monarchs. George I (likewise) was a direct descendant of James VI/I. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just anxious, that it's made clear the English & Scottish monarchies 'became' the British monarchy. Not, the English monarchy 'expanded' & was re-named the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest re-naming the template 'British Isles monarchs'. But, I suppose we all know what would happen. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you expect that to pass? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. PS: I like the changes you & JK have made. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tharky (sorta in protest), tends to try and have 'Template: English and British monarchs', in responce to 'Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs'. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the tightrope we all walk. Tharky & I prefer that 'Template: Picts and Scottish monarchs' be split. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template: English monarchs & Template: British monarchs is cool. Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs? should be split. But my main concerns have been answered. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and actually read the talk page of the Scots and Picts template. You're continually repeating this assertion, but if you understood why they are together I doubt this would be the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I can accept leaving that Template (Picts & Scots) as is. My concerns were mainly over the English & British Templates being seperate. Tharky is another concern of mine. He'll demand Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs be split & if that doesn't happen? He'll try and merge Template: English monarchs with Template: British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh - or whaoever...

I know you want to move on, regarding the name issue, but in case the FAC does not move on, I'd welcome some clarification from you on how you are approaching this issue. Take Robert the Bruce. His name at the time would have been rendered Roibert a Briuis in Md. gaelic (so the WP article says, anyway). What is your argument regarding the naming of that article, versus this one being Donnchadh rather than Duncan? I'm not disputing your approach, just to be clear; I want to understand it in case I weigh in further on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Robert was of mixed culture, and agnatically he was Anglo-French. Also, I think only once or twice have I seen his name written in English in the Gaelic form. That is certainly going too far I think. And it would be absurd to see him named Roibert but his father Robert, when it is the same name. Well, that's my opinion, maybe others would disagree. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your position makes sense, but actually the reasoning that you favour is not clear. Are you saying that if a historical figure is identified in contemporaneous sources in one particular way then that should be favoured, whereas if their are multiple forms in those sources (in Robert's case because he is named in several ways, in several languages, party because he was multicultural), then the prevailing modern use should be adopted? And are you also saying that if there is a clear prevailing modern use (ie. one a lay reader might know), then that should trump trueness to contemporaneous sources, whether or not they only used one nomenclature (the last point being to clarify whether you believe that a common modern use should prevail (if it exists) in both such cases as Donnchadh and Roibert / Robert)? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert's not a Gaelic name. It would be no trueness to put it into Gaelic form. Even if Robert were a monolingual Gaelic speaker, which he wasn't, his name is still Norman. Donnchadh is a Gaelic name, and the name Duncan didn't exist. That aside, Robert is a well-known historical figure overwhelmingly known and more overwhelmingly know by that name. So in summary, it is not more accurate to write his name Roibert and there is no case for that I would take seriously, and even if there were usage overwhelmingly favours Robert to a extent it doesn't favour Duncan. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - the way I am reviewing is stating each sentence. Then I work on what sticks out. Explain the thoughts behind what I see. Then I move on to any problems. I will be clear in saying something needs to be fixed. So, don't worry if I just mention a fact unless it says "and this is a problem because" or something to that effect. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to see this. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yabbut, like this chap and this this one too, he was "Donough", not "Duncan". Now that'd unconfuse people. Not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, Malleus, hundreds of people bearing that name spelled like that in contemporary documents are notable enough to have articles. And ye, Angus touched upon another flaw the Xanderian commentator hasn't thought about. A guy called Donnchadh in Carrick gets Anglicized as "Duncan", but a few miles away in County Down the same man would be "Donough" ... even though the names were the same then [i.e. Donnchadh], and actually the name is still spelled this way in Irish and Scottish Gaelic. The arguments being raised and empowered by the FAC platform would be regarded as laughable among practicing historians of the area. But screw historical practice and the thousands of hours of thinking behind it, screw accuracy ... in fact let's move Shah to President (old Iran) so that the average US high school student we can event in our hour of maximum pessimism will have as easy a time as possible reading it. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vita Sancti Niniani

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vita Sancti Niniani, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ševčenko's law

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ševčenko's law. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ševčenko's law. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious user

There's a new User:Bonaparte-like user in town. Over Bruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One day after joining in, he cut and paste moved the article about the city of Bender against the long established article on the talk page. Also he goes around pages erasing the current Moldovan name of the city, and replaces it with the obsolete 16th cenutry version used by Romanian nationalists. See here, here. Other edits reminiscent of Bonaparte are the overemphasis put on the short lived Romanian domination over Moldova, such as in the series of edits here. Since you were the last admin to enforce the community established consensus about the title of the article about Bender, I thought you should be the first made aware of this new user.Xasha (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)