What you are trying to pull off is appalling. It will start all over again, and you know it. I am utterly appalled that you are doing this to everyone involved. By breaking Ireland (island) - and making it the most-linked to Irish nation article again (with your bot move), your will force revert wars, and new attempts to get Ireland to be the main Irish country article. Is this strife what you are after? Speak your mind. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the agreement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. It's not a huge deal, but could you kindly edit your comment to refer to my username instead of my real name? Of course anyone can easily get one from the other -- I'm certainly not hiding my identity in any way -- but I prefer to keep them separate as a Google-rank thing. People who know me from real life look for my real name. People who know me from the Internet look for my username, and that's where the minutiae of a Wikipedia election belong. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angus, a question regarding fair use here at en.wp. This image Image:Ard4.jpg was used to illustrate Ardersier, I just replaced it with Image:Ardersier.jpg, an image I found on geograph. There's plenty more there [1] (proably something better than the one I uploaded as well). Does this mean that the fair use rationale for that old postcard isn't valid? It's not a big deal, just asking trying to understand the logic of fair use here. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angus, could you have a look at this discussion here and give us an opinion. Myself, Rock were working on the introduction / Lead here following on from a protracted discussion which you youself commented upon. There was agreement reached, and Colin was aware of this discussion, having taken part in it themselves. Now I'm not going to get into any edit war with anyone on this article, so I will walk away until I hear back from you. I want to continue to build up the article, as you may have noticed, and have been asking for advice and support to do this. So if you could have a look it would help alot, thanks --Domer48'fenian'21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your continuous help with source validation! I have found quite an amazing French book on 19th century French explorers: Aventuriers du Monde. Les grands explorateurs français au temps des premiers photographes. 1866-1914, 2005, Editions France Loisirs, Ouvrage collectif, ISBN2744176710. Could you kindly confirm that it is OK to use it as a source? Best regards PHG (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. It looks fine to me. Fournié is (or was) "maître de conférences" at Paris X-Nanterre (I wonder what that is in English? I have never come across a comparable term), so we can expect there to have been a reasonable degree of checking. If you're thinking of using the photographs the usual problems will surface. Even if the photos and documents came from French govt archives, the warning at commons:COM:L#France is probably relevant. You'd really have to know who took the picture and whether they died before 1930[?]. Did you look at Gallica? It has a lot of C19th journals which might contain useful material, especially eyewitness accounts of Indo-China. All the best, Angus McLellan(Talk)23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have added my evidence about PHG, significantly toned down now that I have learnt about your mentorship and the fact that his first language is French. If you feel I have overlooked anything, please tell me. PHG's editing does have some problems, but it seems that many of these can probably be corrected by non-confrontational and constructive discussion. I can appreciate that he might have exhausted the patience of professional mediaevalists like Adam Bishop. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the lack of response. I hope to have time to reply later in the week. The only thing I'd say for now is that we all - or most of us do - have subjects that we should avoid. If "the Franco-Mongol alliance" is PHG's problem area it makes more sense that he avoids it out of self-awareness and from self-discipline rather than because the arbcom said so. From that perspective an arbcom remedy is always going to be a poor second-best. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only now noticed your comment on the Ireland RfArb:
The closer indicated here that he was unwilling to remedy himself the very large number of broken links his moves had created. "You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links ...".
That is completely absurd, Angus. Unless you were just too tired to read beyond the first eleven words, I'm going to assume you were aware your quote was entirely out-of-context and intentionally misconstrued just to serve your point. And, by out of context and misconstrued, I mean not including the remainder of the sentence which clearly indicates that my gripe was with you asking me to change thousands of links, while also asking me to move the page back. Indeed, by out of context and misconstrued, I mean not including the first three sentences, which contradict your alleged summary of my position. This kind of comment is the epitome of the problems with content disputes on Wikipedia; I don't know why some people act like it is so difficult to accurately refer to someone's point. You don't have to recall this from memory; it's written on the Internet in full. -- tariqabjotu13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to move the pages back to fix the links, not to move them back forever. Unless you moved one or both of Ireland (island) or Ireland (disambiguation), or whatever they're called these days, you wouldn't be able to have a bot fix the links. If you didn't understand what I said that'll be both of our faults, mine for being unclear and yours for apparently having no idea how to go about fixing this kind of problem. I apologise for my lack of clarity, but that's all. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Since you offered... :) There were a few that never got any attention, and could still use their edit histories restored. I'll leave it up to your judgment in each case.
Dragonbait - Henrik was inactive from Nov 24-Dec 25, has not yet responded
Hey there. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me out on another related project. A few articles -- Lapaliiya, Chondalwood, Trackless Sea, Ruathym, Tortured Land, and Pirate Isles -- had been speedily deleted before. Some of them may have been copyvio, although some may have been just a little bit of text with an infobox and some external links (like a lot of others I've seen). If there's at least, maybe a sentence or two of non-copyvio text in those, I could do as I did with The Vast; that's at least a start we could build up from, right? Let me know what you think; this is the last time I'll bother you about Forgotten Realms stuff. :) BOZ (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, any suggestions on the least disruptive way to respond to The Quill? I could just revert him, and since you and I agree on the infoboxes he would be forced to talk rather than run into 3RR. I dislike handling things that way, though; I prefer not to have to revert more than once at most. Any better ideas? Mike Christie(talk)14:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how best to handle it, but I too agree that the "British royalty" infobox is inappropriate for Anglo-Saxon monarchs, or anything before there was a "British" crown. Ealdgyth - Talk14:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop vandalising every infobox for every monarch of scotland by removing the Infobox British Royalty. I'm willing to discuss about Anglo-Saxon moanrchs however changing the infobox style on Scottish monarchs is vandalism. The Infobox is for any monarch who has ruled part of Britain (within reason of course). Scotland is part of Britain and the Infobox should be used for them. The Quill (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me of vandalism, thank you very much. And you don't decide the scope of templates. So far, all you've done is state your opinion like it came down graven on tablets from Mount Sinai. It's just your opinion. Angus McLellan(Talk)20:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just did acusse you of vandlism because I decided that something should happend and then instead of just having a discussion about it you stanred vandlising every page.
Igonoring the Scotland factor for a moment I didn't decide English Monarchs should use Infobox British Royalty somebody else did and it has been agreed that it should be used so removing it form Alfred the Great is vandlism as he is the first recognised King of England. Monrachs Pre-Conquest after Alfred the Great (undisputeldy after Alsthelan) are all Monarchs of Enlgnd. The Quill (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, as I'm following your comments at the PHG case, it looks to me like you're reading from the top down, and making comments as you go. May I suggest that you read all of it first, before commenting? You're making several bad faith comments about me, which I think if you actually read my posts, you will see that your assumptions about me are incorrect. --Elonka20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) That helps, yes. To clarify my concerns, the sense I was getting from your comments, is that you thought that I just wanted PHG gone, that I'm not willing to give him a second chance, and I don't want him editing ever again in the topic area. But that's not true. As I've been posting in the workshop, I'd love for him to help with cleanup, and I'm fine on him resuming some (limited) editing in the topic area, as long as it's supervised. --Elonka22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my non-evidence, I just think you need to be more forgiving if PHG accepts that what he was doing was mistaken. It may be that PHG never will see what the problem was, in which case it really would be best if he stayed away from those areas, whether that's because he's topic banned or because he recognises that he'd get in trouble if he didn't. Regards, Angus McLellan(Talk)22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm misreading the intent of the first two sections of your evidence, but it seems quite unforgiving to me. I would have preferred that we dealt only with PHG's recent actions, as the third and fourth sections of your evidence do. There is quite enough there to make the case without going over the old material again. Anyway, past my bedtime. Good night, Angus McLellan(Talk)22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't feel that I was just presenting old info, but giving a summary of what went before, and a progress report on the state of things today. In terms of the POV issues, PHG is definitely still promoting the same "conquest of Jerusalem in 1299/1300" POV, even this week. Check Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance#Response, where he is accusing me of "suppressing" information. --Elonka23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I hadn't seen that before the arbcom request. Obviously that's very disappointing indeed. I will have a word with PHG about this when I get a chance. As I said, this really convinced me that there is still a need for sanctions. Thanks, Angus McLellan(Talk)23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing this exchange. Maybe I am missing something... Why would it POV in anyway to mention the work of historians regarding the possible involvement of the Armenians with Jerusalem in 1299-1300? This is referenced information. What could be wrong with mentionning it (furthermore on a Talk Page)? I have nothing against correcting it, balance it, supplementing it etc... but why delete it altogether? Hereafter is the paragraph in question, which has been deleted by Elonka here. Isn't this against the very spirit of Wikipedia to delete such information? [2] Thank you to enlighten me. Best regards PHG (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of the section you're talking about has nothing to do with the Armeno-Mongol alliance article. The information about Hetoum II is covered in the Hethum II, King of Armenia article. Speaking of which, that article is still awaiting cleanup as well. But I have no objection to including some information there about Hethum's sceptre. --Elonka06:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why delete everything rather than write a short summary, connecting to your chosen location for the content (in Hethum II, King of Armenia, so be it) with a {{main|}} link? By deleting everything, you are in effect removing the information from the Armeno-Mongol alliance article, whether it is actually worthwhile mentionning in this article: in a way, the 1299-1300 offensive southward, and possibly the short visit to Jerusalem, are the pinnacle of the Armeno-Mongol alliance, so I see no reason to delete everything altogether. Wouldn't my proposal make more sense? Other items seem to have been deleted outright (the details of the joint capture of Damascus in 1260, the information about the involvement of the Armenians at Ain-Jalut). Why really, when this is all valuable referenced information? Cheers PHG (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the consensus of modern historians is that there was no "short visit to Jerusalem" by any Armeno-Mongol force. And even if there was a Mongol raid through the city, to say that this was the "pinnacle" of any Armeno-Mongol alliance is absurd. Actual history is that the largest and most important military collaboration between the Mongols and the Armenians was the Battle of Baghdad (1258), a conflict for which we have ample sources, in which over 60,000 Armenians participated, and is regarded as the single greatest disaster in the history of Islam. We also have the Second Battle of Homs, with 30,000 non-Mongols, some of whom were Armenians. The Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar had thousands of Armenians, and there was the Battle of Ain Jalut, a pivotal battle between the Egyptians and Mongols, in which a relatively small force of maybe 500 Armenians participated on the side of the Mongols. Then we have this supposed battle for Jerusalem in 1299/1300, which there is no consensus for. We have a very few conflicting primary sources, which we shouldn't be relying on at all, because our goal is to use reliable secondary sources. And the vast consensus of historians (see Mongol raids into Palestine) is that there was no such battle. There are a few historians that can be cherry-picked to build a case that there might have been Mongol raids in Jerusalem that year, but this has little to do with the Armenians, and to try and place an entire section in the Armeno-Mongol alliance article based on these flimsy mentions, is a severe violation of undue weight. --Elonka19:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we can argue of the length of the paragraph to discuss this, deleting everything is on the contrary a disservice to this encyclopedia. Shouldn't the middle ground be to mention the historians who describe the entry in Jerusalem by the Armenians, and balance it against historians who challenge the notion? I am afraid just deleting everything is not a solution. Same thing for the details of the joint capture of Damascus in 1260, and the information about the involvement of the Armenians at Ain-Jalut, which is all quite important information and which you also deleted. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in both cases you left one cursory statement but deleted all the specifics. For Damascus in 1260 you only left "on March 1, 1260 proceeded to capture Damascus, under the Christian Mongol general Kitbuqa" but you deleted all the specifics of this event (about 30 lines, documented in Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance). In the case of Ain-Jalut, you only left "at the pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut, a battle in which 500 troops from Armenia may have participated, fighting on the side of the Mongols" but eliminated all the information about the Armenians in the aftermath of the battle. For Jerusalem, you deleted any mention of the possible involvement of the Armenians. Cheers PHG (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mongols and Armenians in Jerusalem in early 1300
It may be on the occasion of a visit to Jerusalem in 1300 that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of Saint James of Jerusalem.
Mongol raids on Jerusalem are sometimes thought to have occurred during the Mongol invasions of Syria and Palestine by Ghazan in the year 1300. There are pervasive Medieval accounts, whether from European, Armenian or Arab sources, claiming that the Mongols occupied Jerusalem in 1300. There is little evidence however that this actually happened, and modern scholars are divided on the question. After the Mamluk forces retreated south to Egypt, the main Mongol forces retreated north in February, and Ghazan left his general Mulay to rule in Syria.[1] Accordingly, there existed a period of about four months from February to May 1300, when the Mongol il-Khan was the "de facto" lord of the Holy Land.[2] According to Alain Demurger, Ghazan captured Jerusalem after he had taken Damascus,[3] and his general Mulay was in Jerusalem in 1299/1300.[4] But Mulay's small force had to retreat when the Mamluks returned in May 1300.[5][6] Ghazan also promised to return in the winter of 1300-1301 to attack Egypt.[7]
An Armenian monk named Nerses Balients, converted to Catholicism by the Dominicans,[8] stated that the Armenian King Hetoum II, with a small force, had reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places:
"The king of Armenia, back from his raid against the Sultan, went to Jerusalem. He found that all the enemies had been put to flight or exterminated by the Tatars, who had arrived before him. As he entered into Jerusalem, he gathered the Christians, who had been hiding in caverns out of fright. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, he held Christian ceremonies and solemn festivities in the Holy Sepulchre. He was greatly comforted by his visits to the places of the pilgrims. He was still in Jerusalem when he received a certificate from the Khan, bestowing him Jerusalem and the surrounding country. He then returned to join Ghazan in Damas, and spend the winter with him"
Ghazan ordering the King Of Armenia Hetoum II to accompany Kutlushka on the 1303 attack on Damascus.[10]Hetoum II (left) parting with Ghazan and his Mongols (right) in 1303. By the Armenia monk Hayton "La Flor des Estoires d'Orient".
According to the historian Claude Mutafian, this may be on this occasion that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of Saint James of Jerusalem.[11]
^"For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land", Schein, p810
^"In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquishes the Mamluks in the Second Battle of Homs, and captures Damascus and even Jerusalem", Demurger Les Templiers, p.84
^"Mûlay, a Mongol general who was effectively present at Jerusalem in 1299/1300", Les Templiers, p.84
^Le Templier de Tyr mentions that one of the generals of Ghazan was named Molay, whom he left in Damas with 10,000 Mongols - "611. Ghazan, when he had vanquished the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his Admirals, who was named Molay, who had with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 general."611. Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus.", but it is thought that this could instead designate a Mongol general "Mûlay". - Demurger, p.279
Hi Angus, how many times do we have to go through the same edits every time, [3],
[4]. This has been discussed, Rock created the article Chronology of the Great Famine, the Lead has been addressed. You have intervened now a number of times which I appreciate, but it only has a limited effect. You know this has been discussed all before, yet we have to take two steps back to go one forward. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian'23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a good faith editor. As for Domer, he has reverted ALL my edits, despite them being referenced and relevent. I have introduced information to clarify the course of the Famine in a summary form. As it it stands the article seems to assume that the reader already knows what happened in the Famine. Domer does not own the article, and is not the dictator of its content whose POV must be slavishly pandered to by the admins. Every editor is equal. The Famine is too important a subject and the wikipedia is too important a project for the admins to willingly allow this article to become one editor's personal POV playground. Also the information I provided is not a replica or cut and paste job from the Chronology article, it is factual info provided to help the neophyte make sense of what actually happened in the Famine. The wikipedia needs more such facts and less POV interpretations deliberately designed to obscure the issue. Presented with the facts the reader can make his own interpretation. Colin4C (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angus! I would like to use the following book as a reference [5] (Stratégies missionnaires des jésuites français en Nouvelle-France et en Chine au XVIIe siècle: en nouvelle-France et en Chine au XVII siècle
By Shenwen Li, published by Presses Université Laval, 2001). Could you confirm if this is OK? Best regards PHG (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an excellent source. I am guessing you'll be more interested in the Chinese side than in Canada? I never looked at our coverage of missionaries in early modern Canada. Something to think about. Angus McLellan(Talk)12:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is is "acceptible" on the wikipedia to give referenced info on approx numbers of deaths in major world famines in the intro of those articles? Or is it acceptible in some articles but not others? Colin4C (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Angus, Thankyou very much for your greeting, much appreciated. I wish you all the same things - May your Christmas be joyful and merry, and your New Year happy and prosperous. I shall raise a glass of red to your name as I gnaw on the Xmas pheasant! Very best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, a cara,
Thanks very much for saying hi! Very thoughtful. I have contributed almost nothing this year due to a heavy workload in the real world, but hope to be able to add some more in the new year, particularly those listed in red on my page. I must take a good look at your recent work as you always do such a good job on them. Bal o Dia/Dea ar an obair, agus merry Christmas! Fergananim (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, is there any chance you could email me the text of the ODNB Coenred article? The Deacon is opposing at the FAC, and suggests that I use the ODNB article for some pointers. He's also suggesting I quote from the Vita Guthlaci which I don't have; I'll see if I can find an online version but if you have a text and would be willing to quote from it please let me know. I do have an edition of the Vita Wilfridi so I'm OK there. Thanks. Mike Christie(talk)13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belay the ODNB request; Ealdgyth just sent it to me; and then I found Deacon had too! If you have the Vita Guthlaci let me know; I've got a bit of a problem there and will post more details at the FAC. Mike Christie(talk)15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several versions of Guthlac A and B [6], [7], [8]. There's a version of the vitahere, but downloads disabled for the present. There are excerpts here, including the bit where demons imitate an invading army of Britons. There are bits on Guthlac in Brown & Farr (Roberts, Hagiography and Literature). I'm away from most of my books, so that's about all I can find. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. I found a usable version of an 1848 translation, just to be able to cite the relevant passage. I have ordered the Colgrave edition -- it seems to be the one mostly widely cited and the text is such an early source I think I want a copy at hand. I've made various updates to the article in response to the Deacon. I know you typically don't support or oppose at FAC, but if you have any thoughts for improvement please do let me know, perhaps at the article's talk page. Thanks -- Mike Christie(talk)17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angus, thanks for your comments. I felt the article was still in need of closer inspection on a number of points, but for various reasons I haven't been able to come round to that. The last opportunity being today, I've given it a go anyway (not a very catchy hook I admit). Cavila (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that's a big question! The Kari Maund book is very good, I think, I've used it myself. For the Norman period, I don't think you can do much better than R R Davies's "The Age of Conquest", but the earlier period is more difficult. I'd also recommend Donald Gregory's little books as a starting ponit - "Wales before 1066" is one of them. I'll let you know if I can think of anything else. Deb (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yes, this article isn't exactly top-drawer (hence ouch). I'm surprised this got through actually. Needs one of those {{fiction}} tags I'd so love to put in more articles ... and this is ignoring the fact so many sagas are cited directly as if they are secondary sources. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
