User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI

19:32 Thursday 19 September 2024

Archive ARCHIVE I ARCHIVE II ARCHIVE III ARCHIVE IV ARCHIVE V ARCHIVE VI ARCHIVE VII ARCHIVE VIII ARCHIVE IX ARCHIVE X ARCHIVE XI

Synchronisms

A Happy New Year to you. Somebody nominated Amlaíb Cuarán as a good article. Might have waited until it was finished! Would you be able to have a look and see if there are any too glaring errors in it? I still need to expand the bit on his family and reputation and add something about Havelok the Dane. Not sure that there's enough background either. Certainly not enough for the eagle-eyed FA reviewers, but for GA? Maybe.

And I was wondering, is there an article could be written about historical synchronisms? At the moment the nearest there is is the mention of "The simultaneous occurrence of two or more events at the same instant on the same coordinated time scale" on that dab page. I was in Blackwells last week, but no Caledonia to Pictland yet. Boo! Hiss!

Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From Hudson's Viking Pirates... (which is excerpted on Google books now); my copy is in Brussels and I am not. If you search it for "Havelok" you'll see more or less what he has to say. Vivid, misleading trivia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I deserve a prize for figuring out who the tame expert for the first episode of the BBC Scotland History of Scotland was so quickly? Either it was a singularly bad map or Nechtansmere migrated to Badenoch. A bit of a give-away. I was quite impressed overall, although I have to say that they managed to find an awful lot more information on Giric than I've ever managed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted (or about to post) a reply on my talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about your question on my RFA

Hiya. I'm curious to hear your feedback on my answer to your question about BLP in my RFA. If you've got a moment, could you let me know what you think? There, here, my talkpage, wherever you like. // roux   10:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. //roux   02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom

Regarding your move of Nordic migration to the United Kingdom to Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom, I wondered why you thought the latter was more appropriate? The status of Iceland and Finland as Scandinavian countries is debatable, whereas I think it's generally accepted that they are all Nordic countries, so I think the previous title was better. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I responded on my talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Ive never touched this area of Wiki before, but I find myself with an article I might like nominated, can you help me out figuring out the system? The article is Robert de Bethune. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks. I think that was more complicated than figuring out GANs! GAH! I have hopes I might get him to FA one day, so figured since I did all that expansion, I'd at least try for the silly awards. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Henry V the Fat

On January 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry V the Fat, 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) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bolko I the Strict

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bolko I the Strict, 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.

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

British people

The problem is if you only mention British citizens in the info box then there is nothing describing how many people there are with British ancestory. I fail to see why British people should be treated a different way to English people, Scottish people , Welsh people , Irish people , French people , German people etc. I wouldnt mind if the info box was changed to show the actual numbers identifying themeslves as English etc so people can see how the total is formed. But its offensive if wikipedias only article on British people is about British citizens. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about European Americans. That article basically does the same thing as currently done on British people but i notice that has no tag.

In my opinion i would rather the warning of content problems than it contain totally inaccurate and offensive content by suggesting that British people are only British citizens. The article has remained that way for a year, and i can understand why nobody previously removed it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those articles should be improved too. That 9,209,813 in the USA, with 16 great-great grandparents, claim to be Scottish probably has just about no relation with number of Scottish people or those with a Scottish grandparent in the USA. Typically, people are biased by the surnames of everyone up to their grandparents, which is in turn biased by cultural prejudices of agnatic superiority. With "British", the problems are compounded by dates and differing definitions, and in my experience settling at citizenship makes all but ultra-nationalists happy. Typically also, the quality of editor on peoples pages is not very high either and they tend to attract the nuts, so they are always going to be of poor quality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it will make everyone happy apart from ultra-nationalists. If we only class British people as British citizens then we are treating British people in a different way to EVERY other people, which is offensive and wrong. French people has the correct balance explaining its about both french citizens and those with french ancestory. The table then shows both French citizen numbers around the world aswell as those claiming to be of French ancesory. When all of those other people articles only talk about citizens, then the British article should do the same, unil then it must follow the example of all others. On who fits in, anyone thats of English Scottish and Welsh ancestory. With a note that the figures dont include those from Northrtn Ireland as most countries only record people as of "irish" decent". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

we should have this debate on the talk page though so we get other peoples points of view. If everyone else agrees the table should be removed and it should just be about citizens then i will accept it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your user name and the giant flag on your page, you are quite patriotic about the UK. That's fine. But we follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS (as well as WP:IAR); British people as a concept has to be treated on wikipedia the way it is treated in reliable sources. If I may respectfully suggest, you are on wikipedia to improve an encyclopedia, not to satisfy an ideology. Editors not doing this tend to get ignored and sidelined, even by users who share their ideology but don't edit according to it, and in the end have even less impact on the things they most want to impact. So even from the pro-ideology point of view, it still makes sense to edit according to policy. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think removing the content containing informaton on those of British ancestory and claiming that only British citizens are British people is incorrect, inaccurate, misleading as well as being offensive which is why i dont support the recent change. The table had been on the article for a year, so clearly not that many people felt strongly enough about its inclusion to remove it. I do not hide the fact that i am British and support the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we remove the articles on Welsh, English and Scottish people and said they are all British citizens so dont deserve their own article, then people would rightfully be offended by such a change. Suggesting that only British citizens are "british people" is a point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

What strikes me the most is how unpleasantly you talk to me for the first time. I have no idea what infuriated so much. I just replaced Template:Infobox Monarch with Template:Infobox Royalty, which is used by all English monarchs and all Scottish monarchs from James I to Anne. I shouldn't have removed the Gaelic spelling, but surely there was a nicer way to inform me about your opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about "unexplained" reverts. Most people consider Infobox Royalty nicer than Infobox Monarch, so I didn't think that edit summary was needed. I now see that my later edit summary was a bit hypocritical :) Thank you for understanding! Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eadulf Rus

On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eadulf Rus, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(snickers)

User:Ealdgyth/History References if you're feeling like doing more historians.... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know when you do a new one so that I can update my list. I keep that so I don't have to retype references all the time, makes life a lot easier. I have User:Ealdgyth/Journal articles too. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Can you do me a favor and move Thrumere to Trumhere? It won't let me do it over a redirect. I doubt it'll be controversial. (If anyone but me has the page on their watchlist I'd die of shock...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I hope you were joking 'cos I had it watchlisted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay .. I guess you and Mike and Deacon had a shot at watchlisting it. Other people? Heh. Thanks, Angus. As you can tell, I'm sorting out the bishops of Lichfield today... and I goofed on the spelling of that one. Oops. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have him, too, for what it's worth. --Secisek (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor little dead bishop, so many folks watching him. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Earldom of Bernicia

Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim. Your recent edit summary for Battle of Stainmore says 'no such thing as "earldom of Bernicia"', but a Google search brings up 148 pages. I know nothing at all about this, but I'm curious about the result. --Northernhenge (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"earldom of Bernicia" on the face of it is a mixture of anachronism and antiquarianism for the 10th century, since earl is post-Cnutian Scandinavian term and "Bernicia" is an Anglo-Britonnic term from the 8th century. The term is used I suppose through insensitivity and because many scholars see the Bamburgh lordship as the same as the old northern half of the Northumbrian kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

high-reeve

Redirect to disambig? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitred abbots

Hi Deacon, doin' some stuff off-wiki but wondered if your copy of The Heads of Religious Houses in Scotland mentions if the abbots were mitred or not. I've got Arbroath, Cambuskenneth, Inchaffrey, Iona, Kelso, Kilwinning, Kinloss and Paisley who were mitred. I've also seen that the prior of Whitehorn was also mitred but that may be wrong. Thanks, Bill Reid | ^Talk 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been on to the University of St Andrews Scottish parliament website and got some good info. Thanks again, Bill Reid | ^Talk 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the names I got: Arbroath, Balmerino, Cambuskenneth, Coupar Angus, Deer, Dunfermline, Fearn, Hollyrood, Inchaffrey, Inchcolm, Iona, Jedburgh, Kelso, Kilwinning, Kinloss, Lindores, Melrose, Newbattle, Paisley, Scone, St Andrews (prior of). Then I found An Historical Account of the Rise and Development of Presbyterianism in Scotland, Cambridge University Press, 1911, p. 6 which stated that there were "32 mitred abbots and priors" in Scotland at the Reformation. If that's the case then all abbots in Scotland were mitred yet in England at the Reformation there were only 27 mitred abbots and 2 mitred priors. So if a small abbey like Fearn was mitred then there could be some truth in all abbots had the mitre and if the figure 32 is correct, then there were 2 mitred abbots, one of which was definitely St Andrews. Rgds, Bill Reid | ^Talk 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. Any help would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin text

You may, inter alia be interested in this disgraceful outburst. Ben MacDui 09:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My (failed) RfA

Many thanks for your support. I'm now working on the Wikification WikiProject! It's fun. Can you do an article or two to help clear the backlog? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why revert smackbot's dating of tags?

I don't understand your edit to Transport in Leeds - could you explain? PamD (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just speculating here but I think he was doing a mass revert of the addition of the presently contentious "ibid" tag and maybe caught a few of the date ones by accident. –xeno (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interested

It doesn't bother me one way or the other, but I was interested to see this edit, and wondered why you did it. No big deal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid a few will be caught. That's the reason. I'm afraid some will be caught and it's either that or I have to preview every one. I ain't doing that. A bot can replace them no bother. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be welcomed

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Monarchs_and_Dukes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

As was pointed out to you there is no knowing what you have reverted, in addition to removing the tag you despise. If you had talked to me about it on my talk page it would have been trivial for me to do a clean revert. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16 22 January 2009 (UTC).

This is your fault, Rich. And given the amount of work you caused me and others by misusing automated tools I thought you'd rather be thanking me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

DYK for Osulf I of Bamburgh

On January 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Osulf I of Bamburgh, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious houses

No, in fact I've been adding to it on my mediawiki server on my computer so I'll upload maybe next week if I get a chance. I think you did the last update to it so I'll incorporate it. Rgds, Bill Reid | ^Talk 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid..

Thanks for the suggestion on the book. I've got a few other books on order that I'll use when the big FAC push comes, but right now, I just want him GA. (Actually, right now I'm just sick of Wilfrid period, but...) I'll look into ordering that one when I get the chance. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oslac of York

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oslac of York, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:UKHBS

Hi, I noticed your tweaks. The old template organized the countries alphabetically (avoids arguments) - perhaps it's better to keep them alphabetically? Also, the heading "modern ireland" looks wrong. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wulfsige Bishop of Cornwall

Can you fix this move for me? I'm still very shaky on my ISP after the move and I don't have time to deal with the move that just happened... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That got it. I didn't start the move, but I knew that Wulfsige Bishop of Cornwall wasn't the right name ... someone moved it from Wulfsige of Cornwall to Wulfsige Bishop of Cornwall, saying it was obviously mispelled. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection at white people

Hello. There were only circa eleven IP edits in the last three days, six by a single editor. In my opinon that's not "heavy and continued vandalism" Additionally, at the talk page I'd just delined to protect the page. Might you be willing to remove protection, in particlar as I'm attempting to engage the IP with the six reverts?

Thanks

brenneman 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles question

In this book [1] the author refers to the Galician-Livonian Chronicle. Is this the same as the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle or is it possibly the Livonian Chronicle? Any guidance welcome. Novickas (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

White people

Consensus at Talk:White people seems to be forming that semi-protection is not necessary at this time, since the (recent) primary disruption was coming from only one IP. Would you have any objection to lifting the protection? --Elonka 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!  :) --Elonka 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

History of St Kilda

Hi, I've noticed you had some activity on this article--which isn't terribly high-quality and isn't very actively worked on. I gather that the article was spun off from the St Kilda, Scotland main article in hopes also to expand it; that seems not to have worked, and the section in the main article actually has a bit more content. Would you support a redirect back to the main article, since the experiment was not a success? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to win a revert war

Your valuable and highly significant essay on this topic is currently being disparaged at the 3RR noticeboard. Someone even called it 'humorous.' EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a parody essay I've been thinking of and I was considering creating a special header (maybe not a real template) that says something like "This is a parody essay. It attempts to make a point about Wikipedia by claiming that it is arguing the opposite of the point it truly wishes to make" specifically because some people just don't get subtle humor, especially humor trying to make a point. Thoughts?

BTW, Suggested addition: "To gather support, claim your opponent has a COI. The best thing is that you don't need any evidence and there is no defense. If that doesn't work, claim sock puppeting, even if you're only battling one editor." (see the item above on the noticeboard :-) RoyLeban (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the person that reported the essay to AN(!) has way too much time on his/her hands. As someone else said on the noticeboard, it should be required reading for all editors. I think there are many people that more or less engage in the behavior indicated in the essay without much introspection. Hopefully the essay will provide introspection for some of us. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I have a related essay on the natural development of Wikipedians. --C S (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You might consider adding the {{humorantipolicy}} banner at the top of the essay. This would underscore its humorous nature and might avert misunderstanding. One of the essays which currently uses that banner is WP:Assume bad faith. EdJohnston (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This mention of your essay in an Arbcom case suggests that not everyone is taking it as funny. I've suggested over at WP:AN3 that the essay could be rewritten. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When I saw your edit summary "Arbcom has no sense of humor", I thought surely they do, after all Charles Matthews is on Arbcom (although he would call it "humour"). Perhaps it's just coincidence, but his seems the only opinion that states there is nothing to be concerned about here. I like FloNight's example of "edit war mentality". I could bring most of the people I've met on Wikipedia to Arbcom based on such examples. --C S (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Warning

You commentary has been read. I suppose User:Roux will also get a warning? Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. How can such a condescending editor be more restrained, yet revert for petty (and arguably unjustified) reasons, add multiple tags on whim, call me a 'troll', and consider common internet slang 'flaming' to be a personal attack about one's sexuality (which I didn't even know until said user pointed it out)? I'm done with this and you, and will avoid said parties like the plague. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How_to_win_a_revert_war essay

I was scanning through user essays, where I found your essay User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war listed. Although it is possibly intended to be humurous, I object to it's tone- 'hopefullly push an 'expert' off of wikipedia!' for example ( could be used to apply to real experts as well as deluded ones), it mentions how to circumvent the 3rr and why/how to use sockpuppets. Thus I feel it could be used for good or bad and as such falls into the 'not feeding them beans' arena and I see you quoted 'beans' this when removing the link to the essay from your userpage. Do you think it is a good idea to leave it in the user essays cat? LeeVJ (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I take it the reply was on my talk page, sorry if it was any offence removing essay tag - but at the time it looked like you were going to ignore this question! Now you've added the humour tag I will exit stage left - as if it was tagged as such when I first read it I would've carried on by. I still think it's not a good idea to provide these guides , but there are several more so I guess it's a question of taste ? No offence meant, I'm just naturally slightly cynical and like to check things out, and happy editing LeeVJ (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc blocks

There's an ANI thread ( [2] ) on the blocks of BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm notifying both Deacon and Tznkai ...

In my opinion, the reblocking for longer time period violated existing policy that we let blockees vent on their user talk page. I agree that what he posted in the talk page and edit summary was indefensibly rude and uncivil. However, the duration and degree was short and moderate, not extended and extreme. If he'd kept it up for days or made more vicious or more personal attacks on individual admins then the situation would be different, but what happened so far does not to me justify the extended block.

I am all for making Wikipedia more polite, and I deplore BigDunc's conduct here. But we have to be realistic - people object to being blocked, and vent about that. Reblocking people who vent leads to a vicious circle where a single minor incident spirals out of control into destroying someone's relationship with Wikipedia. That violates the intent and policy behind blocking.

Administrators need to be sensitive to not abusing people in the process of enforcing policy, particularly blocks. I believe that, well intentioned as the reblocks may have been from a civility standpoint, they were ultimately a mistake and counterproductive.

I propose to reduce BigDunc's block to the original 48-hr duration later tonight, after discussion on ANI. I am notifying both of the admins who reblocked him (Deacon and Tznkai) to allow discussion and get your input prior to any action being taken.

Please contribute your comments to the ANI thread to keep things centralized...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You brought up the comparison to Mooretwin. Were you aware of the extenuating circumstances with regards to Mooretwin I have raised? SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on ANI - I have reduced the block term to the original 48 hrs from initial blocking, and unlocked his ability to edit his talk page. I will continue to monitor it for excessive responses etc, in case he escalates beyond what he's done so far. If you feel that he gets significantly worse I recommend reporting it on the ANI thread but leaving it alone yourself... Someone else who wasn't involved so far can make a less conflicted determination if the abuse escalates and justifies another response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh lordy.

Could you please take a look at this and handle accordingly? It looks like an incipient witchhunt, and I have very little patience for this sort of nonsense. Particularly when it's being conducted offwiki. //roux   07:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta. //roux   07:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked the question because in the discussion above 'add[ed] multiple tags on whim,' sounded like possible applied use of the essay i.e.3. Tag sentences elsewhere. (apply tags to bog editor down). I hinted at off-wiki since thought it unlikely to be this, reply would be biased and not worth bogging down wiki with it. Since other discussions are ongoing I have withdrawn the question. LeeVJ (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BD's comment 'adding multiple tags on whim' is sheer fiction. I don't do that. //roux   18:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Review Board

Please do not place a rejected tag on this again; at this time, the policy is being examined by the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Lame

Were I casting stones (which I am not doing), then they would most likely be cast in the direction of the person who's desire to have the "last word" was reverted by three different editors. However, as I said, I am most assuredly not pointing fingers, as the last thing needed in this Greek tragedy is yet more drama. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barry

A new article has been created for Camus (Danish general) by another user. I'm not sure a fictional character merits his own page when he is only known in relation to one fictional battle, the Battle of Barry. A candidate for merging or speedy deletion? Or leave it as it is? --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Huh?

The community is not purely constituted by administrators Deacon; that's been long-established. No one disputed the incivility; I said that pretty clearly in my review. But what was unanimous was that you should not have blocked or block-extended. Adding SirFozzie, myself and Giano would make 6 users who disagreed with your block (7 if Tznkai was to be included). There was nothing preventative in keeping the block for longer than that, given the user's assurance. I don't recall having a grudge with you at any point - could you explain why you've made such an assumption other than strongly disagreeing with something I've said during/after this incident? It was an honest review; no different to those I've given for many other admin actions - the way I met LessHeard vanU for the first time was through a similar review. By contrast, his response was far different to yours.

As for revert-warring, having read this, I can see why you can't understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gents, the carcass is so beaten and bloody it can no longer be identified as a horse. Let's move on. –xeno (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A thread which may concern you has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of infobox of 'White British' article.

Why are you always removing the infobox of the 'White British' article? If the 'Black British' and 'Mixed British' not to mention the 'White American' articles have them, why not 'White British', the 'White British' are equal to Black British, Asian British and , Mixed British, not inferior to them!John Rushton83 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NotAnotherAliGFan's block

Hi. Thanks for intervening in the matter. However, are you sure that three days isn't a bit much? When I was knew to Wikipedia, I unknowingly violated 3RR because I wasn't familiar with that rule, and was blocked for only one day. A check on NotAnotherAliGFan's edits shows that he's accumulated only 367 edits since February 2007, 357 of which were made only since last August. It's possible that he wasn't familiar with 3RR. Are you sure a day or two isn't enough? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was unaware that he had been blocked twice before. Sorry to bother you. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy belated...

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Four years...kind of over-the-hill in wiki years, isn't it? ;> –xeno (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent comments at AN/I in support of my actions. One small point; re "John's previous "involvement"", I wasn't involved at all in the article or its talk before I warned those four editors, but went straight there from AN/I when it was raised there; see here for a full account if you're interested. It seemed to me then like a cut and dried case of bad fair use. It still does, frankly, but I see now that there are respected editors arguing on the other side. It's an even more highly charged area than I had imagined. We may need to go to RfC or RfAr to resolve it, or else tolerate the dispute for another year or whatever. Anyway, thanks for taking the time and trouble to look into it and to speak in my defense. --John (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh happy day!

Hurrah! Got back to Scotland last night and The Book was waiting for me. So I have now skimmed through JEF's magnum opus from Introduction to Postscript. Lots to think about! First and foremost it strikes me that 17 April 2009, two months and a day from now, will be the fourteenth centennial of Áedán mac Gabráin's death, probably, and a racing cert for getting him on the front page. I had best get my skates on as there's an awful lot to be tarted up between now and then. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

disputing ban for a 3 revision rule violation

I have another computer which was recently (less then an hour) blocked for a 3 revision violation. It's IP address is 141.154.110.173 and it posts under that ID. The address gets changed at various times by the internet company

There is no 3 revision violation. It is my understanding that for a 3 revision violation I need to revert the same thing 3 times. I did not do so and have never done so. While I was engaged is a undo war earlier today I stopped at 2 reverts while the other person went to 3. I did not report this person as we came to an amicable conclusion of the argument once he relied he had stepped over the line and he reverted his last revert bringing the total reverts for both of us to 2. I do not wish you to in any way shape or form harass that individual. We came to an amicable conclusion and the matter was settled to both our satisfaction. I wish it to remain closed.

The fake violation notification likely came from an individual posting under the handle of Salty Boatr. He is is quite unhappy that he does not control all aspects of the Second Amendment article and has been quite obstructionist with other editors, not least myself. Earlier today he threatened to report me for a number of violations for which I am not guilty off due to his unhappiness over a dispute of source material.

Again I did not at any time exceed the 3 revert rule for the same material. I have reverted different material in dispute but never the same material 3 times. Please check the history of the second Amendemt edits to confirm. Upon confirmation please remove the block from the above ID.

As part of this post I want to report this incident as it is obviously harassment well beyond what wiki policy allows. I ask that whoever did this be banned for the longest period wiki allows for harassment of another editor. 4.154.237.88 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR is clear that A revert is any action ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. and that Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material. Whether or not the material is the same doesn't matter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User Nickhh and 3RR

Thanks for looking into that. I've had to report him again, as he's just violated 3RR on another article. You'll find the report in the same section on WP:AN/3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

your note

Thank you for the advice, I will take it to heart. NoCal100 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barry

I've made a few improvements to Battle of Barry, and was thinking of nominating it for GA status. As it falls into your area of interest (Medieval Scotland), I wondered if you would have a look at it and suggest any improvements? I'd like to strengthen the referencing for Boece not being a credible source.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

African Romance

Hello!

What do you mean the title is not ambiguous? Have a look: [3] SamEV (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What way Further?

Hello, I understand that the block for my account is for some obvious reasons. Sorry I am fairly new here. But the cause I did that is not wrong, The concerned guy is some language fanatic, he simply wont discuss that topic. All he does is he just reverts it, so why was the ban not imposed on his account? Swapnils2106 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The above user is not ready to discuss with me in article talkpage, he simply keep on reverting my edits. I'm the main contributor of the Bhimsen Joshi article. C21K^talk 12:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In wikipedia we are adding only native language scripts. for instance see Aishwarya Rai, Lata Mangeshkar C21K^talk 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A Request

Sir, please check this edit made by an IP on my talkpage[4]. That IP is used by User:Swapnils2106, and he is reverting my edits again. C21K^talk 13:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• 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

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Can you look into how the Drudge Report is being moderated. It seems Ratel (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ratel) has been engaging in edit wars with many of the users who try to improve the page (check out the talk page on Drudge Report). I notice you have warned him in the past, specifically for the 3-revert rule. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Might want to look into the 3-revert rule again today. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, on my watchlist for 27 February 2009, I see 3 reverts by me, not 4. What's up? Some mistake perhaps? ► RATEL ◄ 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point, just a heads up ... I see you're doing the bidding of an anonymous editor who rejoices in block evasions. He was blocked [5] but there was immediate evasion. He openly scorns attempts to block him and has returned to edit warring the same issue that earned him the block in the first place.[6] [7] [8] I suspect he has also created the username Zooplibob (see contributions) to edit war the exact same thing (can you do an IP check on that user to confirm?) This deserves an IP range block and/or a longish semi-protect on the Drudge Report page. ► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deacon, unfortunately this anonymous editor has ignored the fragile consensus we reached, will not accept Britannica or The Financial Times as reliable sources, and it straight back to the edit war. Diffs [9] [10]. ► RATEL ◄ 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• He's doing it again, all from IPs starting with 24.187.*. See history for Drudge Report [11] Can you put a long term semi-protect on that page? ► RATEL ◄ 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Either...

Deal with things fairly, or don't bother. It is remarkable that BigDunc can be trolled and abused for days on end, yet when he reacts you block him and do nothing to the person causing the problem. O Fenian (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

A thread which may concern you has begun here. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloodaxe

Just letting you know that the Eric Bloodaxe article has finally been revamped (as of Wednesday). It needs some tweaking, but no doubt you remember what it looked like previously. Cavila (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent accusations

I've raised your accusations here. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir accepted your invitation

Have a happy holidays ~_^ Phalanxpursos (Talk) 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Honour of Richmond

Hi! The rather ridiculous Honour of Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted, but it has resurfaced. I had argued against the principle author on the talk page, but unfortunately that was also deleted, so now this article seems to have a clean slate, which is worse than before the deletion. I am amazed that such an obvious fake of a charter by William the Conqueror can exist on English wikipedia. Could you take appropriate action? I would request in the first place that the old talk page be restored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The redirect is a good solution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC

The RFC closed over a week ago [12]. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• 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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I think your prolificacy in the creation of new articles and the quality vested therein is deserving of an award. I just came upon your userpage and your list of created articles, and I felt compelled to recognise your diligence. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Phalanxpursos

Re User:Phalanxpursos. The edit history, beginning 12 May 2007 with an unusual degree of technical competence bespeaking prior familiary with Wikipedian html, is not encouraging. Seemingly well-intentioned but unsourced rewrite of Orda Khan should be looked at by someone competent (not me). Most of the rest is contention: a Discordianist perhaps?--Wetman (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles and the Famine

Are the Troubles related to the Famine by the unsupported opinion of one editor two days ago or has there been a previous ruling or vote on this? I'm saying this because the connection is not obvious to me. Should a template now be added to the Famine article saying that they are related. Otherwise how are editors expected to know? It has never been mentioned there before. Colin4C (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ann Haydon Jones

I note that you banned one of three editors involved in an edit war, but not the other two. That seems extremely abritrary and indeed hostile. Since the ban, (not a)TennisExpert has continued to modify these page, making reverts and edits, and is now engaged in an edit war with two other editors. Why is this acceptable? I placed the following note on his talk page, but he merely deletes it and carries on reverting. I find the "one rule for one and another rule for others" on wikipedia quite wearing.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You probably won't find it on his talk page, as he's bound to have deleted it again by now. I'll be interested to see if you bother taking any action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.103.79 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Theodisk

This Might interest you. Jcwf (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Block history

Hi Deacon, since I know you are sensitive to RanSAI, could you make sure my record is not besmirched with the 3RR block you put onto me in error please? Ta. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think your essay on winning wikiwars is hilarious! Thanks for the laughs, first I've ever had on WP (no need to answer).► RATEL ◄ 05:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA

You ask hard questions! :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just glad I graduated before professor Deacon arrived. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I was okay with the tags for some articles until BAG and associates got nasty. You also appear to write substantive (and interesting) articles on Wikipedia. Good luck with that. --KP Botany (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• 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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Lverqlv

FYI: User:Lverqlv, who you blocked, is also sockpuppeting as 74.127.242.203.THD3 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Please see [13]. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Canute to Cnut moves

Being Danish I personally agree with your decision as it is closer to the Nordic spelling, but if you look through the talk page of Cnut the Great you will see that there have been 3 discussions concerning this previously, the last one as recently as August 2008 which have all been voted down by a sizable majority because Canute seems to be the most common usage in English. So apparently your article moves are overriding the general consensus, at least regarding the Cnut the Great article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has him at Cnut. Lawson's recent work is titled Cnut: England's Viking King. Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) has him as Cnut. Just three bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No reason to begin this discussion here. As I stated I agree with the move. But it seemed a lot of other editors did not. I will not take this further, but you might have to if someone who actually disagrees with the move protests. But then the proper place would be on the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see what happens. I don't actually have Cnut watchlisted, so Deacon if you need backup, let me know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Siward, Earl of Northumbria

I've taken a look at Siward, another very impressive piece of work. Amongst other things I moved a couple of images to avoid text being squeezed between them, but obviously if you don't like the end result of that or any other of the changes I made feel free to revert. I think the most obvious objection I can see being raised at FAC is that the lead is probably a bit on the short side, needs another (fairly short) paragraph I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Affordability: University of St Andrews

Hi,

I see you wholesale removed the section on affordable accommodation from the article University of St Andrews. I think this was too extreme, especially when discussion for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lower_Rents_Now_Coalition only just opened up.

I understand that you have concerns with the notability of the Lower Rents Now Coalition (LRNC), but even then the issue of affordable accommodation is notable within the context of St Andrews. The rent increases mentioned in the section you deleted on affordable housing were widely opposed by students: 2,000 signed a petition against the increases[14]. The university's promise to maintain a certain number of beds as affordable is something that it even boasts about[15]. In the 2008 rectorship campaigns, everyone mentioned affordable accommodation as important. Many students are mentioning affordable accommodation in the upcoming Students Association elections.

Given that David Russell Apartments (DRA) has an article, I do not find information on the redevelopment of Fife Park to be inappropriate, given that Fife Park will end up like DRA. Also, even if the page Lower Rents Now Coalition is deleted, it does not mean the group is not notable within the context of (an article on) St Andrews. Just because you have not heard of something does not make it non-notable, even in the St Andrews context. I gave various indications of notability on the AfD page, and I feel these apply even stronger to the article on St Andrews. (In AfD, I mentioned various articles (not written by us) in The Courier; an opinion piece in St Andrews in Focus; large numbers of signatures on petitions; large numbers of student objections to the Fife Park planning application, as well as support from the Community Council; how the SRC have discussed the LRNC and more generally affordable housing or Fife Park many times. Additionally, this academic year, the issue of affordability and the LRNC were in quite a few articles in The Saint.)

The accommodation situation in St Andrews is particularly notable because, as said in the citations, rent in St Andrews in exceptionally high, and the number of students from low income backgrounds is atypically low. Given that the article University of St Andrews has a section on Reputation, which shows the university ranking highly in various league tables, and given that these league tables don't really consider the cost of accommodation, I feel for balance it is essential to also have information on where the university ranks poorly. I feel this is especially true because of the extreme nature of the cost of rent in St Andrews and the number of low income background students.

For now I have reverted your change for now, for the reasons stated. Note that somebody else deleted the section recently, and that was reverted. Note also that I am happy with the section being improved for WP:NPOV compliance, and acknowledge my difficulty in doing that myself because of the potential WP:CoI. However, I feel very strongly that i) even if the LRNC is not notable enough by subjective Wikipedia standards for its own article, that it may be notable enough within a section on affordable housing in an article on the university; ii) that the issue of affordablility is significant, and particularly notable at the University of St Andrews, and iii) for balance, the article should contain information on where the university doesn't perform particularly highly, such as accommodation costs, and access. Please discuss. Nicol (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)