User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 28

September 2010-December 2011

globalize
Hey, thanks for following up with Closeapple on the globalize thing. I haven't heard back from them about it in a while, so I was thinking of just moving the pages without their help. I was actually thinking of asking user:Plastikspork to check my work since I wasn't totally confident I would do it without messing something up (they have a lot of experience with TFD and templates). Or you and I could do it together, or if you would want to go ahead and do it yourself that would be great too. If you do, take a look at these directions, they say there are three templates that have to be moved and some links need to be changed. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on this. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked yesterday, and it seems to be progressing fine without me. Probably just as well since I'm not sure I'd have been any help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. It doesn't look like it's been moved yet, but there are a couple others interested in it now. :) Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The story
I've left you everything you should need at User Talk:Fergananim. I know I'm not so popular in Scotland right now but you know I know my Mumu nearly as well as Cavila. Why not ask me? Anyway, lethan means broad or wide, but according to Meyer the first element may originally have been Mun, or neck, not crown. Fiachu Muillethan I should return to after creating so long ago. DinDraithou (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Different story. Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross. DinDraithou (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

00:28, 4 September 2010 Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Paul-Provenza publicityshot.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free content criteria #1)
As a busy person with a life, it's hard to sit and check Wikipedia every five minutes to await breathlessly to see if I was able to post a picture of my friend or not. My other friend being the photographer who provided the photo. This is ridiculous. I can't be this much of a nerd to even try to figure all of this out, so please advise - I have the email address for the photographer to write in permission to grant me the almighty privilege of using this precious photo, but now that it's deleted, how is this going to work now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannemcneil (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted File:Paul-Provenza publicityshot.jpg for now. As far as getting permission goes, please look at Requesting copyright permission. There's an example there of a draft letter that you might use that covers all the legal schtick. If there are any hiccups - such as the image being deleted again before you finish getting a reply - let me know. It takes two seconds to undelete it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great - thanks Angus, the photographer will email as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannemcneil (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Emily Maguire (singer)
I moved your new article on top of the existing one. If you update an article like this you should just edit the one that's there rather than creating a whole new one. Just use cut and paste. Make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment and for doing this, merging the page histories together, it looks great. As a new Wiki contributor I am learning the procedures. My dilemma was that the existing page only had 3 lines of text so I was basically creating a complete new page for the artist. I decided to use my user page to get it into shape first. When I was ready to move, it would not allow me to overwrite the existing name without setting up A Request To Move. Reading the procedure message I read do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.... So I decided to give it a new name and ask for the other page to be promptly removed. You mention cut and paste rather than copy and paste. Is that a way that the creation history would be moved leaving me to use my user draft as a fresh page. I am unclear about how to do this I would be very grateful if you could explain and advise with this matter and point me in the right direction. Kind Regards Livewirer (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of this and that (and some Albanian territory)
Before you do a final decision on what to do with Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) I suggest you ask User:Athenean if this is what he was really asking for. I found his AN/I request highly surprising, and I cannot at present see any way this is going to lead to his favored solution – unless we issue a categorical ban on the use of the word "occupation" on Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard
It seems that I have been giving all the wrong answers yesterday. In fact, my authority in closing the move discussion does not come from WP:RM/CI as the argumentation on AN/I implied, but from the Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. What you have done is overturned a decision taken and recorded on another administrators' noticeboard. I do not think you should have done that. I have posted the following on AN/I to clarify the issue.

{{Cquote|

Role of the ECCN noticeboard?
This issue is already discussed on another administrators' noticeboard, the Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. Opening a new thread here may not have been appropriate, overruling the other board even less wise. It is as if suddenly the wise men here have seen themselves wise enough to solve the problems of the Balkans. Well, emperors tired and failed.

Most important, the discussion and actions here seriously undermine the status and usability of the ECCN board.

It is my belief, that consensus on the ECCN board allows me to take bold or even drastic action. After all the ECCN board is an administrators' noticeboard and equal in status to this one. It is not a place for idle chat. As you can clearly see on the noticeboard, I have recorded my action there. It has already been put under the widest possible scrutiny. As it has not been contested, I feel it has the support of the community.

It is not my fault that the discussions on ECCN attract so little participation. I would welcome a situation where the board was streaming with bold administrators with the skills and understanding to leap into any hot dispute.

To add any weight to the ECCN noticeboard we should have something like the following recorded somewhere as a policy or ruling. Actions taken and recorded on the ECCN noticeboard should not be undone without a discussion on that board. }} -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Alex Pacheco (PETA) (2).jpg
Hai Alen
 * I dont think there is a requirement of OTRS, as its listed as CCA-3 --Kalarickan (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is since the uploader isn't the photographer. There should be OTRS tickets for all of the PETA stuff (or even just one ticket to cover the lot). I suppose I could check with SV, she's sure to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. This seems to have been an oversight. The image is duplicated on commons where I have added the related ticket number here. It's a very appropriate shot of him - Peripitus (Talk) 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Uniforms...
I don't think it's the Blue Police, hmmm... try asking at WP:MILHIST and WP:GERMANY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2010 September 14
Clearly, my addition took a long time to write (from before the in-closing-process template), and was then saved without edit conflict. So no enforcing upon your task is intended, and I still think it is relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the debates as to possible vote canvassing to be as relevant as the insinuations as to conspiracy, which is to say not very relevant at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Angusmclellan, I need to know your opinion on the case, which seems to be very close to that of the Holocaust picture. It seems to me that J Milburn's and Hammersoft's problems with implementation of the NFCC policy are more general. Another possibility is that I am not right in this situation. Can you please have a look that this and give me your opinion? Thank you in advance, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is that the image of Soviet soldiers raising the Red Banner over the Reichstag is as historic an image as the Marines raising the Stars and Stripes over Iwo Jima. So it should be treated in the same way, which means either as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima-equivalent or a lengthy section in some other article on the history and significance of the event. Since, having just now check, that is how we treat it now I don't see a problem with excluding the image from other articles where it would merely be decorative, just as we do with the historic Iwo Jima image. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me point out, however, at few facts that make this analogy not correct.
 * Free photos of the American soldiers and of the US flag on the Mount Suribashi are available, whereas analogous photos for the Reichtag are not.
 * Free photos of Eastern front in general are not available as a rule, because all works of Soviet photographers are copyrighted now.
 * Iwo Jima was not the focal point of the Battle of Pacific, whereas the Reichstag was the primary and ultimate military target since 1943.
 * Iwo Jima did not mark the end of WWII in Pacific, whereas the red flag on the Reichstag heralded the end of organised German military resistance in Europe.
 * All these arguments have already been presented on the talk page, however, I understand that you have no opportunity to read all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. The Rosenthal's photo has been removed from the Iwo Jima article during the discussion about the Reichstag photo, and because I pointed at this image as an example of a non-free image in the infobox. I did not oppose to this removal because other photos of the US flag on Mount Suribachi were available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Paul: Factually incorrect. You started this most recent discussion regarding the suitability of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag on September 12. The Rosenthal images was not on the Battle of Iwo Jima article at that point, nor at any other point during the recent discussion. Further, if you believe I have a problem with NFCC policy in general, I invite you to make a report at WP:AN/I. @Angus: thanks for your input. I think further discussion on this subject should be taken to Talk:Battle of Berlin. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I referred to our earlier dispute that, probably, took place without your participation. Look in the archive there .--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Angus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Unlikely to be much help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I have a feeling that there is some fundamental flaw in the way NFCC are being implemented for historical images's case. Let's consider the Holocaust picture as an example. What is a Yad Vashem's goal? To educate people about the Holocaust and to show the photos from their archive to as many people as possible. That is why these photos are available online. The second goal is to prevent unauthorised commercial usage of these photos (which is impossible due to copyright and which theoretically can happen had these photos been placed in PD). Would placement of this photograph in the Holocaust article infringe Yad Vashem's rights or contradict to its goals? Obviously, no. Moreover, I would say, it would be correct to make all Holocaust or WWII images copyrighted to prevent any possibility of their use for, e.g. commercial advertisement, etc (which would be really unacceptable). Therefore, excluding such images from Wikipedia under absolutely artificial pretext serves absolutely no positive goals and decrease the articles' quality for absolutely abstract reasons. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, it might be useful for you to read Gratis versus Libre. Wikipedia aims for Libre, not Gratis. If Yad Vashem retains rights to a given work, but wants it distributed widely, they might grant permission to Wikipedia to use it here. That would be a gratis use. It furthers their goals, and it might seem to you to be ok; we're educating, right? It's not ok. In fact, permission to use on Wikipedia is a speedy deletion criteria. See CSD. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my mother tongue two different words are used for these two concepts, so this essay is hardly useful for me. Regarding speedy deletion, that what always puzzled me. AP granted explicit permission to WP to used the Rosenthal's Iwo Jima photo. However, that did not prevented its removal from the Iwo Jima article. I have absolutely no idea what is the reason of that...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I started to think that logical inconsistencies and counter-intuitivenell of NFCC serve as and additional proof of NFCC's validity for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is our choice that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is a speedy deletion criteria and not something that is mandated by the EDP or by any of our founding principles. Given that we do use non-free content, there is no fundamental reason why we could not, if we wished, freely use content which is not entirely free-as-in-freedom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(Angus, if you rather this didn't take place on your talk page just say so) @Paul: The reason is simple. I pointed you to the Gratis vs. Libre article because it is a fundamental concept that needs to be understood to understand our NFCC policy here. If we didn't make a distinction between Gratis and Libre, we could just follow U.S. Fair Use law and be done with it. Libre, which we follow, means anyone can use our content for whatever purpose they want to use it, including SELLING it. AP would never consent to the Rosenthal image being used in that manner. Therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary, so as to maintain our focus on our libre goal. Yes Angus, it is our choice. It's a fantastic one. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Gratis vs. Libre. Yes, I perfectly understand that. However, I do not think the opportunity to sell something that has been made based on the Holocaust or WWII images is a good idea. I would say the opposite: if all this buzz is about an opportunity for some businessmen to make money on the pictures of that kind, then I definitely oppose to that. IMO, it is probably even better that these images are not in PD, because that (i) makes possible to use them in WP under fair use terms and (ii) makes impossible to make money on them. Let me repeat it: it is very good that some of the best history images cannot be re-sold, and it is very bad that someone tries to remove these images from WP under that pretext.
 * Re "therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary" What does "we" mean? As I already pointed out, I am little bit disappointed by your tendency to speak on behalf of the Foundation. You hardly are in the position to make such claims. Speak for yourself, please. Remember that even to act as if you are an owner of a single article is highly inappropriate, whereas you behave as if you privatised WP as whole. That equally valid for some of your colleagues (e.g. J Millburn).
 * And finally, if the process initiated by you and J Millburn will develop in the same direction further, Wikipedia will become significantly nationally biased, which will severely undermine one of key WP principles. And I will have to go to appropriate noticeboard to stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm disappointed at your apparent tendency (as well as Paul's with respect to J Milburn) to presume that I think I speak for the Foundation. I don't. ANY time I speak of 'we' I speak of the people who make up this project. I speak from experience, exposure to many debates on the subject, and being well versed in our guidelines and policies. Frankly, I'm astonished that you of all people would try to tear apart my argument by attacking me (in supposedly speaking for the Foundation, which has NOTHING to do with my argument) rather than dispute what I've said. We're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad I was wrong. However, the fact that you belong to some project does not automatically mean you are eligible to educate others. I am a member of the Fact and Reference check project, however I don't think I am entitled to teach peoples how concretely the facts should be presented based solely on my membership. And I always speak for myself only. If you have more experience, please show that by providing strong arguments. By contrast, your arguments are not too convincing so far.
 * By no means I wanted to tear apart your arguments, I just noted that the way you conduct the discussion is somewhat misleading. If you are not comfortable with my previous post, please disregard the penultimate para. However, my other concerns have no relation to that, and I am still waiting for your answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Category:Public domain films
I also left a back-link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. -84user (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopeful
Hi Angus. I have sent you an email hoping for two sources I don't have! DinDraithou (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Woolf stuff is no problem. I'll get that sent tomorrow. You have Downham I think. How about Hudson's Viking Pirates?
 * For Peritia, the Deacon might be able to help you. Glasgow city libraries don't have a copy and I never got round to trying to blag a card for the university library yet. There is probably a copy in the National Library of Scotland, but I'm not in Edinburgh much any more. You could try asking the folks at the resource exchange. If you have no luck there, let me know and I'll be in Edinburgh sometime next month and can check it out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The resource exchange looks promising and I will try them... once I've gone through and checked to see if there is anything else from Peritia I can't live without! There may be one or two more so it makes sense for me to add them to the request. I didn't know about this so thank you very much. If I have no luck I'll just buy the article.


 * Hudson I don't have but a great deal can be previewed, and he is also extensively cited in Wikipedia and occasionally by Downham.


 * I look forward to seeing what Woolf has written. It's a shame he isn't writing more about Ireland. DinDraithou (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got to add that Hudson doesn't seem to have gotten the best reviews and much of his Viking Pirates looks like it has been thrown out. His Haraldssons appear to be mostly his imagination. Then he also makes some pretty surprising errors like calling Maccus (mac Arailt) Magnus when everybody knows that is wrong. So obviously he has some comprehension problems and other issues. I don't trust his scholarship.


 * I do generally trust Downham but her grasp of Norse Limerick and Munster is a little weak. On p. 54 she calls Máel Muad mac Brain just 'the son of Bran' and on the next page makes a reference to Limerick and Uí Fidgenti's (combined) "forces" without mentioning Donnubán, while the AFM actually do. So she doesn't make an error but it's not all said quite right. Earlier on p. 41 she gets closer to making a real error because the Annals of Clonmacnoise do not actually say what she is citing them for, if you look at my work on Amlaíb Ceanncairech. And the AFM make no mention of a "decisive victory" (=battle), so she's still stuck in the 920s and thinking of Tomrair mac Ailchi beating Gofraid. We all love our Clare Downham (she's cute too) but she's not perfect. DinDraithou (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've finally made that request. Six articles total from that journal. DinDraithou (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad template
I fixed some of your edits that were broken templates like this one to images uploaded by Lilbadboy312 but you may have done some others, so you might want to check out similar recent edits. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

photo
Hi, to be honest I am very confused by the choices for the photo I have uploaded. It is an official promotional photo of Julie that has come from her speaker biography, provided by her colleagues at Ariadne Capital (her company). The license allows it to be used anywhere. Perhaps you could help me (in simple language) how I can link this to her page and change/ammend the license status I have given it when I uploaded it. thanks Notts214 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

file
I uploaded it properly and recognised the source. It was a file I can use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0274 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Alyona Azernaya's paintings
Thanks for your advices. This paintings are with me, so I though, I could take photos without any problem. Of course, she is ok for publishing this photos. Is it possible that these photos remain in place (or in a non public place on wikipedia) in order she can give her authorization for each file. I can ask her to give me explicit authorisation for each file (with their name). Where can I find the exact text she has to sign. Thank you for your help Qqchose2sucre (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the last grammatical mistakes in the article (or I hope so, but was helped by my English teacher). Could you have a look and remove the 2 (?!) shameful 'cleanup' tag. Thank you
 * No news about pictures permissions. See you later Qqchose2sucre (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Schräge Musik
You think that someone can reproduce this ? I'm sure you'll want to give it a crack yourself. FWiW, check out the use of the image in the article. Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Further, where do I make the case for its retention? Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) When does this Review end? The extension of the deletion notice does alter the graphic layout of the drawing, and if the drawing is being removed, then the layout needs to be adjusted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Photopermissions
Thanks. I have already sought the copyright holder's permission for Colin Larkin image and forwarded this to wikipermissions. Am awaiting a ticket from them. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2010 September 6
Would you reconsider your decision for this? My nomination didn't have to do with FOP, it had to do with lack of dating. The author died 62 years ago, so it's not public domain in Norway (despite the website's proclamation in the affirmative), and we don't know the publication date, so we can't say PD-US-1923-abroad either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. I think I should, yes. Will do that today. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Infrasofttech.PNG
Hi, I saw you deleted File:Infrasofttechlogo.PNG because of same type of file is available ie File:Infrasofttech.PNG. but the problem with current file is, its licences is invalid, user claims as own work, where its logo. please leave a talkback. KuwarOnline Talk''' 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fw189 1.jpg
Hi Angus, the image wasn't mine nor the claim of public domain that was made by another editor as it comes from his own source? I tried to find a colour image but the image does not seem to want to do anything other than showing a black and white preview. FWiW, have you checked the progress of the article; it's come a long way since the revision started last week. Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Case
Thank you for your consideration... Arbitration/Requests/Amendment  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for deleting User:PhishRCool/JK. There are several other pages to which speedy deletion would apply. Please see my contributions for the other pages I tagged for deletion per the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhishRCool/Bravo. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The direct links to the pages are here, where cleaned up the MfDs I created after I asked him for help at User talk:Skier Dude. Cunard (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Arseny Zverev.jpg
How can if fail when it is not replaceable, the guy died in 1969 and no free images have been published me him. --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats your meaning, but is common to show images of politicans when missing photoes. Thats why their is a section in the copyright field which says historical image. An image of Zverev is an historial image of a person, it is non replacable. Second, many people would like to see the face of a person they read about, just as they'd like to see the face of an actor they read about. Its nor real difference. --TIAYN (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ELAMBALUR
hi angus, was just wondering what your reasoning for declining the speedy deletion of this article was. not that i care about the article, just so i can avoid giving out frivolous "db-test" tags in the future. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So far as places are concerned, we don't speedily delete articles about those unless they are obviously made up.
 * Especially in places outside of the anglosphere, the word "village" can cover some pretty big places. I've seen mentions of villages in India or Pakistan with tens of thousands of people, same in China. So these kinds of articles usually get fixed up, or maybe merged into or redirect to the nearest bigger place (in the case of Elambalur, that would be Perambalur).
 * AfD has deleted some place articles, but usually that's because the author went mad with a map and wrote an article which was really about a farm or something. For example, Articles for deletion/Achnaluachrach, Sutherland. But even abandoned places can be notable. There are whole slews of books about abandoned villages. Nobody has lived in Wharram Percy for around 500 years or so, but there are plenty of sources on it.
 * Short version would be to tag anything you think is made up for deletion and to put fix-up tags on anything that seems to exist. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the info. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
I have permission to use those images. Please stop tagging them to be deleted and let me get on with my work. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Al Pollard gravestone
I don't know much about image policies. I found it on a web site and thought it qualified for fair use. To tell the truth, I live near the cemetery and could snap a photo of it myself, but I don't know how to take it from the camera and upload it to Wikipedia. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I might just try that soon. But in the meantime, is the pic appropriate for the article? Is it fair use? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice
Hello. I just wanted to talk with you about your post here. It was very good and interesting, so i wanted to ask you to explain me a bit more your attitude, as it sound good and useful. If that is not to much of a problem to you? Sorry for bothering, thanks in advance. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So far as the lead is concerned, I left a comment at the talk page. Arguing over the lead is usually a waste of time. Any peer reviewer, good article reviewer or featured article review will want it made longer, made shorter, this added, that removed, or the whole thing rewritten from scratch anyway.
 * It is easier, to start with, not to argue about whether printed sources are reliable (and in any case sources are never reliable, they are only ever reliable for one thing or another thing; De Lillio is presumably reliable for some things and less so for others). Add whatever you can find. From history books about C14th Serbia and the Ottoman Conquests, to books about the Serbian (and Albanian) poems and stories, to modern studies which consider Miloš Obilić in the context of Slobo's regime. All of these things are important, and are already mentioned. But presumably all could be expanded. Why was Miloš Obilić an important figure? If Serbian historians and literary critics are anything like Scottish ones, they will have been fascinated by that kind of question. And there are other things to be added, because "in popular culture" type stuff is important for a national hero: what films are there (Battle of Kosovo was the only one I could find but is it the only one?), famous novels, TV programmes or series, well-known paintings, statues, even comic books, and anything else that you can find. If you can find academics comparing Miloš Obilić with other national heroes elsewhere, that's great too. Professors like that sort of thing, so presumably someone did it already. Once you have a big heap of stuff, then you can worry about editing it into shape, removing things which are trivial, and how to deal with historians and other academics disagreeing about almost everything (as they nearly always do when it comes to history and related subjects). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you so much. I would use your wise words from time to time! Can i ask your advice when i am in some dilemma? That would mean a lot to me. As you may know, it is hard to edit Balkan related articles in neutral tone, and i am trying to be best as possible. I will follow you words. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unthank, Angus
Hi Angus,

I'm currently in the process of improving article stubs relating to villages and settlements in Angus. I came across an article redirect from Unthank, Angus to Brechin that you made a couple of years ago. I've reverted the redirect, I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. Looks good! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Donald Brasseur 2007.jpg
Could you please undelete this image? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. Also, if there is a deleted file from the same uploader which matches the one found at http://www.fortressoffreedom.com/Fortress_September_2010.jpg, it looks like we have permission for that one too. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Undeleted. The only other deleted image is a picture of Maurice Ali, which you can see at File:Maurice Ali.jpg. If there's no permission for that, let me know and I'll delete it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've tagged them both with permission. I had seen the email regarding a picture of Maurice Ali yesterday but they didn't mention the correct filename so I couldn't find it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha
See my talkpage - As If! Proverbs XII.23.Eebahgum (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK
Okay I've uploaded my own image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosemcghee (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Etchingham
Check your email. DinDraithou (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Halloo! Hallay! Oh frabjous day!
 * Thanks very much, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg
Hi, I was wondering if you could respond to my comment, replying to your comment on the deletion page. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Have left another comment, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Maybe you're watching the discussion now anyway! John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.
--Againme (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
My bad, I should've read the article better, but I had so much to do that I neglected it. I could never assume that someone would actually add false informations to such a site. People won't lie on purpose. LoveActresses (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Don't bother, it's corrected now, by me, who made the mistake. LoveActresses (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you change something for me?
can you change the licence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blackberry_torch.png to "Promotional Meterial]]? Thanks!

PS: Can you add that to the File Description page please? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmans25 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have done that, but then the question would be "Why do we need a non-free image to show what this looks like when they are available to buy and someone could take a free picture?" This seems to be replaceable fair use: see Di-replaceable fair use. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nihon Odai Ichiran
Please help me understand how to parse the relevant issues affecting similar images: Both images stand on the same footing. A friend stumbled across both in an e-Bay context; and I uploaded them to Wikipedia. This important book was published in 1834 in France. If this date is the determining factor, they would each fall in the category of Template:PD-old. If the 21st century date of digitization is considered as the more relevant factor, then permission was neither sought nor granted; and therefore, both images were properly uploaded as fair use. If I have misunderstood, please help clarify why one or the other of these two choices is better or more defensible. I have wondered about this for some time. --Tenmei (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Nihon-Odai-Ichiran-tiitle-page.jpg -- recently edited by you
 * File:Nihon Odai Ichiran sample page.jpg -- not yet noticed anyone

Copyright status
Hi. You've made a couple of comments at PuF lately that lead me to believe you might have skillz with copyright status of "old" material. Mine are lacking in this area. :) I've gotten better at it, but my work off-Wikipedia has never involved nebulous gray areas like this one.

The nutshell: a contributor at my talk page is seeking input on the copyright status of this 1955 telegram. It is posted at this specific subsection of the National Archives and Records Administration. Per their information page, "Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use.... You may consult our reference staff for details on specific items. We are aware of donor restrictions applicable to our collections, but we can not confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." In other words, we can ask them, but they won't confirm copyright status. Do you know any way I can help her determine if this content is free? I don't see any indication when it was originally published, even though the origin date is indisputable.

I had asked User:John Vandenberg on the 12th, but he has evidently not had occasion to reply, so I'm looking elsewhere for clues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a real expert, so I'd suggest getting more than one opinion here. No-one can reasonably suppose that Mrs Bradley (or indeed anyone else) registered a copyright for a telegram, and there is clearly no "notice" attached, so this "work" did not meet the formalities which were required by US copyright law in 1955 and would be PD-US-no notice. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof would lie with anyone who claimed to believe that this telegram was copyrighted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. :) I'll do as you suggest and seek other opinions and, presuming agreement, let her know the way the wind is blowing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Angus' analysis: PD-US-no notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - this is one of those times the nature of US copyright law has left us with free content. While it is possible that copyright was registered, it is vastly improbable. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all three of you. By contrast, User:John Vandenberg and User:Physchim62 both say it is not PD. :/ At his talk page, John says, "PD-US-no-notice does not apply unless the document was legally published before 1978 without notice; I doubt this was legally published - public display is not legal publishing." At my talk page, Physchim says "Absolutely agree with John on this one: no way is that telegram PD." Sigh. I really like straightforward situations. I suppose I'll notify Moni of the dissension. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on publication. It seems to me that sending a telegram to the White House would fit the definition, being "... display ... at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered", but IANAL. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for jumping in; I noticed this conversation and I wonder if the telegram has been published in a book or newspaper. It seems quite likely to have been picked up by a newspaper, at least, at around that time, though I don't know how that would affect the copyright status. Mike Christie (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my talk page, but as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to jump in. ;) The more the merrier, and especially because that sounds plausible. I can suggest Moni look for that. Certainly, it would be helpful in nailing down the question if it could be established to everyone's satisfaction that it has in fact been published. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the books related to the Till case and none of them show the telegram. It's not so huge a deal it's worth my contacting family members. I simply thought if a telegram sent to the White House could be used, it would be a good image. I'm skeptical that a telegram sent to Eisenhower is not free to use. All public correspondence to the White House is a matter of public record. But again, it's not worth my getting into for this image. Adding it would be icing. Such is Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Corkhill
The two images were taken some years apart and illustrate the character at different periods in the soap.Mtaylor848 (talk)

King of Mumhain
Talk:Ivar of Limerick. You know the southern half of Ireland too so I would love your insight and opinions. See also User talk:Finnrind. Thanks! DinDraithou (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Atholl
The article as it is now is hopeless to read or understand. I suggest the split is restored. Could explain what problems there would be with the links to the article? Tryde (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice your message at my talk page. I will continue the discussion there. Tryde (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

whop
All I was asking was whether there was a reason not to do what I did. User:Hopiakuta accused me of something I didn't do. I think what I did would be most helpful, but if you can give a clear explanation of what a better choice would be, I'd like to hear it.‎ Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't make sense to me. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But whop and whopper are not the same thing. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving for the weekend. We'll figure it out. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patapios
About Saint Patapios article I admit to say that I had trouble to upload photos to Saint Patapios article. The image of St (which I drew myself), was uploaded in a huge size and covers the entire article. I find no option to reduce the size. I hope you help me in this matter.

I uploaded easy the photo with the visit of Archbishop Christodoulos in the monastery (the photo I took myself) and the photo Monastery of St. Patapios Loutraki, that I also took by myself.

In conclusion, uploading photos in this article was difficult. I hope not to get confused by the fact that in order to fill out the details of each photo I up loaded it 4 to 5 times each! I hope also not to get confused by the fact that I have downloaded the Greek version (article Αγιος Πατάπιος) with the same pictures, and again I had a lot of trouble to upload. 688dim (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the Papa Gates on.jpg
I'm sorry for that, I'll use another picture that is really him. once again I'm sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murders (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

About the images I drawed on the articles Saint Patapios and Porphyrios Bairaktaris I had trouble to upload the images to Saint Patapios and also to Porphyrios Bairakatris articles. The image of St Patapios and also the image of Porphyrios(which I drew both myself), were uploaded in a huge size and cover the entire article. I find no option to reduce the size. I hope you help me in this matter.Thanks. 688dim (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

About the article Porphyrios Bairaktaris To my mind the name of the article Porphyrios Bairaktaris should absolutelly change to Father Porphyrios or Monk Porphyrios or Elder Porphyrios, because actually he was a very famous Greek monk, that did many miracles and today many consider that he should be nominated as a saint. However, his whole name on the article dosesn't seem to refer to him as a monk but as a citizen! 688dim (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Auburn Ad
I just heard back from the Flickr guy, and he's confirmed that the advt. didn't have a copyright notice:


 * "This definitely does not have a copyright notice. It's printed on a 1 cent postal card and almost surely was printed just for this long-gone S.F. dealership, not the Auburn factory. I recently acquired this card from another collector and I've never seen another like it. It's postmarked Jul 2, 1935. "

So I'll change the license, and that potential problem goes away.

Thanks for pointing out the problem & the solution. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Whop
Can you tell me why you think Whop should redirect to Whopper rather than WHOP? thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cancel that. I've read ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Angus. Yes you're right of course. I've put a speedy delete tag on the image. Cheers.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  10:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Craig Melville Headshot.jpg
Could you please undelete this image? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Apologies for the delay. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thanks for that. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Mariusmiti
I noted you issued a warning to this user on he 21st... I've just reffered 2 of thier subsquent uploads to PUI. Perhaps you could check to see I am being reasonable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Geoffrey De Havilland With Frederick Handley Page.jpg
Did you think to check that this image was in use (and FURed) on Frederick Handley Page before deleting it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But clearly you have just seen fit to remove reference to it from the Frederick Handley Page article, after I pointed this out, and after you'd already deleted it on a basis that would only apply if it wasn't in use outside Geoffrey De Havilland. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The image wasn't deleted because it was orphaned, but because it was discussed at FFD. I removed it from the GdH Senior article, I don't recall seeing a link for the HP article although it was certainly in use there. My apologies for not clearing up. Two editors commented in the discussion after you added the reply to the anon and neither mentioned keeping it for use the the HP article. As an aside: as a picture to show Handley-Page, the image is replaceable (NFCC #1). There is a bust of the man on display in the Royal Aeronautical Society (according to the Oxford DNB). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it was justified as part of the adoption of the Handley Page leading edge slot outside of Handley Page, and the personal collaboration between the two of them that was part of this. However that's subject knowledge (that worst of all wikicrimes), isn't clear in the article, and I've no practical hope of getting it into the article in any useful timeframe. So, fair enough.
 * However for HP, we don't have another image. I admit I'm unclear as to the meaning of "replaceable" here. I might acquire a usable photo tomorrow, it's clearly implausible to claim that such a photo cannot already exist somewhere and cannot make its way into the project in the future. Yet we would never claim such things would make other n-f photos "replaceable" today, as they might happen tomorrow. As to the bust, then that would be a photo of a bust, not of a person. Besides which, what about the rights issue in photographing sculpture. I'm in the UK, so I don't have much time for fair-use anyway (Just an excuse for Americans to steal my content, IMHE). As fair-use is such a US concept, it seems strange to exclude its applicability on the grounds that a sculpture could be photographed instead, something that has its own problems under the same jurisdiction's rules for photography of 3d art. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Replaceable doesn't mean right now, as you know. Sculpture on display in a public place (and the Royal Aeronautical Society would be a public place if they do tours or let people use their library &c) can be photographed here - but not the US - and the result called free because it is covered by freedom of panorama. The relevant freedom of panorama legislation is that of the jurisdiction where the object is situated. I'd argue that a painting, sculpture or bust is a better likeness than most photographs, but that's just me. There must surely be PD photographs of HP as well, but finding them would be difficult on-line. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Thank you for your intervention the other day. That was kind of you! Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Godwin ancestry
I am reading Frank Barlow's The Godwins, and finding that he is sympathetic to the theory that they are descended from Æthelred I, I started revising the section on it in the Wulfnoth Cild article when I found your discussion with Streona on the discussion page. I think a theory taken seriously by Barlow is worth covering, and I hope I have revised it to be impartial. Can you tell me what you think of it. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now replaced the section in the Wulfnoth Cild article with a new one which I have created, Ancestry of the Godwins. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mongol elements in Western medieval art
I see you are or were PHG's mentor. He proposed the above as an article, which was discussed in an Rfc at Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance, and changes made. He's now asking me to move it to articlespace, which I'm happy to do if it doesn't set off any mines in this tricky area. Can you advise? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek! Don't say you have joined the WP-departed too. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just awful busy right now. Normal service will be resumed over the Festive Season, and hopefully through 2011. I'll have a peek, but I can't see I'd have any problems. Toodle-pip, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! In fact someone else has done it already. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Angus, I'm a bit confused by your advice here. PHG is banned from this topic area; it seems a bit strange to suggest that it's appropriate for him to create articles in his user space and have them proxied into the main space.  I'm concerned that this may be the source of his continued confusion over the ban.  You may wish to review the recent AE report which resulted in the deletion of the rest of the articles PHG has been working on like this in user space and indicated that this behavior is clearly over the line. Shell   babelfish 01:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mongols, that I see, but I'm surprised that this is considered to be relevant to Crusaders. But no doubt you'll be right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dim and distant past
I seem to recall, in the mists of primordial Wikipedia life, you saying something about rewriting our Scottish national identity article, using proper academic references. Anyhoo, I have made an utterly pathetic attempt at initiating a referenced stub article for English national identity, and just wondered if you would cast your learnèd eye over the result. Even if you choose not to contribute to the article yourself, I would appreciate it if you could keep it on your watchlist, as it is the kind of topic which seems to turn certain weak-minded types into Buster Bloodvessel.

If you fancy adding a wee bit about its origins in the medieval period, I would be very grateful. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Will try to get that done. Weight's Patriots: national identity in Britain 1940-2000 is quite good on the "rebirth of English identity" stuff and indeed as a general survey. If I ever get time I will try to expand the English one with that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Youth Opportunities Programme


The article Youth Opportunities Programme has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelin. I am unable to find significant coverage of this programme in third party sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag for the reasons set out at the article's talk page. The article was created as the result of discussion here. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Youth Opportunities Programme for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Youth Opportunities Programme is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Youth Opportunities Programme until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Onthegogo (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

About pronunciation of the word "Bonawe"
Would you like to say me how to pronounciate the name of the hamlet of Bonawe? Which variant is the correct? [boneɪw] or [bonɔː]? And one another quation yet. How to pronunciate the Scottish Gaelic name of this settlement which is written by Englis as Bun Abha, [bʌn ʌbʌ] or [bʌn æbə] or any how else? I need this information beacose I want to write an article about Bonawe and its Furnase on my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wulfrida
I deleted the statement that Wulfrida was the wife of Æthelred I as I could not find any reference for the name of his wife in academic sources such as the ODNB article on him. I then found that in the discusssion on Wulfrida you question whether the Wulfrida who was Æthelred's wife was the same person as the Wulfrida who was the dedicatee of Horton church. Is there any evidence (apart from unreferenced web sources) for the name of Æthelred's wife? If not, I would like to nominate the article on Wulfrida for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhtred of Galloway
Hello Angus, long time no see! I've added extracts from the Annals of Loch Ce to this article, concerning what appears to be a son of his, Thomas mac Uhtred. I know very little of Galwegian politics, so maybe you'd care to add your expertise to it? Fergananim (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictish language
Hi Angus, I was hoping to solicit your comments on this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medieval Scotland as you wrote a good part of Pictish Language before I blundered in and messed it up! Cheers,  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish '' 13:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Angus
Just delete them all. I'm very tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit the Kat (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

61st place
I think that your referenced change now slots Scotland into 61st rather than 78th position: I would fix it myself but family commitments this afternoon prevent further WikiGnoming activities. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars


 * To be honest, that whole article is a piece of unreferenced nonsense and the table should be designed to sort itself automatically when updated. So I wouldn't bother. Anyway I'd reckon there's a good chance that a lot of the "GDP" numbers are really "GVA" anyway like in Countries of the United Kingdom by GDP per capita. Nothing wrong with that, so long as it is labelled right. Not much chance of that though. Toodle-pip, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm glad to have been of some help (although it's really the fine people who help out at the resource exchange who deserve our thanks!). Thanks and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

List of legendary kings of Scotland
Hi Angus. Long time no talk. Thought I'd inform you about this article, List of legendary kings of Scotland, which is really more your cup of tea than mine. Incidentally, you may not have seen these new titles, in which case here. None are super great, but might be useful for you on wiki. Another bio of Athelstan is due soon from Charles Insley, and I hear Michael Wood plans one too. I guess Anglo-Saxon kings are a bit like buses then. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCombinding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

About the language at the Reference (books) of the texts that I have contributed
About the language at the Reference (books) of the texs I have contributed such as Saint Patapios and Helena Dragaš, I have written them in Greek, because they are Greek books. However I don't know if it is better to translate them in English. Please tell me what to do. Do I need to translate the title of each book in English (however they may be problems on the excact translation) or to keep it as it is excactly in the Greek book? 688dim (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessary to add a translation, although a transliteration in the Latin alphabet would be nice. Anyone who can't read the book title won't be able to read the book I think. Hope this helps. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ivar
Angus, I have not been participating but I am aware of the debate about Ivar Uí Ímair/The Boneless and am of the view that we need two articles. I stumbled upon your draft of the former from some time ago. Can I persuade you to launch it? Ben  Mac  Dui  13:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic class?
I'm not sure of the extent of your linguistic skills, but I know that medieval Scotland is an interest. Should Port an Eilean Mhòir use an acute or a grave accent? Please see: Ta. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Port an Eilean Mhòir ship burial and its Talk page


 * Looks to be solved. Just as well. My linguistic skills are up there with Rangers' prospects of avoiding insolvency: nil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Earlier today I created Category:Privy Council of Mary, Queen of Scots. I had planned on the next installment being :Category:Privy Council of William the Lion (including eg. Walter de Bidun, Florence of Holland and Philip de Valognes), but then it occurred to me that "privy council" might not be the best term for the king's most senior officers of state during the High Middle Ages. Can you confirm that as a suitable title, or suggest a better one? Thanks. Mais oui! (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)