User talk:Celtus/Archive 2008 September

AfD of Clan Steverson article
Would it not be good etiquette to notify editors who have objected to the proposed deletion of an article of the AfD discussion?

Judging by the criteria used to justify the deletion of the article, especially the last comment at the AfD discussion page, then by that logic all of the other clan pages within Wikipedia (there are many) are candidates for deletion.

The article very clearly explained the history of the clan and significant members, however, I do agree it lacked enough relevant third party references. But to suggest that we don't exist at all is an insult to your intelligence.

So - there we have it - a future project for me if time permits - namely - to revive the article - complete with relevant references - and convince you and the other two that an article about my clan is just as notable as an article about any other clan. What, after all, makes one clan notable and another not notable? How fast they breed (sheer numbers - like MacDonald)? Notoriety of one member (like the usurper Macbeth)? Or perhaps we should also consider what great contributions individual members have made to society (like George Stephenson, for example)? I know, I know ... you'll give the stock Wikipedia answer ... third party verifiable references ... so ... until then ... to be continued... Cheers! Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The afd shows User:Fram nominated it for deletion. You must have known the article was put up for deletion, your contribs show you were editing only about two hours before the the admin made a decision on it. Deletion tags show where the article is being discussed and link to the afd. You've voted on a afd before, so i think you must know how the system works. Also, it seems you and Fram were discussing the deletion on the article's talkpage while all this was going on . It looks like you knew all along. Anyways, Scottish clans are notable because, through their representer (chief/head), they are recognised by law in Scotland. The article did not show that "Clan Steverson" is a recognised clan. To top it off, GoogleBooks doesn't list anything for it. If something like this doesn't turn up in published works then i don't think it is notable for an encyclopaedia. Just what i said in the afd.--Celtus (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You give me much more credit than is due. First of all, I was not the creator of the article, but rather a user who stumbled across it and found the information intriguing. Secondly, I doubt I have nearly as much experience as a WP editor as you guys do. I'm not sure how all these processes work in the WP world. I guess what I struggle with most is how quickly the decisions get made. I've tended to not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater; I find really good information in wikipedia on various topics, but then find much of it gets speedy deleted or afD due to lack of references. My personal approach, if I find such information and it is a topic of great interest to me, would be to seek out the relevant references first, to either prove or disprove the accuracy of the content, rather than just deleting it. As a sidebar FYI, I have since found this "Steverson clan" information that was in the article in near verbatim form elsewhere on the internet so perhaps copyvio may have been the better reason to nominate this one for deletion. Anyway, it appears as though you guys made the right decision, and it stands (for now). Happy trails to all! Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning for disruptive editing relating to Dab Kirkpatrick
On Kirkpatrick, you reverted my transfer elsewhere of the given-name-Kirkpatrick, in the midst of our discussion of it, without fully engaging in that discussion, and on the basis solely of your unsupported opinions and your unsupported (and, as it turns out, false) notions as to the relevant facts. You also overwrote the article Kirkpatrick (given name) so heedlessly as to create a self-link via redirect in the section Kirkpatrick.

Your continuing complaints of not understanding do not in themselves establish the behavior described at the last point of Civility, but they are symptoms of your substituting your willingness to act as the final authority on the disputed matters for attempting to achieve consensus. You may not act on the basis that you do not understand the other point(s) of view; your obligation in that situation is to stop simply repeating your own views, when told they are understood but mistaken, and enter into an interactive process of finding out what it is keeping you from understanding the other view(s) well enuf that you can argue against them rather than dismiss them.

Consider this to be a warning in the face of your disruptive editing, by recklessness and by failure to engage in the prescribed process of consensus, parallel in seriousness to a uw-vand2 warning. --Jerzy•t 08:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please. You simply aren't going to intimidate me throwing warning tags on my talkpage and piping to wikipedia policy. Anyone can see from the rambling talkpage that the only person even the slightest bit uncivil is you, and your attempts at sarcasm. You haven't made any of your actions clear on the talkpage. Bogging down the talkpage, by sheer weight of words, doesn't really solve anything. I think anyone would agree i've clearly stated what i think, and i why i think it. Anyways, i consider the above post to be an attempt at intimidating me, and nothing more. Sorry Jerzy.--Celtus (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scottish Tartans Society (coat of arms).gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish Tartans Society (coat of arms).gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scottish Tartarns World Register (logo).gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish Tartarns World Register (logo).gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)