User talk:Inver471ness

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Woodym555 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ranulf de Soulis
Regarding the article about Ranulf in your Sandbox, it still needs some work. Firstly it needs some Wikilinks to other articles. Secondly, the references need cleaning up. As a scholar, which referencing system do you use? Is it the harvard system? You may wish to read Citing sources and Footnotes. Most people include the footnotes and references sections in one section. See Æthelberht of Kent or other Featured articles for an example of how some articles use this referencing style. I can help you implement it if you want. I can be reached on my Talk page if you need help.Woodym555 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned the article up for you. I have added in the citations so that they follow a uniform style. All the books/journals in the references section are in alphabetical order. I had to mix the footnotes and references but i think it works. I have also added in some wikilinks for you. Can you see how it works? I think it is ready for the mainspace now, do you want me to move it over for you?
 * Yes, you have done everything perfectly correctly :) My talk page is the best place to reach me for help and to thank me. Some users give out barnstars to say thankyou as well. As always, any questions can be left on my talk page. Woodym555 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Crash course:
 * References and footnotes. To add in a footnote use . If you use the reference more than once you can use the refname format: M'Michael, Feudal family, p34563 for the first instance. For all other instances you would use . See Help:Footnotes and Footnotes.
 * To wikilink you add square brackets around the appropriate article name. If you wanted to link Clan Hay you would do this : Clan Hay or Hay to "pipe" the link. This would show up as Hay. See Piped links for more help.
 * Lord Liddesdale is linked in the nephews section at the moment and the Hay is linked in the early life section. I have moved the article to Ranulf I de Soules as this is the naming convention at the moment. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Woodym555 09:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clan Hay origin of the Clan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clan Hay origin of the Clan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Celtus 07:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I copied the article over to Clan Hay for you. If you were the only editor in your sandbox, then you can just copy and paste it over into the article. You should copy and paste from the raw version that you see when you are "editing User...", that way, all the links will go across. I have deleted the origin of the clan page for you.
 * If it is just a section of the page that you have ben editing in your sandbox then you don't "move" it using the tabs at the top, there is no way of integrating it within the old article. Bear in mind that this is the only time when you copy and paste. Sections = copy and paste, articles = move. Is this what you wanted? Woodym555 08:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, just point them to the article. Just put a link into the Copyrights section for the rules on re-using the text. Everything looks good to me. Regards Woodym555 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Clan Hay-Origin of the Clan
Hi Inver471ness, as Woodym555 just said above the page has already deleted it, so no worries

Thanks

-- Inver471ness (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights
"This article was prepared by .... It is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material from the Wikipedia article, Ranulf I de Soules" That seems to meet the GFDL in my eyes. As long as you are not worried about your name being public, then yes, by all means carry on. I cannot see any violation of Wikipedia's copyright as long as it mentions the GFDL and the article name. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have shown you how to do two different styles of referencing in your sandbox. It depends on what you prefer as to which one you use, the "house" style is using . Using inline citations is more prevalent in academic works but isn't used much here in Featured articles (Wikipedia's best work).
 * In terms of the peer review request, the WPBiography template accepts  and then follow the instructions found here. Hope that helps, regards.  Woody (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the references for you now. You need to remember to have a section called references with reflist in it eg.

RE:William
I have done a little bit of cleanup on it, piping some of the links and fixing the formatting. There are too many small sections at the moment. The number of section headers could be cut down.

I am not sure what you are intending with the references at the moment. Do you want all your editors notes to be in the text as the numbered superscripts ([1]). If so I can do that. If not, what are you intending? You can separate notes as references and parenthetical footnotes if you want. see Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records for how this can be done. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The table of contents or TOC was not in the right place because you had a section header at the top of the page. You don't need this as the page title suffices, then you have the WP:LEAD that summarises the article. The TOC is automatically placed before the first section header although you can force its placement if needed. The section headers were bolded which is unneccessary as the MediaWiki software does it automatically. Also remember to never have a space at the beginning of a paragraph as the software indents that whole paragraph.


 * In terms of references you should just use the . You shouldn't use ibid and you shouldn't use raw   tags. What you need to do now is put all the referencing information and footnotes inside of ref tags. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It all looks good to me, though I can't see the first note in the actual text anywhere. The way to remove all the little edits would be to simply copy and paste over. As you are the only editor to that page, if it is all added to the page by you, the copyright is not lost. I don't see my edits as GFDL significant at all so from that aspect, copying and pasting it would be fine. If someone else were to edit it in mainspace (ie not a personal sandbox) then it has to be moved using the move feature. In terms of length of notes, there is nothing that can be done about it. You can use  which splits it into two columns but it only currently works for Firefox users and not IE. (If you think your article is bad, have a look at the 343 footnotes in Hillary Rodham Clinton!) Regards. Woody (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Pitmilly
I fixed a lot of the problems with this edit. The main issues were the section headers: you need to use  instead of   and then the TOC will work.

The other major problem was the references. You need to make sure that every  tag is closed with the closing ref tag:. If it isn't, then all text below it is included in the references. Another problem was that a large number of the citation templates were not closed properly with the closing brackets (ie }}) This meant that they didn't parse correctly.

In terms of Pitmilly, that can be added in. As the article should not constitute Original research, it will be fine to contrast the views of the archaeologist with the sources already used. There is no need to move it to a sandbox, if neccessary just add underconstruction to the article until you have finished adding the new information. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay
This seems to be more complicated than I initially imagined. There is a way for you to revert back to your last version, but that would omit the useful information and work that has since been done to the article. Nobody owns an article on Wikipedia, it will be edited mercilessly.

What I would do is edit the article as it stands to reflect any perceived wrong that you can see. This can only be done if it is verifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to dispute the Chief of a clan, nor to dispute the origins of a clan.

There is nothing to be gained from pre-judging another editor before discussion has started. If you edit the article and those changes are reverted, then open up a discussion per the Be bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you abide by that cycle, then I can see no reason why this could escalate. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Inver471ness, glade to see you are editing Clan Hay. I do not own the text on Clan Hay, so do not care if you delete, change, etc... Actually I quite welcome it, my edits were speedy copy pastes from old public domain books, all referenced with links. This is actually a bit crude, but given two users (I think one user and a sock puppet), edits on the chief with dubious links, I thought it best to have an article with references. As my arguments were that the editors edits were badly referenced, it seemed strange I demand references from him/them in an article without references. Oh, and I never did, and never would, call another editor a "WikiNazi", please do not insinuate such things. What I think you are referring to is this that has:


 * 15:47, 2 January 2009 94.192.28.218 (Talk) (700 bytes) (Discussing CzarBrodies Facism) (undo)


 * I took offence on this title of edit and stated I stated "Firstly I am not a fascist. My political views are strictly none of your business. I take your talk edit title hereto as an offence....".
 * Please do not insinuate to other editors I am calling others a "WikiNazi" without properly checking the facts.
 * the conversation, that apart from the said unfortunate title, was quite civilized, the full text before a user deleted text can be seen here
 * Please note, that if you want to reinstall text, edit, please use references, the paragraph you added is not referenced (as apposed to the paragraph you deleted), I tagged the text for references and clarification. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On a sub note ,I did not try to say that the current the present chief had no right to be chief, it was I who deleted the then ofending paragraphs, see link and link. It was I who argued that such edits had no place in wiki, see link. It was I who spent several sleepless nights going through information, editing to inprove the article (and especialy information on the chief) so that it could not be so subjected to such an attack agaist the chief again. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the article, it does seem that you have confused the diffs Inver471ness. At no point did Czar call anyone a wikinazi, that was used against him. Czar Brodie is the person who removed the text regarding the chief of the clan, not the other way round. In any case, you editing the article is the correct thing to do, and any discussion surrounding that can go on the talkpage of the article. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your apologies. regarding Clan Hay, edit adlib, but please try to add references. I was impressed by your Pitmilly contributions. Article was watched be me with interest (I am a descendent of a daughter of the Moneypennys of Pitmilly). Good to see such an excellent standard of work. Keep it up. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay; Origin of Name; Help
link to your sanbox: sandbox

best to do like I do on my user page, have several sanboxes: edit your user page placing a few sand boxs: eg add this text on your user page:

==Sandboxes==

/sandbox

/sandbox 2

/sandbox 3

I feel uneasy about Clan Hay Newsletter, read the talk page on Clan Hay and you will understand my concern; Clan Hay Newsletter is what I would define as a WP:SPS. If you disagree, I'll place my concern on the Clan Hay talk page and see if we can get a second opinion.

I am somewhat fluent in French, so did a brief search for de la Haye. Unfortunately the French Dictionaries de la noblesse, does not link the French Noble families of de la Haye directly to the Scottish, which it notes but gives the The Legend of Luncarty as origine. the surname Haye, la haye, and de la Haye, are from hedges, fences, stockades etc....but the advent of surnames, as in scotland was quite recent in France (16th century I think), so these interpretations are not linked. Which leaves de la Haye as meaning from Haye. As you are probably aware several place names are called de la Haye see. I can not find any link to the reason for any of these place names. the modern French "haye" is the First person singular of the present indicative of the verb "hayer", the verb is to make a "haie". a "haie" is: a noun meaning 1) a hedge; 2) a hurdle (the hurdles in sport); 3) an obstacle in the sea blocking the passage of ships 4) a formation of bricks left to dry; 5) a line of people on two sides to give passage, usually formal such as to let dignitaries past. 6) a part (not sure what exactly this is) placed along a cart. 7) a term used to describe the age of a cart. I found a reference to the possibility of Haye meaning "little wood" in old French. Conclusion: I do not think this is a case of "common knowledge", the meaning without reference is far from clear. One word of warning, attaching a meaning to the name is speculation without a reference. see No original research for the dangers here. see what I did at Clan Brodie for the meaning of Brodie. Its not always clear, even with references. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One important point. Would it not be appropriate and desirable to move William II de Haya to Clan Hay. As far as I can see, William II de Haya is notable only in that he is the progenitor of Clan Hay. With reference to the article William II de Haya, the statement "This union with Celtic nobility greatly strengthened the Hays' claim as a Scottish clan." and its sibling at Clan Hay, "therefore they cannot be considered the progenitors of Clan Hay because the family was entirely Norman, having no Scots connections", looks very dubious to me. This is the first time I have heard of this concept, as far as I am aware, Scottish clans had various origins, Norman, Pictish, Norse etc...and did not need "Celtic" links to define themselves a clan. Please place references on these statements as they seem to contradict information at Scottish clan. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just done a check in French the old use of the word Haya. According to Études historiques sur le Forez, haya is the true way of writing "laya", that it is a Celtic (this would be Gaulle Celtic) word meaning Coppice. That the word has vulgar Latin origines in "laia" and Latin origines in "laie". I note that other place names with Haye refer to haye meaning forrest, see Quid and forest was the general meaning in 1200. Note the French word Laye seems to have the same origins. Given the reference to coppicing, I can see how the term came to mean hedge, but I do not think this would be the original meaning (hedge that is) used in the villages, the primary reason they would coppice trees would probably be for charcoal, hedges would have been an eventual byproduct of this industry and not because they wanted to separate fields. I found an interesting reference to the (what I think this ref is saying, it remains unclear), to Norman forts being called Hayas, or at least the cut tree part of these wooden forts. (La haye-Bellefond would have its original name meaning "Hugo's Fort"). The more I look at the information, the more I think the English sources on the origin of the Hay Surname are wrong. They have rather lazily looked in a French-English dictionary, seen that Haie means hedge, thought that there is a lot of hedges in Normandy, and presto. This brings us to an interesting point. You cannot correct these references. The information I have given is my unpublished study, it is not a reference. Interestingly, Wikipedia is about references, not the truth. So even knowing what I have just pointed out you must keep referring to the meaning being "hedge" as this is how the references describe it. Wiki is clear, no original research. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems I was a little pretentious in thinking others did not notice that Hay could not mean hedge if it was derived from a pre 13th century French location, and that its origins are likely to mean a type of forest. see link. Not sure about an enclosed forest, did not even realize such a thing existed (this might be an interpretation of a farmed wood [coppiced wood]), but brushwood seems very close to the mark. I'm disappointed that no English reference seems to link the name directly to a Coppiced wood. Oh well, at least they seem closer to the mark. The said link gives references at bottom of page, if you are close to a library, might be worth checking some of them. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Clan Hay and Pitmilly

 * try and  for Pitmilly.
 * re Clan Hay, I fell uneasy about this, a lot of info is leaving the clan and not much is being added. Clan Hay is a good place to discus the early Hays, certainly the foundation of the Errols and the chiefly line. my reservations aside, go for it, and well see how things look. The nature of wiki allows bold editing as it is very easy to reverse. I'll shortly be adding an infobox to Clan Hay. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry for not getting back to you. My opinion is that information on the early Errol Barons would be best placed in the Earl of Erroll or Clan Hay articles. My thinking here is much the same as that of the division as above, i.e. I don't see the point of creating new articles with information that could be used to improve current existing ones. This is my opinion, Don't forget that no one editor owns wiki, so if you think such a new article is justified, go for it. As to Slains and New Slains, I have made the change; if you think it is a good idea, and others agree, the general philosophy is go for it (be bold). yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pitmilly
With regards to the Pitmilly article, I reassessed it as B-Class per the Quality scale of the Scotland project. It meets the criteria according to my interpretation. If you want further assessment you will need to go through WP:GAN or peer review to get further comments. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Invention of Scotland
thanks for that, should get round to reading it some time this year. It is very much a subject that interests me. My personal approach is to focus on why the inventions are happening and accepted, ie. Sobieski Stuarts linking tartans to clans was known as a fraud very early on, but has been accepted and embraced as on ancient Scottish concept to this day. Good to see if Trevor-Roper address's this issue. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)