Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 24 August 2008

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Kirkcaldy article

hello

since you are involved with wikiProject Scotland, if you wouldn't mind looking at this Kirkcaldy revamp (Phase 1) and see if you approve with my plan to revamp the Kirkcaldy article. i will upload four other phases in the near future. this is what is it looking like at the moment, Kirkcaldy the article desperately needs a new introduction and history section as well as more book references in particular, of which i'm planning to do all the work for (which after then, others can change bits or therefore)

i have been concerned over the state of this article for a while and feel it is not going to get sorted, if i don't do something about it. i would like my work to be presented as i have worked hard to ensure that this is both worthy and decent.

P.S. i intend to revise the info in phase I, probably later on, so it would be better to view them, if you don't mind. Kilnburn (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Germanic peoples

Hello Deacon of Pndapetzim. I suggest that List of Germanic peoples be renamed to List of Ancient Germanic peoples. Please direct your objections to the talkpage YET AGAIN. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Thankyou Deacon :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Watchlisted :) Good call. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Hell, you've taken my breath away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Me, I watchlist far too much :) Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences

Deacon, In my opinion there is a distinction between Scotland, Ireland, and England! If Sarah wants to make this distinction she has every right to! If there where none, why did Ireland gain their independence and why do so many people want the same for Scotland? I don't feel British, (though I can't deny the political reality of it) I feel Scottish, which immediately makes me distinct from English people. I don't presume to tell you how you should feel, but there are many with my opinion in Scotland. This does not make me anti-English, it makes me Pro- Scottish. Jack forbes (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Jack forbes (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

missed

Cheers - a bit of both really although mostly because ive been variously in the states/changing jobs/moving house over the last few months hence my absence. I've been sucked back in over the last week or so though il probably only stick around until the next idiotic edit war/argument kicks off and irritates me into leaving for another couple of months. Glad to see your possession of a vaguely rational mind and appreciation for facts over wishful thinking hasnt yet seen you kicked out of the admins club ;). siarach (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

With Misplaced Pages, there's thousands of editors with thousands of PoVs (which is normal). Sarah kinda mistrusts Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a jungle out there. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Hi, I reverted your revert of GB&I. With respect, the original proposal was to merge the article with the "List of islands in the British Isles" article, and redirect this page to "British Isles". At that time, I agreed that it was not obvious why the article existed (only as a POV fork), but since that proposal, I've added to the article (and bear in mind that the article is still a stub). The article is now already covering different material that is not covered by either "British Isles" or "List of", and I intend to add more along the lines of geology, etc. In other words, to keep the article as a geographic term (no political/historic stuff except to refer to other articles). I've asked Batsun (as the original proposer) to take a look. I posted this on the Talk page before your revert. I'd also obviously appreciate if you take a look and see the gist of where the article is going. --Bardcom (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious houses

Thanks for doing the changes. I'm sort of thinking the article itself would be the place to do this with a work in progress tag. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. So that we don't overlap, I'll work on the friaries and can juggle about their final positions later on. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of 750?

Experience tells me that I'm sure you're the man who would know of a certain Pictish battle during the year 750, that "supposedly" occured in Strathblane. It seems to be the event in which Talorgan son of Fergus, (brother of Óengus I of the Picts) was slain. You wouldn't happen to know the name of the battle or any details about this event would you? I'm looking at expanding the Strathblane article and found a breif note about this battle in a book. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Super stuff! Yes the book mentions a, or rather the "Welsh Chronicle" (which is a deadlink here on Misplaced Pages - one I'll probably fix with a redirect to Annales Cambriae in a moment). This all seems to match up nicely. Thanks! You seem to be an encyclopedia in your own right when it comes to Medieval Scotland! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pl revert your edit-warring

Please revert your move of the Great Britain and Ireland article. It is clear that the discussion had not been closed. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: from my talk

I'm not entirely sure I plan to, but I won't discount it. I'm familiar with the reasons to block and as I've said, I might possibly go there from time to time and help out if it has become so backlogged that I am needed there. Thank you for popping over on my talk though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from blocking, protecting, dispute resolution (not to mention the specific 3RR policy), what else would you suggest I have to know before entering into WP:AN3? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Then its a good thing I never asked you to believe it. I only said block, because its what I believe is the most likely outcome to filing a 3rr report (given its not a frivolous report), and protect per a WP:RPP request, and delete per a CSD request, etc. I didn't mention my familiarity with the other policies, because I had assumed you had read my entire RfA. But anyhow, thank you for your comments, I will indeed reflect upon them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Finns are back

My esteemed collegue at[REDACTED] in Norwegian Finn Bjorklid (here appearing as FinnWiki has translated Abbot of Iona to Norwegian bokmål. Reading over the translated and English version I was puzzled by "During that abbacies of Diarmait and Indrechtach, almost certainly because of Viking attacks, the relics of Columba and perhaps even the position of Columban comarba, were moved to Kells and Dunkeld" According to AU the relics came to Ireland in 878 (AU 878.9), quite a while after Indretach. This is also quoted by O Corrain (Vikings in S&I). Are there contradicting sources here, or may the relics first have gone to Dunkeld before coming to Ireland (Kells).

You wrote your parts of the article (which seem to be more or less all of it) i 2006, so I don't expect you to remember - but if there are other sources it would be good to know as I rewrote the Norw. version in accordance with AU. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Finn (Rindahl) has made me aware that you are in fact my old colleague from Scottish history. I am sorry I didn't understand it first. Anyway, do you know if we (wiki-folks) have a picture of the beautiful Pictish stone, Brough of Birsay? The stone is rather remarkeable and it would be a pity if we can't use it as a illustration. --FinnWiki (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the Irish Finn really, he's more Cool than me;) Deacon, you're not the first to be confused by two Norwegian Finns editing articles about the history of the northwestern part of those islands surrounding Man. Your (and Angus) answers at both Finntalks are appreciated. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your vote of confidence on my RFA! Quoting Dr. Phil is not a habit of mine and I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future, I promise ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Karkonosze to Giant Mountains

Why do have closed both move proposals on Talk:Karkonosze as no consensus, not only the one to "Karkonosze/Krkonoše"? Did you only count support/oppose votes? Please read Talk:Karkonosze#Requested_move_to_Giant_Mountains again and see that Giant Mountains is well supported by sources, while the current name Karkonosze is the worst choice, less significant than Krkonoše, and of course the English name. Those opposing the move can can only cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I strongly urge you to reconsider as Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Where is evidence (and consensus) for the current name? The article has been created under that name, and while always a bunch of users showed up to filibuster a move request, they could not provide evidence for preferred use by scholars. As stated, the scientific journal Opera Corcontica is focussing on this very mountain range, and its international authors, mainly Czech and Polish, clearly favor the use of Giant Mountains , examples

• Clear identification of the Giant Mountains (Krkonoše in Czech, Karkonosze in Polish) among Central European elevations ...
• Surfaces of tourist routes in the Giant Mountains (Karkonosze in Polish)

How can this be "no consensus"? Please move the article to Giant Mountains. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Matthead's request; none of the oppose !votes presented sources contradicting the proposed moves, simply their personal opinions, which aren't valid arguments. Please re-review the move proposal and associated discussion. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, you confirmed on my talk that you had read the discussion and saw my arguments. Hopefully you saw the arguments of others, too. I urge you to explain your decision, or, if you choose not to do so, to revert your closure and let others decide. Until now, you gave no reason at all except stating "no consensus". There are 10 supporters for the move, with good reasons, while 9 oppose, in highly doubtful manner. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

From User talk:Daniel. 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I tried to remove the superfluous commentary added to the logs of this page, but certain users didn't like it. I've seen this a few times ... the comments invite further comments, inviting a whole discussion in the log, which it isn't supposed to be about. The block was reasonable and lenient, that Betacommand didn't like it is hardly noteworthy (his complaints in any case concern some editors he was reverting, though I blocked him for personal attacks, one of which was directed against an editor entirely uninvolved in that particular revert war). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully this will solve the problem of making all the facts available without presenting interpretations of fact. I agree that the section is not designed to be used a forum to note the blockee's continued objection to the block, and thanks for raising it on my talk page so I could resolve it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Žigić

Please explain why you moved Nikola Zigic to Nikola Žigić because AFAICT it is clearly against both policy and guidelines (see WP:SOURCES, WP:NC and WP:UE). If it is not, I would appreciate it if you would explain which guidelines you think justify the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur in finding this deplorable; the arguments for the move were largely WP:WELIKEIT and the (largely meaningless) "It's correct in Serbian". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on User talk:Pmanderson "I think you both know the vast majority of admins would have closed it as I did, but thanks for your concern nonetheless." No I don't, and I would have closed it the other way, because I would follow the current naming convention guidelines (not talk pages or essays) which are based on the policy WP:V and it states "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (in this case the other two content polices are only very marginally involved). Therefore if the references or the vast majority of other reliable sources were using "Nikola Žigić" then that is were the name should be, but in this case they were the other way round so the name should have remained at Nikola Zigic. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Back in the USSR

Please reconsider. I agree that this is a case which may well fall outside the existing guidelines - indeed I raised it on WT:UE; but (aside from Prohibit Onions' ultimately neutral comment) there was consensus to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you are having trouble finding this, it is Talk:Снова в СССР‎, which should at least be moved out of its present condition of mistaken Cyrillic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock concern

Regarding this concern. I am aware of the owner of the account that concerns you and believe it to be policy compliant. If you have further concerns, feel free to email me and I will elaborate. Rockpocket 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Thanks for the help clearing out the backlog at WP:RM recently. For a time there, we were down to merely two items in the backlog, which is by far a low point for 2008. Hope to see you around again if things get out of hand. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs' family tree

You deleted the first tree on this page (up to the end of the Dunkeld Dynasty); I have put it back, but with an additional disclaimer. I agree that the early part of the tree is unreliable, and that elements of it are patently inaccurate (for example, Edmund son of Malcolm III is not generally regarded as a monarch, and regnal dates are given for him which overlap with those of Donalbain), but I thought that as it is in the main accurate, it is still a useful tool. I think that it would be far better to correct the thing than to simply discard it. Much more irritating than the errors (I have had to work it out from other pages) is that the family trees don't explain the ancestry of the Bruces or the Balliols (i.e. their descent from David I). I don't know who formats the wiki family trees, but as your user page appears to suggest that you are some sort of wiki-deity in relation to Scottish history (I in comparison am a relative novice), your input would be much appreciated. BartBassist (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

260 in Ireland

I quite agree that primary sources for remote periods, particularly when of uncertain reliability, need to be treated with care. However the sources do verifiably exist. Material from such sources should certainly not be treated as plain fact, but neitgher should it be dismissed out of hand. It should be able to be inclded in WP, with a suitable explanation of its credibility. Single year articles are certainly the wrong approach, but 3rd century in Ireland covering all (alleged events) reamins a possibility. I am not offering to deal with this as I manage Latin but not Celtic languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that 3rd century in Ireland has now been deleted. I suspect that this was not the best solution, since some one will one day recreate it all and we will have the same problem again. However, since it has gone, that is to my mind the end of the matter for the moment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis

Hello Deacon, I have come to you because you are an admin. Matt Lewis has constantly been aggressive to me over the last few days and I believe it has come to a head. It started on the British Isles page where he said I was using pro-nationalist POV and ended with him telling me to f**k off on his talk page. On the whole I have tried to remain civil with him apart from telling him to grow up. Could you please take a look at it, Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Deacon, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA. having been watching RFA for some time now, I see that you are careful and diligent !voter thus I am humbled to have your support. you may be interested in checking out and commenting on my in-depth RFA analysis. i've also left some templated thank-spam for you below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloomfield

Hi there, remember you asked me once about Black Ruthenia and biases behind it? Well, this AfD might give some more insight. Best, Renata (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777

Thanks for the support, it's appreciated.  :) Alison and I have been having long talks about the situation, and I am hoping that we will find a compromise soon. We're almost there, but are taking a break due to real-life issues and will resume later. Could I make one request of you in the meantime? In your most recent comment, would you be willing to rework it to avoid the T-word? I am concerned that in the tense atmosphere of that page, it might escalate things more than necessary. Up to you though! Thanks, Elonka 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian War of Independence

Hi. As far as I can tell, you placed the “unpublished synthesis” template on the article solely due to the title. Would you consider replacing it with Template:Disputed title? I think that would identify the issue more clearly. If I've misunderstood, please explain on the article's talk page. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-06-12 03:49 z

I took the liberty of changing the template. You're welcome to revert if I was mistaken. —Michael Z. 2008-06-12 04:59 z

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pndapetzim !!!

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, Deacon (I like the literary ref in the name)! -- Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the Harp in Europe

Hi Deacon I just wondered if I could ask some advice about the Origin of the harp in Europe page. As you are a well respected editor and like myself have had dealings with the harp page and trolls I would like to ask you some advice in the matter of my work in the Origins of the Harp in Europe page. A speedy deletion tag request by an unsigned editor 93.107.128.92 for the origins of the European Harp in Europe page. I have researched this article well and have cited academic references throughout and despite 38 references in the Irish section alone, the unsigned editor has placed a dubious tag and has requested the whole page be deleted for pov violation.

I feel that this view is unjust and I have merely cited the views of academia and all of my sources are backed up by recent Irish centric and the current standard view of research and empirical publications. Most of these sources range from 2000 – 2005 and the lyre prodonminates in Irish carvings rather than a triangular harp within an Irish context is nothing new as cited by one of the great celtic harp historians Roslyn Rensch (1989) and has been even commented Edward Bunting (2000) originally published in 1843. I feel this editor cannot find a valid source to back up his accusations of pov and wishes to remove the page which is backed up by refrences. Also studies from Edward Bunting 1843, JASTOR Grey University of Michigan 1956, Kenneth Mathieson 2001 and Daibhi OCoinin in a New History of Ireland, prehistoric and early history (2005) conclude the triangular harp was not evident in Ireland till the Anglo-Norman invasion.

How can I get the article peer reviewed and the dubious tag off the page, as far as I have seen the majority of studies cite the lyre and not the triangular harp as the Irish instrument of choice before the anglo-norman invasion? I have even had random acts of vandalism on the page ] where another unsigned editor 78.19.156.62 changing researched sources to a gaelic pov totally taking the cited sourse out of context. Can you help as I feel that I have put a lot of hard work into this page, wishing to improve[REDACTED] as a credible cited sourse on the internet? CheersCeltic Harper (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Origin of the harp in Europe is a total POV page. CHarper has apparently only referenced Scottish books on the subject, and maybe some Irish. Is it "finding the citations to suit the article"? I hope not. Did C-harper read any international sources, like German, French, Spanish, North Africa, Italian. Misplaced Pages is not all about Britain and Scotland? Even Scottish scholars would pass doubt on the page. Your whole theory is, "a couple of stones, with carvings of harps, "without" fore-pillars", and that's all the physical or descriptive evidence there is. It looks very much like WP:OR. 93.107.131.213 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree with user WP:OR and have cited sources from a variety of sources including the noted harp historian Roslyn Rench as well as others. As Deacon is aware due to edit warring with past sockpuppets most harp historians regard pictorial evidence for the harp as paramount and disregard written sources as there is no indication of the instruments used as there is a confusion between harps, harpa, cruit and lyres first discussed by (Rench in 1969). Regarding articles from foreign language sources, well I can't speak German, French, Spanish or Italian. The only source at present user 93.107.131.213 has cited was the Inverntion of Tradition by Hugh Trevor-Roaper. Who is bias and anti-Scottish in nature suggesting everything cultural came from the Gaels of Ireland. This was a common tactic of user Bluegold who also quoted Roper, I hope they are not the same person. If there is a wealth of sources out there I suggest user 93.107.131.213 researches it. RegardsCeltic Harper (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andreas de Moravia (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andreas de Moravia (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Tassedethe (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

mistake in article on Benedict XII

The article claims that Benedict XII, in opposition to the theological opinions of John XXII, campaigned against the Immaculate Conception. I have no idea if B12 carried out such a campaign. Before reviewing the wiki article, I had never seen such a claim.

There is lots of historical evidence that J22 was opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. So there's at least one mistake in the article. B12 could not have opposed J12's rejection of the Immaculate Conception if he also campaigned against that doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frjoe (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Quayle

Welcome back Deacon. I wonder if you could restore the section vandalized by anon 69.47.186.13 on June 5, 2008. That anon's vandalism was incorrectly fixed by anon 74.219.149.67, who failed to restore the vandalized section; merely deleting it. The mistake hasn't been rectified since. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how, without reverting all the other edits inbetween. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken your advice. I've reverted the article back to May 2008. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Tis alright. That article is rarely visited (except fo vandals), my mass reverting will probably go unnoticed. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Great to see you back!... it's been... emotional, without you! Hope you had a great holiday. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Deacon. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Pietervhuis

Hi, I reported this user on 3RR and now I've noticed you blocked him for 1 week, but shouldn't his block be for longer considering he *just* came off a *10 day* block for breaking the 3RR for the fifh time?--Miyokan (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Ok I see that you were informed of the report when you blocked him, regards anyway.--Miyokan (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POV FORK

I don't see how a simple list as a navigation aid is a POV fork. I haven't duplicated the information or the format, as you can see List of Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales is much different from the List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. All the other nations have a list of dioceses in country x, which means that the UK gets one too. Otherwise, that is POV to treat the UK differently then elsewhere. I am willing to change the list over to the UK list, but that means the northern ireland ones go back in this list, which I suggested be done 6 months ago.

Oh, and one other question, I notice you removed my earlier comments as a 'nuisance'. Isn't transparency important for administrators on[REDACTED] so that the rank and file can see that their comments have been acknowledged rather then merely swept under the rug and ignored? Do you always remove comments that you find objectionable?

Ball's in your court. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Request for admin assistance with Roman Catholic diocese articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

O'Neill images

Did you upload this image? If so could you please say when and where you sourced it. The National Maritime Museum in Dun Laoghaire, Dublin is in receipt of requests for a better quality image. There is no "Dartmouth Map Number 25" in our catalogue ClemMcGann (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy of/de Lusignan

Well, are we really going to say that Guy's surname was "de Lusignan" when after all he was actually from Lusignan? I admit that the books I happen to have in front of me are also split on the name, although I think "de Lusignan", when it is used, it because the author tends to use French spellings rather than because it is supposedly a surname.

For "of Lusignan":

• Christopher Tyerman, God's War
• Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives
• Runciman's three-volume history
• Peter Edbury's edition of John of Ibelin (though this refers to the Guy who died in 1300 when it was more surely a surname)
• Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade
• Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Alan Forey, The Military Orders
• Dana Munro, The Kingdom of the Crusaders
• Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood
• Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions
• Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King
• Marwan Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law
• P.M. Holt, the Age of the Crusades
• Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades
• Hans Meyer, The Crusades
• Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Zvi Razi and Eliot Braun, "The Lost Crusader Castle of Tiberias" in The Horns of Hattin, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar (Kedar's article "The Battle of Hattin Revisited" in the same collection simply calls him "King Guy")
• R.C. Smail's article, "The Predicaments of Guy of Lusignan"

For "de Lusignan":

• Smail, Crusading Warfare
• Joshua Prawer, The Crusaders' Kingdom
• Lyons and Jackson, Saladin
• Helen Nicholson, The Chronicle of the Third Crusade (also uses Aimery de Lusignan for his brother)
• Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades
• Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement

I have a load of other articles I could check too, but, while I don't have the sum total of scholarship in front of me, I think the scholarly consensus obviously leans towards "of". There is a similar problem with the Ibelins, where "d'Ibelin" is sometimes used even for the ones who ruled Ibelin before the name became hereditary. In this case I think we should stick with "of". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know, I just find Google Books frustratingly incomplete sometimes. I don't know why English nobles keep their French "de"s; I suppose it comes down to different historiographical traditions. As for wikipolicy, would "of Lusignan" be better if he had actually ruled Lusignan? All the Hughs would keep their "of"s? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition

Please see Talk:Boleslaw_I's_intervention_in_the_Kievan_succession_crisis,_1018#Please_explain_major_rewrite_in_detail. I hope you can incorporate all your hard work into existing article without removing big chunks of my past hard work :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)