Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 5 May 2011

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

The Bromley matter

I did not realize that I needed to supply an explanation of the reason for the move. In short, "Above the Trenches", which is considered the key reference text in this field, gave me the wrong name when I began the stub. I then came across the reproduction of his enlistment papers at http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/attestation/bromley.php, which gave his correct name.

Thank you for moving this article to its correct location.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, George. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Press-up

I believe that your closing the move discussion on Press-up was premature, especially as the moderator kwami was actively engaged in the discussion. Could you revisit the discussion and at least try to present a consensus among the moderators as to its disposition? -Clconway (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus on that discussion isn't going to happen on this occasion, and re-opening it would be a waste of time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see Kwami stated his intent for closing it. I will leave him a message. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

William the what?

I have re-moved the article to William the Lion and protected it for a week in the hope of preventing a move war. Similar notes sent to others involved. Regards, Ben MacDui 11:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't like hearing the truth, eh? Deb (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-cultural sentiment

I have moved this template again for various reasons, please see Template_talk:Anti-cultural_sentiment#Anti-cultural_sentiment. Sorry I didn't notice the previous discussion first. --Mirokado (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No bother. If you don't mind me saying, though, the current title makes it look like it's going to be about hostility to opera, theatre and that sort of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

iOS (Apple) move request closure

I see you've closed this move request as "no consensus". To me the only opposing arguments which possibly had merit were the WP:RECENTISM ones as the ones talking about Cisco IOS's importance are surely overridden by Apple's iOS's clear lead of almost all the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If it is your view that the WP:RECENTISM arguments were the strong opposing arguments assuming Apple's iOS continues to do well what would be an appropriate point to re-request the move? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the only one. You can re-request any time you wish, but a good wait is 3 months; any sooner, you may find you get opposition just for pushing it too soon. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which other reasoning did you think had merit? While Cisco's IOS is widely used it isn't widely known and the former doesn't appear to be a criteria under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

With regards to re-posting I suppose what I'm really asking is how long do you think WP:RECENTISM applies in the technology space as a legitimate argument? It would be useful to not re-list again prematurely and waste everyones time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Thanks for your quick reply :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

An element of the opposition also argued that the Apple product wasn't primary topic to more specialised audiences (the figures only verified that the Apple product was more popular), so there was no consensus that there was a primary topic. To your second question, well ... 'how long is a piece of string'. There's no answer. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How is the opinions of a more specialised audience relevant with regards to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term" that makes no mention of a more specialised audience, only the general audience. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of things such pages don't mention. C'est la vie. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS "Per WP:IAR, a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests" which would be fine if there was a local consensus to override the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However in this case there was no such consensus to override the guideline.

Frankly as the support !votes were in majority and were additionally backed up by the guideline I really think at this point that your close was incorrect. Can you please reconsider it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did reconsider. Having been on the side of unsuccessful proposals myself over the years, I do sympathize with you and I know you are disappointed; but I honestly don't see how there's consensus for a move on that page. If it were a common name thing, then sure the case can be easily made, but this is just a disambiguation issue and there was reasonable opposition to the move. I won't obviously be closing the next proposal though, if that's any consolation. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I'm more than happy to agree to disagree here given you've reconsidered. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous...

All from being linked to the main page. Gees! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah ... yeah, gone through that myself. Sunday I guess is the day the kids get bored. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District

Re Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District#Requested_move. Why did you close it as "no consensus"? Admins are supposed to close discussions by WP:ROUGH_CONSENSUS. It says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". I cited policy WP:COMMONAME, and people who opposed cited guideline WP:ENDASH, and we didn't even agree that it applied to this case. I also looked at reliable sources, and I showed that the immense majority of sources use a hyphen, just like WP:COMMONNAME advices to do. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In particular, "I still think it's irrelevant whether sources use a hyphen or a dash" should have been discounted because it goes directly against the naming policy. Another one said "We don't do legal names or even official names", but then I countered that we do common names per WP:COMMONNAME. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I also see that this was discussed in February 2010 in WT:MOS here, arriving to the conclusion that names like Baden-Württemberg should use a hyphen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs)

Simply, there was no consensus that these arguments should lead to the page moves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENDASH has been updated to exclude "a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau)". (related talk page thread) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine

Hi Deacon, please could you kindly give me some advice on a move request you closed here Talk:Palestine#Requested_move? I think it was not correct to have closed the discussion for no consensus. We certainly have no consensus as to which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so disambiguation must be the right answer. The opposing editors are relying on spurious arguments to ensure that the WP:STATUSQUO remains, which means their heavily challenged view of the primarytopic remains, instead of a middle ground of disambiguation. Editors have tried from different angles to have this discussion (see also Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6#Requested_rename_.28move.29_to_Palestine) but with this debate closed prematurely we have hit a brick wall even when trying for the fair middle ground. Where can we go from here? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to move a page the proposal would need broad agreement among the community. There was nothing like that, as frustrating as that can be sometimes. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, how can I appeal your decision? Sorry but your response suggests you have not thought carefully about this - the point I am making is not the usual complaint about no consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I think carefully about every close I make, and in fact that one was pretty easy. There's no appeal process as such. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The only real appeal process is to take it to WP:AN/I as you would for review of any other admin action where there wasn't a specific forum. Have to say though that I don't think there's much point as it seems a reasonable close. (Posted here for the sake of transparency - I noticed this as I still have this page watchlisted from out discussion the other day). Dpmuk (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dpmuk. I have posted it as suggested, not as an appeal as such but to explain the complex problem more clearly and ask for views Oncenawhile (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Misplaced Pages; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Misplaced Pages still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

WP:VG/GL move proposal

You had proposed a move of that guideline to a MoS. Since we've been talking about updating it to better reflect what a MoS should be at User:Jinnai/VGGL. This proposal is being done on the basis of making it a MOS. If you want to help, please join the discussion.陣内_Jinnai 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

I see that you've closed this thread early, which is highly inappropriate considering discussion is underway. Why don't you reopen it, bring your concerns over to the village pump or change it to an RFC tag instead? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Misplaced Pages in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like being asked to subsidize some US universities with free labour. They get enough of that already! Would be interested in playing a role though if the University of St Andrews ever got involved. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. We're working on getting the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program started in the UK; User:Sadads, who was part of the first round of Campus Ambassadors, in studying at Oxford right now and hoping to train some UK Campus Ambassadors some time in the next few months. You should sign up as interested at Misplaced Pages:Campus Ambassadors, if you like.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Chamberlain - is this the correct title?

Please see:

• Talk:Great Chamberlain

All the best. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lauder was correct. Similar offices have similar problems (e.g. Chancellor of Scotland). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Marianus Scotus Chronicon

You wouldn't happen to know of any online accessible versions of Chronicon? Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any modern edition, let alone translation, but the older editions published for Monumenta Germaniae Historica and Patrologia Latina are available in digitized form: here (MGH) and here (PL), or here (PL). There may also be a scan of B. Mac Carthy's diplomatic edition in The Codex Palatino-Vaticanus, no. 830. Dublin, 1892, somewhere on the internet. What do you need it for? Cavila (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, if it's any use, vol i and vol ii of Alan Orr Anderson's Early Sources of Scottish History translate some extracts relating to Scotland (and some with regard to Ireland). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on no:Donnchad mac Briain, and Marianus is the source quoted by Duffy and Etchingham that he and Echmarcach mac Ragnaill went to Rome&died together. Donnchad filius Briain, rex de Hibernia atque Echmarcach rex Innarenn, viri inter suos non ignobiles, Romam venientes obierunt. I could have used Etchingham or Duffy, but I wanted to cite it directly from Chronicon (mainly to try to impress my fellow Norwegian wikipedians, I must admit...). Anyway, I rather think these two elderly gentlemen "of no mean standing", despite their pious obits, spent their time in Rome drinking Italian wine&cursing Diarmait (though Donnchad also had an affair with the Emperors daughter...). On a more serious note, I also looked for some additional references to Donnchad by Marianus, and there actually is one for 1014 - Marianus seem to think that D. succeded Brian directly as king of Munster: Cui successit Donchad filius suus annis 51, nec quartam partem Hiberniae regnavit. Thanks for the links, also those to Anderson - I hadn't realised those were on the net. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather warlike story, Finn, though of course the warlike events seem to be spread out over a fairly long reign. Next time I'm in Rome, I'll definitely keep an eye out for the man's tomb. Just a minor point: don't confuse the (Great) Book of Lecan with the Yellow Book of Lecan. Cavila (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cavila, I did just that. Bracken cited K. Mulchrone and I somehow got "yellow" included in my first search... Now I have to confess to the other Finn (an old friend of the Deacon, the guy who wrote the Norwegian version of Scotland in the High Middle Ages) who has been helping me filling out "red links" that he has written about the wrong book... Your skills in understanding Norwegian are impressive btw Cavila &and thanks for the use of your talk page Deacon. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Finn, i notice Kingdom of the Rhinns (of rex Innarenn fame) doesn't have an Bokmal iw ... surprising as these things go. ;) BTW, I'd be careful on en.wiki about citing primary sources directly. Many of the high level reviewers at en.wiki don't think this should be done, and indeed when I find I have to do it I will only cite such sources along with a secondary sources citing the same primary source. Just a heads up. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess a bokmål iw isn't to far away - Echmarcach is on my "to do"-list. Actually, I rather agree about being careful using primary sources, even though I do so myself probably to often. It could lead to funny stuff like Cnutt being called "king of the Saxons" (I'm in good company, Mac Airt translated it thus for Annals of Tigernach at CELT :)It's sometimes hard to resist though, like when for instance I notice that the annals of Inisfallen (whose obit of Donnchad isn't extant) calls his son Murchad "son of the king of Ireland", something the secondary sources I've checked haven't commented, despite making a point out of Donnchads wife Cacht being called Queen. Anyway, with regards to Marianus I wrote "According to Marianus Scottus' Chronicon (citation) Donnchad went to Rome together with Echmarcach" - strictly speaking MS only says in the same paragraph that this year both of them went to Rome&died, I might have to add an additional citation for Duffy or Etchingham there. (Though, regrettably, I don't think it's likely that any high level reviewers will read any of my contributions in the foreseeable future...) All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

All I'd say in defense of this stance is that there are times when a "professional's" experience is necessary for using primary sources, such as army numbers in Herodotus or historical claims made in Icelandic sagas. How is your knowledge of Scandinavian saints btw, more particularly Old English saints there? I'm very close to publishing this page, but the sources I'm working from omit many English missionary saints who made their names among the pagan Germanic people of Scandinavia and continental Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your looking for additional saints for the list, not info on who has been venerated in Scandinavia as well? My knowledge of the Scandinavian saints is somewhat limited I'm afraid, the only one I can think of that could merit inclusion would be Saint Eskil. Sunniva is according to legend Irish, do her name doesn't seem very Irish to me. If it's important I could try to check a few sources. Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your definition "post-biblical saints from or venerated in England before 1066" seems a bit broad to me, though I'm not really sure what constitutes "veneration" per definition. Anyway, St Olav was venerated in England already within few years after his death, so well before 1066. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll change the wording. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

• News and notes: Executive Director travels; DMCA takedowns; fellowship clarifications; brief news

• In the news: Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Misplaced Pages "community"?; brief news

• The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Misplaced Pages and Google Books

• WikiProject report: WikiWarriors

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Ganga x Ganges

You are requested to reply to queries regarding your closing the move request at talk:Ganges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said all I need to say here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please a little attention from your part would save a lot of rework. There has been a long discussion both in terms of content and time regarding the move proposal. The move proposal has been closed by you. You have informed that I may put forward another move proposal. Before doing that it would greatly help if the basis of rejection be very clear, an elaboration on the short statement made by you consensus was lacking is kindly solicited, that the votes are against the proposal is evident, but I hinge my case on the fact that howsoever many editors opine that the sun goes around the earth, Misplaced Pages won't accomodate that statement. Please use the talk:Ganges page for replying. The expected reply is of the following nature, On the basis of the following points put forward by the anti-move proponents (a), (b), (c)... the move proposal has closed by me..Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look into the above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Another gift...

Because I was bored... Oswaldslow (hundred). Although, shouldn't it just be Oswaldslow? I didn't create the article .. just expanded it a bunch, but I'm about at the end of what I'm really interested in adding. Anything DYK worthy in there? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job! The part about it being originally named after someone else was news to me, so something involving that is probably a good hook for a dyk. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

user asking to be blocked

There is a user called User:Egg Centric currently rearranging ANI posts who seems desperately to be blocked. Could you look at my block proposal please? Someone65 (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Misplaced Pages controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Misplaced Pages

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Heading out on a trip...

Can you fix the move of Wilfrid to Wilfrid (7th century bishop)??? I mean, come on, our good friend the subject of Stephen of Ripon is obviously the primary topic. I haven't raised a stink about most of these but this one's a bit much. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this myself. I moved it back to it's current name for now (I wonder if Wilfrid might be better at Wilfrid of Hexham or Wilfrid of Ripon?). I also left a comment at User talk:Danbarnesdavies; you might have your own thoughts to add here. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bishops

Would it be okay if I were to request uncontroversial moves from you when I can't do them myself? ✝DBD 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Christopher Maude Chavasse to Christopher Chavasse (common name)

No bother, though it might not always be a speedy process if I ain't around. :) So you can also have blocking redirects deleted under WP:CSD#G6 by posting {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} on the redirect page or else use the Misplaced Pages:RM#Uncontroversial_requests section. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Financial_crisis_(2007–present)#It.27s_official

Since you moved the article to Financial_crisis_(2007–present) I'm hoping that you'll look at the official evidence and move it now to Financial_crisis_2007-2008 Smallbones (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

University of Kharkiv

Hi! Long ago I was blocked by you for edit warring. I hope this is not going to happen ever again. That is why I kindly ask you to intervene in Talk:University of Kharkiv and dot all i's and cross all t's in this question. Any other administrator's help would be much appreciated as well. I do promise to accept any decision you come up with. Thank you -- Whiteroll (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteroll, you did the right thing. I posted a notice of this dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ukraine and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia. I think for now it is best to hold back and wait for third party input. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Looking forward to the final solution -- Whiteroll (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Misplaced Pages; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Osburh of Coventry

I see that you have identified St Osburh of Coventry with the mother of King Alfred. I think this is wrong. Osburh does not seem to have been a saint or to have had any link with Coventry, but there was a Saint Osburg of Coventry who was abbess of a monastery there, according to http://www.coventry-catholicdeanery.org.uk/StOsburg/History/history%20180409.pdf at the beginning of the 11th century, but around 700 according to http://coventryinphotographs.fotopic.net/c1821152.html. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for spotting this. It was an error on my part not noticing the Osburh link was not the Coventry saint. In fact she doesn't seem to have an article. Have fixed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you reversed my correction of the spelling of Osburh, but so far as I can find this spelling is an error. All sources on the Coventry saint on Google spell her name Osburga or Osburg. Osburh is always the mother of Alfred. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a standard variation in Old English orthography, it's not a matter of error; -burh, -burg, and -burgh are common variants, while Osburga is a Latinization. -burh tends to be the form preferred academically these days, so in Blair's "Handlist" Osburh is preferred (as is Seaxburh to Sexburga, Eadburh to Edburga, and so on). Hope that clarifies things. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As you obviously realised, old English orthography is an area I know nothing about. However, I am not sure I agree. On fact and interpretation, Widipedia clearly needs to aim to reflect the best modern research, but on spelling, the case does not seem to me so clear cut. Should a general encyclopedia use as its primary name the term users are most likely to search on, or current academic fashion which may change in the future? I think I have enough information to create a stub article on the Coventry saint, but I am not sure what to name it. My inclination is to name it Osburga, even though it is a latinisation, as that is the name she is most often given - even though it is a latinisation - although that creates its own problems as it is often used as a name for the mother of Alfred, and currently redirects to the article on her. (Osburg seems to be almost entirely related to the use of the name for a Catholic church and school in Coventry built in the nineteenth century.) The only obvious alternative as a name for the article is Osburh of Coventry, but I have only seen this in the list of Anglo-Saxon Saints. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, I just did a stub at Osburh of Coventry. I tend to prefer the standard academic forms because they are more predictable to non-local audience, but it is always a matter for the individual example. How many people have actually heard of the Coventry saint? I don't think it can be that many ... but correct me if you have local knowledge. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My version would have been based on sources found through Google and the Misplaced Pages article on Coventry, and could hardly have been more different. She founded her nunnery about 700, and it was the origin of Coventry which grew around the nunnery. She is seems to be therefore well known to anyone interested in Coventry. In 1016 Canute's soldiers destroyed the nunnery, and it was re-founded in 1043 by Godiva and her husband. The 11th century date is a confusion with the later re-founding by Godiva. I will write it up tomorrow on your page for your opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming most of this is based on unreliable sources. You have to watch out, lots of stuff gets written about figures like this very late. While lots of later legendary material gets widely published, it isn't usually taken seriously by professional historians (like Blair ) in the area unless it is verified by reliable early sources. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am very aware of the unreliability of a lot of stuff on the web. However there are good refererences given for the version I suggested (as different traditions, I was far too definite in my last comment). The web page which gives the 700 date cites a paper by Steve Bassett, a lecturer in medieval history at Birmingham University. The 11th century is in Victoria County History. I have put additional information at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dudley_Miles/Sandbox. What do you think of it? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Most of what I'd use in this is already in the article, thanks to Blair and Baxter. The stuff about Eadric Streona and the stuff about 700 foundation ... no; it oversteps the bounds of what we know, as Blair and Baxter attest. Regarding Bassett, he would be a reliable source but the website citing him isn't (and doesn't even cite a page); I would be surprised if he actually said this as matter-of-factly as the website indicates. The last two sentences/paragraphs should be added to the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Three more months

Deacon, you should already know by now that I don't intend on a long career here. I've said I'll be leaving some time in May and will. From now till then I will be focusing only on a handful of articles, and likely create no more than five new ones, which will be left sourced stubs for others to expand.

I respect you as a contributor but you have indeed gained my enmity. A billion valuable contributions doesn't make you perfect and your fault has been continuing to initiate interaction with me, and now seeking a change in policy meant to apply to me but not others. Far from being obsessed with you, I wonder if you don't find yourself intermittently overly focused on my life here. Consider the following formal:

1. Stay out of my space, meaning my talk page and so on. Do not ever reappear there.
2. Do not email me. There will simply be no result whatsoever.
3. I will not work with you.
4. You have no information I want or need.
5. I ask you for zero interaction.

That is it. DinDraithou (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

• News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news

• In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news

• Versailles: Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

• WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

DYK for Dryhthelm

On 28 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dryhthelm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, according to Bede, Dryhthelm the monk died, was given a tour of hell and heaven, and came back to tell the tale? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

• News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

• In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

• Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

• WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

• Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Siward/Strathclyde

You revert my edits to the previous falsehood, starting an edit war for some reason, and then send me a patronising "do not edit war" message! The Chronicon Ex Chronicis is available to read online at Google Books here. Therein you will find that the Latin original from England in which the form is "Malcolmus" (in other words "Malcolm" with a declension added) and nothing at all like the Irish you keep putting in. Paul S (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this, take it to the talk page. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, got reverted ... now you should open a discussion. You have yet to bring your issue to talk. Aggressive edit-warring at this stage only damages your case. We don't even really know what your reasons for the edits are yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardly "bold" daring to use the English form of a name in an English chronicle! You behave as though you somehow own these articles. You should not be insisting on using an Irish form of name recorded in an English source, whose original form is not known (it may have been Gaelic or may have been Cumbric) and erasing any alternatives. Paul S (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, please look at WP:BRD. Bold, revert, discuss, not "burst onto an article and revert until everyone gives up". This approach will only likely mean that 1) you get blocked and 2) no-one listens to anything you say. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

• In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

• Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Notice: Your name is mentioned, and your editing is being discussed, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

See . Novickas (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you may not read the New Yorker, or find eveything in it funny, but: "Gibson presents a typically dark and savage portrait of a man who was traumatized by the diphthong at the start of his name, and generally scared of long vowels, which in those days could spring up and attack at any moment. Over time, he learns to place his trust in consonants, thanks to the wise counsel of a marauding Dane named Knt.". Novickas (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excited to hear Mel might be doing a movie like that (not apparently just a joke, as I verified by googling!). Yeah, like the New Yorker, though it's hard to get here. That's pretty funny ... though one might be tempted to point out that the Æ in Æthelwulf isn't a diphthong but rather the "a" Americans and English use when saying 'cat'. :)

Re the AE thread. Pretty surprising to see my words used to argue the opposite of what I meant. Guess I have communication issues. ;) Maybe I'll post a clarification if I feel like it later, though wish to finish my Anonymous Life of Cuthbert article first. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, A as in cat isn't scary at all. Or maybe it is to some people. Nice article - I'm afraid my only real previous acquaintance with the name was from Professor Calculus, but see, I learned something :) Later, Novickas (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Misplaced Pages error; brief news

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem

• Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news

• Editcountitis: Report on Editcountitis. 27% of all edits have been done by just 4,000 editors

HBC

Checked my Handbook (third edition) and it has only Eadhun, eliminating the other one from the second and first edition. So obviously they looked at at least some of the corrections. Eventually I'll get around to the W's... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know. Probably means I should edition at some point. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A quasi-gift....

Pain fitzJohn. Because I was bored while traveling. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, Ealdgyth. Why him? I'm taking it you've seen my recent Cuthbert article. Way too much energy in that, it'll get like 100 hits a week; when I do the Bede life it won't be nearly as long. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eventually I'm thinking of a featured/good topic on Henry's "men raised from the dust" and Pain's one of them. He was a redlink off someone's article... can't remember who now... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I remember. Eustace fitz John (a redlink a few weeks ago at Eustace fitz John).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Friday afternoon blahs struck and Libellus responsionum was the result. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Productive boredom! Maybe Misplaced Pages should pay for you to go to a cricket tournament ... just bring a laptop! Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vita Sancti Cuthberti (anonymous)

On 20 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vita Sancti Cuthberti (anonymous), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the anonymous Vita sancti Cuthberti, or "Life of Saint Cuthbert", is the earliest piece of English Latin hagiography? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And, you need fewer than 1000 edits to reach Master Editor, you already have the required service time. Herostratus (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus pointed this out...

Wimund... and I have to agree that that's a pretty sucky article.. you have anything on him? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A pretty interesting and mysterious guy; the article may look worse than it is because of the extreme claims made by source, but I agree the article could use some clarifications. The references to him are summarised in Watt's Fasti Ecclesiae. I could schedule him for a miny revamp some time in the future if you like. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You have the better sources for that, my Scottish books remain skimpy. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

• News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

• In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Misplaced Pages; brief news

• WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

• Features and admins: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

• Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

• News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

• In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news

• WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify

• Features and admins: Featured list milestone

• Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Thanks in advance.

Could you please include my name to the list of sanctioned editors you are lobbing for? , . After all we all reverted at the same level and unlike Lokyz and Dr.Dan I was also adding names in several languages, NOT ONLY Lithuanian. This fact was never acknowledged. Thank you so much.--Jacurek (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Misplaced Pages?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Have you heard anything about...

This? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Looks like another book on old Wilfrid. It's also mentioned in this newsletter. I'll ask around ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Law of Æthelberht

On 18 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Law of Æthelberht, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 7th-century Law of Æthelberht (first folio pictured), a Kentish legal text, is the earliest extant document in the English language? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Talkback

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Tomas Mac Uchtraigh

Ahhh! Thanks for that! I wasn't sure where to put it, or how he fitted in, but thought I better place it somewhere, given the brevity of Galwegian history. Thanks! Fergananim (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dolfin of Carlisle

Deacon, I'm investigating the history of a family named Dolfin (now Dolphin) in early Norman Ireland. I presume the name is Norse-Northumbrian? Any references to its use as a surname in early Norman Britain? Fergananim (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The name Dolfin is particularly common in Cumberland (from where a lot of the Anglo-Normans of Ulster came). There are a few families that may call themselves FitzDolfin in French, including the ancestors of the Neville family (see). I would imagine your family will be descended from someone named Dolfin in the early 12th century, but I don't have access to Northumberland Families just now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PS re Mann

Incidentally, I came across your list list when I was redirecting. I like the latin titles, but don't have any of the primary sources. Is there anything that can be usefully borrowed? Ben MacDui 12:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I took these from Sellar's "Hebridean Sea-Kings". This is in Cowan & McDonald (eds) Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Medieval Era. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll put it on my Xmas wish list. Ben MacDui 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in ...

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry of Normandy Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I tracked down the OV referenced and wrote it down in the AfD thread. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Why Misplaced Pages rightfullly earns the contempt of every respectable person

Talk:Toponymy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move; it's a small random example, but it's an example. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I long ago came to accept that there are areas it's impossible to edit in, and anything even tangentially related to Ireland is one of them. It's a problem that wikipedia is unable and unwilling to deal with. AGF and all that tosh. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF is just a tool exploited by foaming-mouth ideologues to circumvent the checks we're supposed to have and consume more time from useful Wikipedians. AGF is supposed to apply unless there is clear evidence to the contrary,; but as you know such a provision is way too complicated for your average wiki-admin or arbcom Joe, and most of the latter morons ignore it as an excuse to make the lives of decent Wikipedians all the harder. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are of course preaching to the converted. I believe that a significant part of wikipedia's evident decline can be placed at the door of the kiddie admins, and until it's administered by adults I see no hope of any change. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well ... maybe it can be placed proportionately on those from the 'top' down. The Newyorkbrads and the like enjoy the IRC adoration and enjoy the popularity derived from doing nothing 'bout anything. But they are the ones with the power. They are the ones whose misguided, cowardly and self-serving decisions have made this place a joke, who endorse the attitude that the lunatic and the expert are brothers, and who believe that everyone who cares about encyclopedic content more than wikisocial order is immature and should be disregarded. But of course the rest of the community is responsible too, as they are the one who support the system that keeps those guys up. Misplaced Pages's problem is simply that Wikipedians aren't good enough. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Newyorkbrad. I could write a thesis on his misguided view of wikipedia; he's another one who pontificates without producing. But given his habitual style of delivery I doubt that anyone would make it awake to the end of an article he'd written anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says Misplaced Pages is about article writing? It's about making friends via IRC and email, avoiding anything controversial, and conspicuously intervening to make the most popular decisions in prominent disputes. These lofty beings are far above the drudgery of content editing and the childishness of caring about content. That's for that generic haze of foolish scum: the rabid ideologues, experts, copy-editors, fringe-theory enthusiasts, and so on ... idiots like ourselves who give the project they've parasited the juice for them to suck on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible FA?

Hello, Deacon and Malleus. I have just had this article: Miami Showband killings promoted to GA. While I am aware that Malleus is hesitant to involve himself in Irish-related issues, this article is surprisingly stable with virtually no ongoing or past edit wars. I feel it merits a FAC, but I would like either of your opinions when you have the time. It's an article that deals rather graphically about a terrible and tragic event in Northern Ireland in 1975. I largely rewrote it back in December as I felt it was a story that needed to be truthfully and neutrally told, with all details and facts backed by reliable sources. I would welcome any advice either of you could give me on helping it achieve FA status. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I'm any use here. Sadly, I don't have time to do anything like that on this project ... though can't talk for Malleus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway, Deacon. I'll go ask Malleus. Cheers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief