User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI

08:45 Thursday 9 May 2024

Archives: I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX

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 Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Deacon of Pndapetzim. You have new messages at talk:Ganges.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia "community"?; brief news

• The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia 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)

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)