Archives

Archive 1) Sept 06 – Jan 07 Archive 2) Feb - May 07 Archive 3) June - Nov 07 Archive 4) Nov - Dec 07 Archive 5) Jan - Mar 08 Archive 6) Apr - Jun 08 Archive 7) Jul - Nov 08 Archive 8) Dec 08 - Mar 09 Archive 9) Apr 09 - Aug 09 Archive 10) Sept 09 - Dec 09 Archive 11) Jan 10 - Mar 10 Archive 12) Apr 10 - Dec 10 Archive 13) Jan 11 - Mar 11 Archive 14) Apr 11 - Jun 11 Archive 15) Jul 11 - Dec 11 Archive 16) Jan 12 - May 12 Archive C) Sundry

Hope you are well. I see you have been busy saving that medieval Scotland article from the chop. I have to thank you for that, a burden I left behind to the community ... though even if I'd been wikipresent I'd just have let it go. Doing that article back in the day was me as an undergrad getting to grips with the subject for the first time, but it badly needed rewritten if for no other reason several big books came out in the intervening period. How is everything else? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well what a very pleasant surprise! I thought you might have permanently vanished. Re medieval Scotland, it was bit worrisome that having read J.D. Mackie at some point in the last century and a few Donnchadh Ó Corráin articles in the present one that I am now what passes for an expert in these parts. No serious harm done I hope. As for everything else - well this little blank was good news although I see an old chum is in the news this week. Mais oui! has been spreading fear and alarm at WP Scotland, although I am sure he too will be bouyed up by your return. I have been listening to local lass Emeli Sandé, visiting the west coast and wondering if I will get around to another GA this summer. Still looking for Duanaire na Sracaire incidentally. Hope you are well. Ben MacDui 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need anything from Duanaire na Sracaire? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. At Domhnall mac Raghnaill we read of a praise poem reviewed by McLeod & Bateman pp. 502-3. Apparently Old MacDonald is a "Descendant of Gofraidh, descendant of Amhlaibh Fionn" and there is some speculation therein as to who these ancestors may be. This strikes me as potentially interesting but I lack a copy and don't much feel like buying one for what may be two lines of interesting text. Ben MacDui 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We read that: A recently rediscovered poem — though from a 17th century manuscript written by Niall MacMhuirich — was addressed to one Domhnall mac Raghnaill, Rosg Mall ("Domhnall mac Raghnaill, of the Stately Gaze"). It is possible that this may refer to the Domhnall mac Raghnaill a claim made by its recent editor.{McLeod & Bateman, Duanaire na Sracaire, p. 75.} The poem includes these lines.

The article goes on to say that "is not clear who Gofraidh or Amhlaibh Fionn are, but they may refer to some of the Norse-Gaelic rulers of Mann and Dublin, possibly Amhlaibh Conung and Gofraidh Crobhán." {McLeod & Bateman, Duanaire na Sracaire, pp. 502-3.}

This last ref notes Prof. Woolf's 2005 observation that the origin of "Clan Gothefray" I.e. Clan Donald may be a reference to Crovan. Fair enough, but..... If we take as read that Amhlaibh Fionn is "Amlaib Conung" then:

• this is an interesting piece of evidence in the good old Amhlaibh/Olafr inn hvitti debate and
• one read's that the order of appearance in texts is indicative of relative seniority and it isn't immediately obvious why Godred Crovan and Amhlaibh would appear either in this order or indeed together. Without a wise authority getting there first it is surely OR to suggest that Gofraid of Lochlainn, to my mind the obvious contender, is who the poem refers to. I therefore wonder if you, or anyone watching this space has any further insight. Ben MacDui 10:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somerled's actual genealogy doesn't look reliable beyond the Suibne character.p.3 By Donald's time, they probably hadn't a clue who their ancestor was, but it was beneficial to claim descent from those Ui Imair guys in order to boost their claim to rule the isles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree - but whilst it is possible that they didn't have any real idea of who Gofraid or Amlaibh were as historical figures, they must surely have had some idea of their significance as part of their mythology. I think what I am asking is - given that McLeod & Bateman seem disinclined to speculate, has anyone else? It seems to me only a matter of time before something appears in print. I note that Clan Donald is silent on the whole Clan Gothofred business. Ben MacDui 12:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those guys here would then be ancestors of the Manx family, "old money" when the MacSorleys were establishing themselves. But to my knowledge there has been little recent speculation. If there's nothing in McDonald, try Skene (whose works are online).

Happy Saint Calum's Day btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your request in April that I take contact with you via email, I have decided to accept your suggestion now. You have mail. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a charming documentary on life in medieval Scotland today. Many beautiful scenes of the Highlands too. Hope all is well with you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed gorgeous and I believe the west coast (pictured) was the prototype for Slartibartfast's award-winning design of Norway. I also hear that the film has had good reviews and that although it is not on release here until August, VisitScotland are getting exited. Incidentally, if the rain here keeps up I shall find myself at a loose end this summer and may finally get round to offering another island at FAC. Am I right in thinking that the galleries created by this well-meaning edit won't pass muster? Ben MacDui 08:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS When you say "life in medieval Scotland today" - you do know we have stuff like electricity now?

I guess "prototype" means something like "draft", but even if I'm living in the part of the world for which Slartibartfast won his award I'll admit the draft is a pretty good one ;) Some day I hope to get to see that charming documentary on life in medieval Scotland too, but not today :P Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be unclear - I meant I had seen the film "today" (Saturday, though it opened in the US on Friday). I was pretty sure from another documentary that modern Scotland had electricity and other modern conveniences. There was a very cool circle of Standing Stones in the first film - if it is not based on something real, perhaps Visit Scotland can build one like it for the tourists, ;-=) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I looked at the older and newer versions of the article. FAC usually does not like galleries, although per Wikipedia:Galleries there are a few cases where they are OK - I do not think the current galleries really meet these criteria, though. I also think the older version (no galleries) had some issues with image sandwiching text, which is also to be avoided per the MOS. However, usually when an article is expanded for FAC, it gets more text and has more room for better spacing of the existing images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been, in part, referred to here in relation to one or more comments you may have made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this disgraceful tactic: leaving a foul personal attack and then covering the tracks so that you have to delve in the history to uncover it. It is perfectly clear who the stalker is here and who is being stalked, and I can prove it with literally hundreds of examples of User:Tim! following around after me removing country cats from categories I have created in my WikiProject Scotland work. I have exhibited tolerance and restraint I barely knew I possessed, but I draw the line at another User using blatant double standards, and then defending themselves by accusing me of something that they themselves are guilty of.--Mais oui! (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to post a comment soon at Category talk:Scottish television people. Regards, Ben MacDui 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly unfortunate, but I am flying off on holiday now, and I have promised my wife to leave Wikipedia alone until we get back. We are namely visiting my elderly parents (who live in another country, and I therefore see very rarely) and all things computer related drives mum nuts. I fully intend to have fun and recharge my batteries. Many thanks for your sane intervention. A dose of cool, rational, detatched, intelligent thinking is precisely what this fruitless nonsense requires. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, in case you missed it, that User talk:Ali Asher Kazmi wants to know why you deleted his page[1]. I am guessing it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Asher's Energy-Mass Relation. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem. Thanks for your attention to my user pages. Ben MacDui 08:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HINBA : Got your message this morning. Not sure if I am responding in the right place. Can easily see potential COI which is why I kept the edit to the bare minimum. It just occurred to me that on an internet website I had completely overlooked pointing out that the book is available on the internet. Incidentally, you may be interested to know that Hinba is not in a wild and lonely place, it is Fort Augustus, the old Gaelic name for which is AcHINBAdy. Macglasrich

You were nearly in the right place. User pages are usually used for editors to keep information and User talk pages, (like this one) are where discussions are held. Yes, I can see you have been attempting to avoid influencing the articles, although it is usually best to avoid issues completely where a conflict may occur. However, if you feel the need to add the book in question please do so under a "Further reading" heading if it is not being used as a specific reference in the article. Good luck with your research. Ben MacDui 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to see you again! Thanks for joining in. This FAC talk page has some atrocious bulleting and indenting etc, and as a result I think you thought the opening remarks were from Jim of Bleak, but they were in fact mine (as are most of the initial comments - Jim just chimed in on the referencing question). Cheers! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you and fixed. Ben MacDui 09:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise of course you protected the wrong version?

The ad hominem attacks are distinctly one sided, I haven't bitten and responded. Its WP:TE repeating the same points over and over, ignoring the discussion but accusing others of not responding, falsifying what the sources say, indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYN, whilst accusing others of the same and huge reams of argumentative text, making it difficult for an outsider to identify who the problem is.

I was on the point of taking this to WP:ANI but my experience there with disruptive editors like this isn't encouraging. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I go out of my way to choose the wrong version. Whether or not you are justifiably aggrieved, nothing is likely to be gained by an intervention that commences by taking sides. Our dispute resolution procedures may be cumbersome and flawed although I think they get there more often than not. I don't know if this short breathing space will accomplish much, but it seemed worth a try. Ben MacDui 15:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your intervention was appreciated nontheless. I'd appreciate someone keeping an eye (or a lid) on the problem. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, if you could please explain to me how can an editor involved in a dispute decide that his is the right version? If you ask me, the wrong version is now protected. Wee asking to an editor to protect his version is not uncommon, as he routinely behaves as if articles were his property. Even more, he has just as much consent from other editors as I have to add his edit, why is his regarded as the correct one? Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link above to "wrong version" you will see this is an ironic expression. Wee Curry Monster is not deciding anything and (at this point at least) I am not expressing any opinion about which disputed version is right, wrong or indifferent. I am simply creating a short break from an incipient edit war in the hope that a more dispassionate analysis of the facts will allow consensus to emerge. Furthermore, Wee Curry Monster did not ask me to do anything. The unfortunate remarks on various talk pages concerning the article were an obvious sign that communications had broken down. Ben MacDui 18:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching the page. If need be I will comment there. Ben MacDui 18:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, much appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm having a hard time figuring out the citations. I've commented at Talk:Islay/GA1

Replied

By the way, the summer monthly highs on Isley are about the same as my winter highs! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know why we Scots are so grumpy! Ben MacDui 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacDui. This could be of use. I just signed-up myself.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I will check it out asap. Ben MacDui 09:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC) PS Have been slowly going thru' Smyth (84). With any luck "Origins" will hit mainspace on day...[reply]

I opened a case at WP:DRN, which yesterday concluded with a statement by a mediator I was taking the correct approach. I have posted at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN, which concluded the source Gaba p was using was not reliable. Today he went straight back to the article, re-introduced the same edit and attributed to the same unreliable source. I'm getting further dismayed by the constant and unremitting personal attacks as it seems a tactic to deter anyone from disagreeing with him and correcting his agenda based editing. If you look at the WP:DRN#Self-determination it was constant. Help would be appreciated thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now User:Langus-TxT has appeared to WP:TAG with Gaba. Really I would appreciate some help here. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this of course - and you must bear in mind that my role is to help the appropriate development of the encyclopedia rather than to take sides. Ben MacDui 07:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only "side" I would expect any admin to take is to ensure the development of an encyclopedia in accordance with the 5 pillars and if they felt that I was violating them I'd be happy to take redirection. I just find it a little disconcerting that when faced with a disruptive, rude, tendentious editor, admins are hesitant to take action. Whilst I appreciate the warning, if you check the history of his talk page he has been warned repeatedly for the same thing by various admins. As no action has ever been taken he has simply been getting bolder. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. Ok let's go by parts.

1. Ben I see you deleted my response to Muginsx but not his blatant attacks and lies aimed at me. Do you honestly think this is wise? That editor had already stopped by my talk page to accuse/threaten me a couple of weeks ago so I thought I would take it with a little humor. I really don't see what you can take as offensive about my reply, I would actually think that his attacks (and lies) aimed at me would represent a far bigger offense. You also stopped by my talk page to reprehend me but did no such thing with Muginsx who started it. I'd ask you to reconsider this.

Now to the points Wee is trying to make:

1. "I opened a case at WP:DRN, which yesterday concluded with a statement by a mediator I was taking the correct approach". Please go see the disussion for yourself, at least the final conclusion. The only editor involved came with a conclusion not even Wee agreed with but is nonetheless using to back his near-vandalism edits. Said editor never bothered to answer neither his nor mine concerns about his ruling by the way.
2. "I have posted at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN, which concluded the source Gaba p was using was not reliable. Today he went straight back to the article, re-introduced the same edit and attributed to the same unreliable source.". Now there's no other way to put it: Wee is lying. Let me say that again: he is deliberately lying attempting to gain the favor of an admin. If you go to the article's history you can see for yourself that it was I who twice had to remove the source we were told not to use because Wee kept adding it back! I know it's confusing, let me try to make it as simple as possible: the source that started this whole thing (the Lopez book), the one that Wee at first attempted to remove and then just moved to a different (not-related) part of the article, we were told at the RS/N not to use that source (and a better one was suggested) My edit was to remove that source from the article as advised and Wee twice brought it back in by blindly reverting my changes. And he is now accusing me of introducing the source when I had to take it out twice because he kept putting it back in?? This is not counting Langus edit who also reverted (a third time) Wee's introduction of said source. I just can't believe he would lie so openly about something that can be so easily checked.
3. The source I am adding to the article is the one we were advised to use at the RS/N. Please (please!) go see the discussion at the RS/N. There two different editors tell Wee he is in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN and that, properly sourced, the statement (he is fighting to remove) should be present in WP. Two of the three sources now used in the article (Risman + Escudé) to back the sentence Wee is fighting so hard to remove, were suggested by editors at that page.
4. Two editors reverting the same constant rv's by Wee doesn't mean they are a WP:TAG team, rather than he is behaving like a vandal. He breached the WP:3RR (one more time) and I truly believe me telling him that he had is the only reason he stopped and came here.
5. Please do stop by my talk page to check for yourself Wee's claim that "he has been warned repeatedly for the same thing by various admins". You will see that the only warnings I have are: Wee's own, one by editor Kahastok relating another scuffle with Wee in another article (very similar to this one) and the last comment by Muginsx which was more like a threat because it came out of nowhere.

Earlier this year Wee had me blocked accused of being a sock puppet of another editor basing on how I wrote. After several weeks of trying to explain I was not that person, the only way I could lift the block imposed to me was to give away my right to anonymity so that another admin could check that I was in fact a different person than the one they were accusing me of being (again: based solely on my writing) To this day Wee keeps using my erroneous blocking to try to smear me, which I believe he is attempting to do right now.

Ben, I don't expect you to take sides but don't be fooled by Wee presenting himself as the victim here. He constantly behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles unilaterally deciding which information goes in and which is taken out in complete disregard of the consensus of other editors. This particular edit, the one he has the biggest problem with, was agreed upon by 3 different editors (Lanhus, Churn and Change and myself) He know this but he just keeps trying to impose his decision as the last word. This is not acceptable and not the way to collaborate. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]