User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 11

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

November/December 2007

Swedish history

The problem with articles on Swedish historical topics in the English Wikipedia goes far beyond these "old norse" topics (just look at Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson...). This is not because these articles reflect Swedish scholarship, but because they mostly ignore it. There are more references here to Herman Lindqvist, a contemporary journalist whose popular history books are generally dismissed as crap by real historians, than to Historisk tidskrift, the leading Swedish history journal which has been around for nearly 130 years and fills up some four or five metres of library shelf-space.

There are some standard reference works which should always be checked. In the "House of Munsö" debate, as in the one on Ragnvald Ulfsson, it is clear that the main participants have not yet made an effort to survey the available secondary sources beyond whatever they happen to have had right in front of them. Olaus 08:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the corresponding articles on Swedish wikipedia are generally better than the articles here, see for example sv:Ragnvald den gamle. Sometimes just because they are shorter. Often there is agreement with reference works like Nationalencyklopedin, Vikingatidens ABc (which is free online), etcetera. Of course, articles can be better than NE, but at least the medieval history on Swedish wp is not a complete disgrace. /Pieter Kuiper 10:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is not a good idea to base an article on NE or Vikingatidens ABC. Those articles are generally short and lack depth.

There are scholarly reference works which give a good overview while at the same time relating to earlier authors and historiography.

• SBL is one; the earlier volumes are somewhat dated, but at least give good references to earlier literature.
• Another is the Scandinavian collaboration project Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder/Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid.
• LIBRIS includes the digitized Svensk historisk bibliografi for the last few decades (from 1977, but uneven when it comes to individual periodicals), and articles in a large number of periodicals can be found there, including HT, Scandia, Fornvännen and many of the regional or more specialized periodicals (a complete list of indexed periodicals can be found here). It also includes articles or chapters published in festschrifts.
• Before that, there are the many volumes of the printed Svensk historisk bibliografi (covering the period 1771-1976).
• Some textbooks also give a quick, good overview of earlier research, such as Jerker Rosén's and Sten Carlsson's Svensk historia from 1962 (dated, but has good commented bibliographies of research until that time).
• Dissertations tend to include reviews of earlier literature and are a good starting-point for further research. Recent dissertations can be found in the databases of the individual universities or in the diva-portal database. With a few exceptions, dissertations in history are not available in digital form, only in print, but one can usually find an abstract. Older dissertations can generally be found in Libris. Many Swedish dissertations have been reviewed in foreign history journals, such as the American Historical Review, which is available through Jstor.

To write an article describing a complicated issue (and almost any historical topic tends to be a complicated issue, when you look close enough), you need to acquire an understanding beyond what you can get from very short and "pre-distilled" references like NE. Olaus 11:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Angus, I am sorry. This discussion doesn't really belong on your personal discussion page, and I have to apologize for taking up so much space here. You can move it to some more suitable page if you wish. Olaus 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise at all. It's very interesting stuff and I really appreciate your taking time to explain this to me. It's the kind of thing I would like to know so that, when I have the time, I can look into things properly and get editing. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Olaus. I copied this to my user page for easy reference. /Pieter Kuiper 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Why did you declared end of the vote before it was ended ? I saw no closure of the vote regarding Toruń Tumult ? Also from what I can see there is no consensus and the votes are evenly split.--Molobo 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had run quite long enough, and rather longer than is strictly traditional. As for the consensus, we'll just have to disagree: I called it like I saw it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see 3 votes against, one abstain, 3 support. Anyway I don't know wiki procedures regarding ending votes. You can do it like that or is some closure form needed ? I thought it was still open.--Molobo 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The coloured "this discussion is closed" stuff is chrome. {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} suffice, and of course the {{move}} thing at the top of the page should be removed too, if I remember. I didn't count heads. I looked at the arguments and the evidence. Anyway, it was a Solomonic compromise: you wanted Tumult and you got it; Matthead wanted Thorn and he got that. What really convinced me that a move was sensible was the evidence from God's Playground and the Cambridge History. English names are best, if they exist, but I don't hold with inventing English names when they don't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence presented in those books is just regarding German language, we should use English on English wiki. However I see that for some reason you prefer Germanised version of the Polish city name. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, however the title can't be seen as neutral in that case. This subject has to be discussed further on talk page and the problem shown to potential readers by necessary tags. Best regards--Molobo 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Molobo darling, please behave yourself; you should know better than to revert the decisions of survey closing administrators. I've reverted your move. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing surveys

You wrote "I have added the chrome, but this is not necessary, and I will not be making a habit of it."[1].

This is not about "chrome". Please be aware that I just spent 40 minutes reading and resarching this case and writing a well funded reply - all for a case that has been closed without a notice. Adding the template takes only seconds.

If you have a habit of closing surveys without marking them as closed, you will cause many people to needlessly read closed surveys. Maybe they realize that a survey was closed once they reach the bottom - after they, too, wasted some minutes for nothing. Who knows how often that has happened already? You value your time, but so do others. Please therefore, do invest those seconds to save everyone else more time and frustration. Thank you. — Sebastian 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an explanation of how moves should be closed at Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators#Tidying up. Note that there are two suggested ways to close the discussion. My edit closing the discussion used one of those recommended methods. I'm sorry that you feel that it was confusing, but it followed a method suggested for closing the debates and I think that my edit summaries explained what I was doing. If you feel that the {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} template method is not as good as the other one, then the thing to do would be to change the instructions or suggest a change on the talk page. I'm certainly not the only person closing requested moves in this way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! — Sebastian 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Tumult of Thorn

What? There was definitely not a consensus about the move! 3:3 means no consensus and even that the move request was not proposed as "Tumult of Thorn"! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as well then that it was a discussion, and not simply a vote, otherwise I'd have made a mistake. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake, discussion is in a hot progress. This move was really surprise like a flash from a clear sky. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to second that, even though I opposed Tulkolahten's voteposition. I am further disappointed that Angus has not seen fit to even reply to the previous section, in which I addressed exactly this point. — Sebastian 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought my replies to Molobo and then to Tulkolahten said everything that needed saying, however if you want me to repeat myself I'll do that. The discussion had run quite long enough, and it was a discussion, not a vote. When we discuss page naming evidence and relevant naming guidelines are of importance. Nobody much cared for the previous name and Olessi made the case, with solid supporting evidence, for Tumult of Thorn being an accepted English-language name for the events in question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which replies you are talking about, and it would take me longer to search for them than it would have taken you to add a link or two. I am talking about my request above, which is not specifically about the Thorn/Torun question - where I even supported your move! - but generally about your intransparent closing of a survey and your disrespect for other editors' time. This is the third time that you are evading my simple and fair request.

Angus, please, open your eyes! You are your own worst enemy. I really wish you could wake up and see how you are pushing your supporters into the arms of your opponents. — Sebastian 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the article's talk page goes in circles, as well as the reprimands on this user talk page. Move requests are not votes. Full stop. Sciurinæ 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, and I admit that I failed to make that distinction. I will strike out the word "vote" in my reply. Still, I think it is relevant that at the time of my statement, the header still read "Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal ...". That's like saying "Feel free to state your position, we just won't care". — Sebastian 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:X 2004.jpg

The image on en that is Image:X 2004.jpg has been copied to Image:X 2004 (1).jpg. commons:Image:X 2004.jpg on the commons will not get deleted, I just have to get the owner to put the correct permission up. Image:X 2004.jpg is not being used. How do you want to proceed? --evrik ^(talk) 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Possibly unfree Image:Settlement-Cromwell-Ireland.gif

Can do ... but it's a little odd to say it cannot be used because it's copyright, but that we should copy it it instead. Ermmm ... not a lawyer, but isn't that what copyright is? Anyhooo, ... can do. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Abernethy

Angus, hope all is well. Anyways, someone has moved again Abernethy to Abernethy, Perth and Kinross, even after there had been a survey opposing it (though it was hardly overwhelming). I can't move it back because the move location has itself been edited. You prolly have no opinion on the matter, but can you move it back, and if the user in question still wishes to move it then he can still open a RfM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alliance for Lupus Research

I am so confused! What do I need to do. You seem to have decided to allow the listing to be posted only to take it down?

Any chance you can email me directly at [redacted], b/c this way of communicating is awfully inefficient. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did the alliance for lupus research entry get taken down. it is a non profit charitable organization! what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 (talk • contribs)

Alliance for lupus research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted in line with WP:CSD#A7, an "article about a club or group that does not assert significance". I generally pick the most innocuous reason, and try to avoid ones that judge the reasons for the creation of the article, but it did occur to me that WP:CSD#G11, "advertising", would also have been appropriate. It even had the phone number in the article. If you can point me to links to newspaper or magazine articles, or TV mentions, or radio shows, where the Alliance was covered, I'll more than happily undelete it and tidy it up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why Alliance for Lupus Research is not up. It was taken down by someone else and I emailed all sorrts of press to them and they said it would be back up. Now you have takn it down and have not told me why!?

I am so confused. You restored it, then retook it down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to start a new thread, but you deleted the Alliance for Lupus Research. Could you please tell me why. It is a non profit organization dedicated to curing lupus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

did you get the links toarticles i submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fr. Paul Walsh

Hi Angus. just a quick word to ask what you think of the above and a few new stubs I wrote. Drasticly revised the golden age of article, by the way. -- Fergananim (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

Angus, thanks for sorting out the ISBN at the Alexander Stewart of Mar page. Didn't notice I had been logged off so I'll try and figure out how to use the unsigned template. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Kalera22

I am not sure if that user knows Polish. Has s/he communicated somehow? I can translate a message into Polish, but what would that message be? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.

I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.

Your support means a lot to me, Angus; you've done so much for the project, and I am honoured to have your !vote of confidence. Oh, and if you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)

If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.

And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?

Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)

Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

"Broad consensus"??

It seems, after reading the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents, that the broad consensus is that this should not be in article space. Therefore, I will change my mind and close this as a move as request.

What makes you think there's any broad consensus? This is obviously a matter on probably hundreds of people should be heard from, not just three or four who commented. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Specifically how many hundreds of Wikipedia mathematics article have you edited, and how many hundreds of their talk pages? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I had to have edited maths articles before implementing RMs or XfDs. How stupid of me! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that you had to have edited math articles to do those things. But before you edit an article on how to do open heart surgery by altering some normative statement about how to do it, you ought to know something about it.

In the mean time, you've avoided my question. There was no consensus in the discusison on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics was notified of that discussion, and it looks as if it didn't seem necessary to comment since the discussion wasn't going anywhere. They were not notified of that other discussion where you say a "broad consensus" was reached, and in that other discussion, the issue is mentioned tangentially and tersely twice, with nothing resembling a consensus, and no evidence that anyone who could say they understood the matter participated. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it not you who asked "how many hundreds of Wikipedia mathematics article have you edited"? Looking at the debate at Wikipedia talk:Contents, I felt that the consensus was against returning the disputed lists to mainspace, and apparently against leaving similar lists there. I do not see what special expertise WikiProject Mathematics could bring to a debate on whether contents lists such as this should be in mainspace, in portal space, in Wikipedia space, or somewhere else. So, that's my explanation, whether you like it or not, but what's yours? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were to find someone editing an article on how to do open heart surgery who knew nothing about it and was adding nonsense, he could say "I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to know something about open heart surgery to edit Wikipedia articles." The "broad consensus" looked to me like several people disagreeing with each other---maybe three or four of five of them. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of mathematics topics → Portal:Mathematics/Lists WP:RM

Tx for the steps you undertook.

However, instead of being able to follow up the suggestions you left at my user page, a new problem presented itself, see [2] (3rd bullet, newly added paragraphs to that bullet, containing a suggestion to try to sort this out with you) - or go directly to Talk:Lists of mathematics topics#No consensus at all was reached on this move. This is bogus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jallianwala Bagh massacre page move

Hi. I noticed that you closed the discussion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre as "no consensus" to move. I disagree with your reading of the discussion, and I'd like to move the page as requested to Amritsar massacre. As far as I can tell, this is the common name of the event, and there are no existing articles with which the name could be ambiguous. Any ambiguity could be handled with a {{dablink}}, at any rate.

I don't want to move the page without consulting first with you, since you were the closing admin. What do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Put bluntly, lots of people saying that X is the common name does not prove that X is the common name. I don't particularly like to accuse a number of editors of being mistaken, accidentally or on purpose, or to point out their failure to undertake such a basic step as actually checking Google books to see what X is called in print. But they were and they didn't. The fact is that there isn't any evidence that Amritsar Massacre is much more common. At best the difference is marginal, and the ambiguity of Amritsar Massacre has to count against it to some degree. Would you have moved this on the basis of a head-count? I make a point, as I said, of trying to conceal the number of opinions for and against anything. I just read the arguments and evaluate them. The only time I'd count heads would be on a split decision. Am I being too clever by half? Well, maybe, but I don't see why XfD should judge consensus by one set of rules and requested moves by another. Your mileage may vary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have closed it based on a head count, no. I'm also not claiming that your decision was improper or carried out in anything less than perfectly good faith. I hope I didn't give the impression of saying otherwise. It just seemed to me that the arguments in favor of the move were supported by multiple citations, whereas no evidence beyond one editor's assertion was offered that the current name is more common. If you were taking a Google books search into account, that wasn't clear to me from reading the move discussion. The ambiguity issue seems minimal to me, but that's a matter on which reasonable people may differ.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about consensus being judged differently in XfDs than it is at RM. I'm not aware of supporting such a position. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was only one editor who opposed the move with the argument "In my experience it is always called the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre". You as closing administrator seem to be advancing other arguments against the move. That seems to me to be highly improper. If you have an opinion about the move, then you should enter into discussion like other editors. The closing administrator should not advance new arguments pro or con. Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's improper for the closing administrator to consider and note points that weren't raised in the discussion. That's common enough, and prohibiting it would seem needlessly bureaucratic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That gives the closing administrator the right to enter new arguments, without giving other editors the right to respond to those arguments with counter arguments. As a non-administrator editor I can't ensure that I have the last word in that way (nor should I be able to). I note, however, that Mr McLellan says below that he did not inject anything new into the debate; different editors read things differently. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Noel, the point had been raised in the "neutral" comment, and those in favour of a move claimed it was the "most common name". I didn't inject anything new into the debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And was answered with citations of various 'high brow' sources and other sources. It was not just answered with 'Most common name'. You could have brought what you felt was new information to the discussion and it could have been discussed. Is that not, after all, the point of consensus decision building? To discuss? (You will note I did not acctually start it as a vote and was happy to simply discuss the idea of a move) Narson (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I take PMA's word when he tells us X is the most common name, or Anthony Appleyard's when he says he's never heard of the Amritsar Massacre? "Trust but verify" seems relevant here. So, no new information, but many of the arguments failed the verification step. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of taking people's word for it when, in the discussion, 11 sources are provided attesting to usage of the proposed title, in publications such as Britannica, the New York Times, the BBC, and Dyer's own biography. Where are the sources attesting to Jallianwala Bagh massacre? They weren't cited. I think that's why people are objecting to the close, which is why I came around asking if you'd mind if I reverse it. I'm not trying to pester you, but I am puzzled as to why those 11 sources don't convince you that Amritsar massacre is the more common name. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Undindenting, here is a quite modern edition of the Britannica that does not call it the "Amritsar Massacre" that I saw when I was browsing Google books the other day. Interesting, no? I wasn't entirely convinced by the Dyer book either as the author was interviewed in The Hindu and referred to it as the "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" there. I didn't and I don't see this is at all clear cut. Nothing has been brought up since that makes me feel any more convinced by either name. If somebody, like you for example, wants to move it back to Amritsar Massacre on the grounds that it should never have been moved in the first place, that's fine, but I didn't find that convincing after there had already been a requested move since then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Brittanica Indian Edition, where it is tailored for local preference. To make it clear, I do not dispute that there is a preference for Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in India, I do not however see much support for it in a more widespread use and within India it seems both are used (Nehru seems to call it Amritsar Massacre as well, annother interesting tidbit), with obvious weight given to Jallianwala Bagh. It is not a clear cut case, if it was I would never have posted at RM and simply performed it myself, I apologise if I overstated my case. Debate is, however, healthy and at the very least this RM has generated some debate over it and has achieved more, IMO, than the previous debate, which seems to have been somewhat flawed. I realise the application had its flaws, in that I did not provide citations and support, merely assertion, so I view this as somewhat of a learning experience. Narson (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope I haven't been snippy in my answers. If there's anything I can do to help, or if you ever need a sympathetic admin, please don't hesitate to ask. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New stuff

Thanks! I do seem to be in remission these days, so I'm making the most of it. Hope to add about a dozen stubs and short articles before Christmas. If you know of anyone else interested in our subjects, let them know about my stuff, as I appreciate any and all feedback. Have a great Christmas and a happy 2008! Fergananiim —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kali

Ha! You've unleashed the cur! You're right, I've got some unfinished business with Kali; will add some info in a wee while but thanks for the heads-up. -Bill Reid | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Angusmclellan. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)