Misplaced Pages

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Deacon of Pndapetzim Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:16, 12 August 2011 editDBD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers85,515 edits →Just when you thought it was safe...: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:56, 23 February 2013 edit undoDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,745 edits bl 
(96 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="background-color: purple; color: gold; border: 2px gold; border-bottom-width: 0; padding: 0.5em;">'''{{CURRENTTIME}} {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}'''</div>
{{Signpost-subscription|right}}
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; float: right; margin-left: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em; background-color: transparent;"
|
{| class="infobox" width="155px"
|-
! align="top" | '''Archives''':
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''{{*}}
|<center>''']'''
|}
|}<div style="align: center; background-color:lightgrey; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; border-top-width:0; margin-top:0">


==Incorporating sources: can we define a good style?==
This comes up in relation to getting a manual of style for the DNB project: when I saw ] yestterday I thought of asking you. There are various ways of using the DNB's sources; and the issue is wider, for example applying also import of the ''Catholic Encyclopedia''. For myself I don't keep many inline references. The endnote references really need a special style, and some sort of header/disclaimer (since the WP article author has presumably not checked them). I wouldn't mind seeing greater use of these resources here, but perhaps templates that are hidden until opened is a better way of proceeding. Thoughts? This area seems still up for grabs. ] (]) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

:I think I went a while doing that, and thought better of it, since expanding the abbreviations is a necessary and tedious task while the sources themselves are usually primary sources. I haven't given it all that much thought, but my preference now is probably for ignoring a DNB article's sources and for referencing just the original DNB text instead. Another problem is that after the importation has taken place and editors make alterations, it is impossible for a new editor without much work to trace what comes from where. As it is now customary on Misplaced Pages to reference everything (at least among the most ambitious editors), maybe referencing the DNB article sentence by sentence is a good idea?] (<small>]</small>) 18:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

::Excuse me for butting in, but a big problem I've found in several articles now is that the entries in the current DNB are ''very'' different from the old PD versions, and not infrequently contradict them. So finding reliable secondary sources to back up what was once believed to be true or significant is often surprisingly difficult. ] ] 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

::: Whenever I copy these articles nowadays I frequently make alterations in accordance with the updated version in the ODNB. Oftentimes there are errors or omissions about hard-to-research specifics such as dates which the ODNB articles fixes. ] (<small>]</small>) 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree with the relevance of the ODNB to fact-checking the DNB entries: I often do this informally, and ] in time should use its list of articles to check off the articles where the ODNB has been taken into account. That's not really a problem, except for scale (30,000 to do). Referencing the ODNB with {{tl|ODNBweb}} is quick enough and appropriate for updates. Thanks for your input anyway. ] (]) 08:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 9 May 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-09}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 19-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0140 -->

== I see... ==

That you saw I'm expanding ]. Thanks for the fix... ] - ] 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:Do those references mean you have access to the ''Shropshire History and Archaeology Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society''? :) ] (<small>]</small>) 23:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:: Yeah, U of I has and set of them. I have in my hands a photocopy of the Ludlow piece. ] - ] 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

::: And Pain's at DYK... ] - ] 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

::::First step in the long march to FAhood? ] (<small>]</small>) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

::::: Not sure, honestly. There's certainly enough information, that's for sure. I guess a lot will depend on if I get interested enough to take him past GA. Did you want any articles from the Shropshire mag? ] - ] 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::: You seem to have done ok so far. :) Thank you, but I'm fine just now (may let you know if that changes!). I do often get frustrated about how difficult it is to consult local history journals from England and Ireland, which often contain the best particular and hence most-relevant-to-wikipedia-articles research. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

::::::: Aren't you in the British Isles? {{unsigned|Ealdgyth}}
::::::: You'd think that'd make a difference, but we have four different civilizations here and I'm in one of the smaller ones. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 16 May 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-16}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 20-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 01:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0141 -->

== Pictish Language ==

Hi Deacon, I was hoping to get your comments on the following: ]. By the way, do you have access to ''Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness'' by any chance? I'm trying to get a copy of a paper from volume 21, and my University library's collection starts at 22... and it would be difficult to get an inter-library loan. '']&nbsp;]'' 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

:It's in the library I think. Need a specific reference? ] (<small>]</small>) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

::Yes, it relates to the Skene issue:

::{{citation | last = MacBain | first = A. | year = 1897 | title = Mr Skene versus Dr Skene | journal = Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness | volume = 21 | pages = 191&ndash;214}}

::The whole P-Celtic/Q-Celtic discussion is complicated by the fact that the Picts were gaelic speakers by the 9th century, but I'm slightly alarmed by this editor's tendency to dismiss the current academic view in favour of something that more suits his view. Maybe I'm over-reacting... '']&nbsp;]'' 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

::: To clarify, what editor is this and what pages is he editing? ] (<small>]</small>) 00:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

::::It's ], the editor who is commenting on the Medieval Scotland project talk page. I noticed some edits that concerned me, particularly to ]: (This with the edit summary ''(There seems to be an assumption that the language was Brythonic when there are equally reasonable Goidelic etymologies for their name.)''

::::], making edits to suggest that aber was goidelic in origin with the summary ''It has not been established that Brythonic weas spoken by the Picts or other Northern groups before they were called that. In fact they were referred tio as Gaels by Welsh sources.'' and citing James Robertson's ''Gaelic Topography of Scotland'' (same author who wrote ''Concise Historical Proofs'', and again a non-Irish-origin for Gaelic proponant).

::::I wanted to nip this in the bud, as it's clear from these edits and his edits on an that he's aware of the current academic "consensus", but still wants to promote Skene's position. Attempts to discuss this with him have been unproductive, both on his talk page and in my attempt on the project talk page. To be honest, I'm baffled that anyone would maintain trust in sources that have been so thoroughly discredited. '']&nbsp;]'' 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I merely added that Arbroath COULD be Gaelic in origin. The argument of James Robertson and William Forbes Skene that there were nuanced meanings for Inbhir and Aber should not be dismissed. We cant simply state that an academic is an "amateur" and ignore the logic of their arguments. Particularly when there were subjective reasons why they could have went out of favour as pointed out on the article on Macbain. Its baffling how anyone can claim that I am "ignoring" anything when I am merely adding alternatives. ] (]) 10:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

:Rather than consume lots of time, wouldn't it be better just to say Celtic instead of either Brythonic or Goidelic. It is not by any means likely that there was any systematic difference between the two until way after the Caledonians took a name for themselves. @Seamusalba, you might want to consult ] and ] for guidance on balancing references. What ever you personally think of any issue, the fact is that most modern historians/linguists in the area regard the Picts as British or at most transitional between British and Irish. ] (<small>]</small>) 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree as to the current consensus and wouldnt dispute the existence of it. However the points raised by Skene as to the reliability of vocabulary to tell Brythonic from Goidelic are well worth mentionning on Misplaced Pages and the timeline for the emergence of Pictish culture is important too. ] (]) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

== Move please ==

] to ], please &#10013;''']]]''' 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

== EMC edits ==

As I finally have time to return to this, I want to give you notice that I intend to reintroduce some of the edits which you deleted in February. You will remember that you deleted in total about thirty edits and referred them to a CoI debate, which petered out without a consensus. In conjunction with that, you referred two of my articles to deletion debates, both of which failed. (In fact one of the articles was merged into the other, but as this happened at my request and with no loss of material, the fact remains that both AfDs failed.) As there was no consensus for your actions, I am entitled to reintroduce the material.

Your main complaint was CoI. Though several others shared your reservations to some extent, others disagreed, and the reasons why the CoI complaint was mistaken were spelled out very eloquently by user users Whatamidoing and Johnbod. Your second complaint related to the quality of my edits. On this you received no support whatsoever from any other user, except in relation to one single edit which was not up to my usual standard and I am glad to say has been improved. I was able to explain what I was doing with these edits, and you were the only contributor to the discussion who felt that they were wrong in themselves. A third complaint suggested that the number of edits in a short space of time gave an impression of spamming. I take that on board and will initially only reintroduce the four or five most important references. More may gradually follow, but it is not important to me to reintroduce all of them.

If you wish to challenge this, I would encourage you to find another administrator who agrees with your position, and have them speak to me. I will hold off for a couple of days to allow you to do this. I am not prepared to discuss this with you because of your personal rudeness in the past, but I will certainly work with and not against another admin if I am approached by one. If you can't find an admin to do this, you may as well give up any thoughts of building a consensus against me, and in that case, I hope you will not drag us both into any messy nonsense with reverting. --] (]) 21:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am fully aware of your view. But you failed to achieve a consensus. I don't think you have the authority to block my account under these circumstances. Unless you can bring in another admin, this is clearly a conflict between you and me, and it would be a clear abuse of admin privileges to use them in such a conflict. I for my part could request that your administrator status be reexamined, and then you would have to explain your behaviour to your fellow admins, for example your claim to be entitled to delete an article against consensus when you are frustrated about consensus moving against you; your use of sarcasm instead of argument; your treatment of newbies; and other things I pointed out before. But I don't want to do that to you. If this is as clear a case as you say, you will easily find another admin to talk to me. If you can't, maybe you should let go. Either way, it needn't take any more of your time. --] (]) 21:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

: Actually, inserting unused references to a book you have an interest in (whether author or publisher) is spamming. If the source isn't used as a reference, it really shouldn't be inserted into an article by someone connected to the source. There may be some cases where links to the EMC are useful - but in general encylopedic type entries of any sort aren't usually good candidates for "further reading sections". And I certainly read this whole post as a sort of "gauntlet" you're throwing down, which is certainly battlegroundish behavior. As I recall, I removed some of your edits - but since I'm not an admin, I don't count or something? ] - ] 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you count, but I am not sure Deacon would accept that as an authority. But I would be very happy to work with you - maybe we can talk somewhere else than here? The bullishness of my tone above is a reaction to the way I was treated before by that user, but I am very keen on harmony and consensus. If you are prepared to talk to me, maybe on your userpage, you can maybe help me towards the best way forward. --] (]) 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

::Doric, if you had resumed this editing when the matter was up on those threads, you would have been blocked. I'm not going to spend more time going around in circles with you. As per the warning on your talk page, if you start it again your account will be blocked. Users get accounts to improve the encyclopedia; we have very clear policies on ] and ]. ] (<small>]</small>) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:: First, you might learn how to thread talk page replies. It's traditional to indent, using one colon per level of indentation, underneath the reply you are replying to. As far as the other, the best suggestion I have is to actually build up articles - instead of blindly inserting a citation to your work, such as here: , you could make an effort to add any missing information to the article. There are several things wrong with that edit - one, your citation style doesn't even begin to match the citation style already present in the article - part of editing with consensus is to adapt your referencing to the style already in use. Second, you added nothing to the actual body of the article, but you still put the citation in the references, instead of in the already existing "further reading" section. Third, there is no need for a special template for the EMC references - the existing templates will do fine. Fourth - if the EMC article doesn't contain anything new or additional to the information already in the article, it's spam to add a citation/further reading link there, as it's not furthering the reader's understanding of the person/chronicle to add that it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, which means that actual additions to the article body are the best sorts of edits to be making. ] - ] 22:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with Deacon and Ealdgyth that the EMC should only be added when it is used as a source. This shouldn't be hard to do. Pick out stubs and start-level articles, or articles with little or no sourcing, and fix them up and expand them using the EMC as your source. Why would you do this any other way? ] (]) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
::Well actually, that IS what I want to do. If that really is what Deacon is saying, then he won't have a problem with me returning to the articles in the way I mentioned. --] (]) 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

==DYK for David F. Ford==
Hi, thanks for reviewing my hook. Please see the ] for an alt idea. Thanks, ] (]) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

== Question on source.. ==

I just got through the library G. W. S. Barrow's ''The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History'', which are the ]s from 1977. Are they hopelessly outdated? I'm such a non-reader of Scottish stuff that I'm not sure it's worth trying to get a hold of a copy of this or not. ] - ] 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

:Some of the more intellectual/abstract stuff is a bit dated, but it's a good book to use to build articles on Anglo-Norman nobility in Scotland. He wasn't interested in the same things we're interested in today (like the locals!), but Barrow knows his charter sources very well, probably better than anyone just now (though he was younger when he wrote that). ] (<small>]</small>) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks. It's hard enough to keep up on scholarship in the fields I'm interested in, trying to keep up in other countries is just too much work sometimes! ] - ] 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

== pmanderson edit warring ==

Sorry, but he ''really is'' edit warring, he's making, repeatedly, non consensus edits on a policy page. He's not 3rr, but he is edit warring. If he's not edit warring how come essentially the same edit has been made 5 times? How come there's an entire thread about his edits? That's edit warring. He's not reverting back to an old consensus version, he's remaking a new edit each time and ignoring any contrary views.] (]) 17:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

:You're "edit-warring" too, and in fact have the most recent revert. Try leaving off reverting longer and see who else actually agrees with you. Consensus is shown by the edit log ... it can't just be claimed as you are doing. I wouldn't regard action as merited against either of you, but both of you are playing Russian roulette with the admin community. Lots of trigger happy admins out there who'd love the excuse ... and both of you, as you probably sort of realise, have given that already. All the best, ] (<small>]</small>) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

::No, no, I meant consensus is when everyone agrees. OMG... I only just checked pmanderson's block log. I've never seen anything that long before in my entire life... 8-( He's being blocked every few weeks now. I had a fair list of edit war blocks, but they were like once every ten thousand edits, once a year.] (]) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::I didn't realise. This puts a whole different spin. Why on earth did you give him the benefit? He obviously practically ''never'' backs down, so there's very little chance of consensus.] (]) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::OK, I understand now. I was trying to understand why he was doing this, but it looks like a major personality flaw. He's clearly just horribly tendentious. (facepalm) Many thanks. ] (]) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Rememberway, if you're going to bring up pmanderson's block log it's only fair that we look at your past account's and as well. I strongly suggest you keep editor behaviour out of this conflict. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

::::^Do you like my stalker Deacon? He's cut and paste the same personal attack on 3 different people's talk pages but it's unusual to do that on an ''admins'' talk page though. ;-) Isn't he cute. ] (]) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::How is pointing out your past history a personal attack? Two of the three talk pages are on my watchlist and I noticed you bringing up pmanderson's block log on all three. I simply suggested you avoid bringing up editor behaviour. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

::::::Take one ] and let us know if your opinion that this isn't at least a mild case of wikihounding is still bothering you in the morning. I'm sure that pndapetzim doesn't really care about any of this, so let's leave him in peace.] (]) 00:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 23 May 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-23}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 21-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0143 -->

==DYK for ]==
Hi, I just reviewed and approved your hook. Could you narrow the width of the infobox somehow? Thanks, ] (]) 15:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

: Better now? ] (<small>]</small>) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

==Galloway and Tír Eoghain==

Good on ya! Have just read ] and ], which are excellent. Very professional! ] (]) 14:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
:Cheers. Will get round to Niall Ruadh in the next few days. ] (<small>]</small>) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

== I'm sorry ==

Deacon, I am sorry for being such an asshole. I have a drinking problem and other ones. Your new O'Neill articles are really nice. ] (]) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks DinDraithou. If that stuff is behind you then there's no reason it should continue to be a big deal. Start afresh? ] (<small>]</small>) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
::Yes. Recognizing you as a potential major resource somehow made me unhappier with everything. Once I feel offended or in some way get into a fight with someone I have difficulty letting it go if they're still around. We had our interesting disagreements but it was uncalled for for me to in the end show up on your talk page and say I didn't consider you of any value to me. It made me feel like I won but was worse than any block or report against me coming from your direction. I am famously prone to vicious outbursts when I feel threatened, which are sometimes pretty effective, so I keep doing it. A situation might actually be a threat to me but I fail to react calmly.

::So what I'm saying is that you undoubtedly have knowledge I need and I would certainly work with you, although my highly active period is over now. When I saw your O'Neill articles I knew I hadn't given you the proper chance. ] (]) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

==DYK for Law of Hlothhere and Eadric==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the late 7th-century ] ], the ''']''', has no provisions regarding the church?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

== We are not amused: Commonly known as the '''United Kingdom''', the '''UK''', '''Britain''', or '''England'''? ==

I don't know if this a joke on nationalism or what, but I don't personally find it funny. Stick it in the identity section that is replacing the removal of the politicised 'country' intro-note. UK Talk has got so long now I can barely scroll to the different polls. Perhaps you could vote on one and help get the UK article unlocked, eh? ] (]) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

:I don't actually think any neutral version is possible, because of the demographics of the editors who are attracted to such disputes. Ideologues care, neutrals don't. Certain users do nothing on Misplaced Pages but push their ideology into a few articles like this (in this case mostly Anglo nationalists). As a side comment, since we have to put up with them ... it is not necessarily a bad thing if they are occupied in one place in a popular and hence unstable article. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::You're right - I don't like it. Not sure about there being a dominant "Anglo nationalist" ideology here either - there are maybe two clear ones as far as I can see. The problem is (as usual) differences between Irish and Scottish/Welsh nationalists, plus the stubborn 'British' element that is usually decidedly unhelpful. And when neutrals attempt to step in that makes four. Add GoodDay for spice. Oh I forgot the token "damn all nations, the modern invention" contributor who talks like he smokes 80 a day. The last thing it needs is a troop of super-inclusionist comedians to make it a neat 7. ] (]) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Shux, I'm not that bad. It's wearying to see so many people selecting sources cherry-picked through clever google searches that support their own poorly-disguised agendas, and subsequently present their positions are mere slavish responses to sources. "Constituent country" says it all ... the editors have descended into fantasy-land. The same techniques much more convincingly make England "an island-state also called the UK". ] (<small>]</small>) 20:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
::::I was with you there.. right up to the point where you said "constituent country". Change that to "constituent countries.." and you have a term that is used in certain circumstances where it is useful and needed (like in glossaries or encyclopedias perhaps?) Except on Misplaced Pages - where it isn't allowed, partly in case people misuse it to say "Scotland is a constituent country (full stop)", but mostly because Scotland (and Wales, ho hum) are always no-less than a Proud and Devolving Countries. It's a combination of nationalism, paranoia, inability (to a degree), and complete laziness. ] (]) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Nah, Matt, you've been on Misplaced Pages too long. Not a significant term in the real world. ] (<small>]</small>) 21:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Ditto (and you more than me these days). Such a term shouldn't have to be that widely-used in the real world, but I'm afraid that it is regardless. I hate to Google-link you, but it's used all over the shop. It is essential to pluralise it though. See , and . Forget the results at the top - it's Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, Matt, you prove my point. ] (<small>]</small>) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Look through them why don't you? Google often sticks junk at the top. There is more here than any of the polemical shite you read absorbed into Misplaced Pages prose in this area. So they are mostly govenment and finance? What kind of links to do you want? Children's television? It's not that kind of term - nor need it be. And concepts like 'usage guidelines' and 'accepted terminology' are possible in this madhouse you know, even in UK-IRE. ] (]) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: The countries are described as countries, and as constituent parts, but this doesn't make "]" a technical term. That's is the insanity. Google search show information replication, not usage. Try google books ... and try finding usage as a fixed technical term (the way GoodDay et al wish it to be used on Misplaced Pages). Any English speaker in the UK, literate in politics, knows that the term has no relevance in mainstream terminology ... but you need to be literate to know. The benefit of the having a foot in the real world is you know when Wikiworld has gone nuts. ;) It has gone nuts here. ] (<small>]</small>) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::Firstly, it's GoodDay and me who favour "constituent countries" in the UK intro(s) - everyone else has either been baffled or bullied off track! If GD wants to use it in place of 'country' within articles etc, then he's just wrong: but he'll understand that if it's explained to him.

::::::::::::Secondly, who says it has to be a fixed term?

::::::::::::Thirdly, I totally agree - the article is wank. But I'm not using it as a source - never, ever use Misplaced Pages as a source. Not because it's introverted - because it's mostly crap. As I just pointed out on UK talk, ] needs to be updated to include the common use of the phrase, ie specifically as an adjective. In UK use, "constituent country" is clearly an adjective with a noun modifier (which is always a noun) - with the noun being the UK. The two nouns just happen to be different instances of the same thing. ] (]) 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been bugging me off-wiki now, and I've made a couple of edits - first to ]. Embarrassingly it was me (over 3 years ago I think) who called it a 'term' - which would have been done to try to stabalise things at the time, and generally pare down all the various excesses. I completely missed the meaning of the text I removed (which I've now replaced), and had no idea the phrase had since been projected as a 'problematic term' (I just knew some people didn't like it). I certainly didn't envisage it as a singular term for each country, only ever as something that connects them to the UK.

There is nothing like an element of 'inherent confusion' to stop a term from being used in this area - see 'British Isles' when it's been found to be used too-culturally, and esp when the Channel-Islands are included. I've also explained constituent country properly in the FAQ. I don't actually notice things like the FAQ spring up, simply because I'm not as involved as you think I am any more.

You know, I may have made the offending edit at constituent country - but I'm not taking the blame for it being up there 3 years, or what has been made of it either. At least I ''do try'' and de-opinionise these flipping articles. ] (]) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you British admin - if you follow the logic of your knowingly effete attitude to these matters, the conclusion is damning no matter how devastatingly-cool you think it is to be 'intellectually' above the fools. It's an ivory tower frankly. And when is disharmony good for anything? Perhaps you could archive this so I'm not obliged to periodically look for a response that isn't going to happen. ] (]) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Deacon. I just stumbled on this thread and see you have discovered the answer to rude, ignorant POV warriors, who don't actually appear to make any contributions to Misplaced Pages. Just ignore them. I shall use the same approach. Thank you. ] (]) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:How can an someone as anti-bias as myself be a "POV warrior"? I guess we must have disagreed over something Dai.

:Sorry the above links aren't working for everyone - they work for me.

:Despite Google being full of potentially useless results, I still prefer it to Google Books. Although it's hard to know how many of the half-million plus Google results are valid - even a small percentage of them is a lot. When I try the four searches in Google Books (using the occasionally-overlapping "UK and "United Kingdom") I get 3-4,000 for "constituent counties" but only 3-400 for "constituent country" - which proves my point on the way it is used. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - my argument is that it doesn't have to use colloquial language for every aspect of it, and specific word-phrases like this are perfectly valid in the right context. For me the word is simply made for the job - and Misplaced Pages did used to use it. And although I don't know too much about Google Books - I think around 4,000 over-all is a high figure for it. It's been used so-often over the years simply because the UK countries are indeed 'countries', and using "constituent" is clearly one of the best ways of making various sentences work. ] (]) 23:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone is offended, but I have nothing more to say on the matter. That's all my lack of response means. ] (<small>]</small>) 02:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 30 May 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-30}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 22-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0148 -->

==DYK for Áed in Macáem Tóinlesc==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']''' ("the lazy-rumped lad"), sometime ], got his nickname by refusing to stand for the ] ]?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

:Belated "Hurrah!"s. ] ] 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

==DYK for Thomas of Galloway==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that in 1212 ''']''', brother of the ], sacked and looted the Irish city of ] in a raid of 76 ships, and returned in 1214 to devastate the city again?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 6 June 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-06}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 23-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0150 -->

== Gallowegian=person from Galloway ==

Gallowegian=person from Galloway
Galwegian=person from Galway

Although they might look superficially similar, they are not.

Galwegian is pronounced GAUL-we-jahn, note the first syllable is not GALL. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: You'll need to take that up with the people who use "Galwegian" all the time to refer to Galloway men.. English is not a language with a close link between pronunciation and spelling anyway. Usage of "Gallowegian" is comparatively rare (Gallovidian is next most common apparently). ] (<small>]</small>) 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem though is that you are referring to a possible colloquial usage, while scholarly work use the correct form, which is Gallowegian. It makes no matter to me that people mispronounce things, what matters is that the correct form be used on Misplaced Pages - so that going forward there is no dissemination of misinformation. You do realize how silly you're being I hope? This would be like you claiming that Edinburgher should be written Edinbuger... <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'm not going to revert your comments, just point you to the Scholarly references:
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gallowegian#q=gallowegian&hl=en&prmd=ivnsb&source=lnms&tbm=bks&ei=JmruTY-LO8rogQfQxICVDw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=6&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBQ&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9f4b039ccbcce956&biw=1680&bih=929 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Investigate the matter for yourself; Galwegian has about tens times the results, and the usage is primarily scholarly not colloquial. This is something you'll need to take up with learned journals such as the Scottish Historical Review who set usage, rather than with Misplaced Pages who follow it. ] (<small>]</small>) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

::Ahhh... sweet thought! Misplaced Pages actually ''following'' scholarly, learned work, rather than tring to disseminate misinformation. One can but dream... --] (]) 07:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

==Alexander MacDougall==

You are not an admin so don't even think about trying to give me a warning. I am well within my Misplaced Pages rights to move the page with or without discussion. ] (]) 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

==DYK for Aodh Méith==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''']''' refused to meet with the ], because the King was unwilling to give ]s as surety?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 00:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

==DYK for Law of Wihtred==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the 7th-century ''']''', a ] from ], provides that any slave forced to worked on the ] be given freedom?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} ] (]) 12:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 13 June 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-13}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 24-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0151 -->

== Is "Peerage of Scotland" appropriate? ==

Please see:
* ]
Cheers, --] (]) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks. The extra texts besides being useless actually turn it into a subcategory of the former name rather than a synonym. ] (<small>]</small>) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 20 June 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-20}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 25-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0152 -->

== Duns Scotus article daftness ==

I note that up until today our ] article said he was born in Duns. However, there is now a discrepancy, with the article saying Ireland but the Infobox still saying Duns. Do you have any scholarly external refs, cos this is just the kind of inconsistency which makes the project look daft. Which, of course, it often is. --] (]) 10:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:Just spotted that a new user is responsible:
:*
:--] (]) 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

::Mistaken identity surely. Anyway, the Oxford DNB says "arlier long-held claims for 1274 as the date of his birth and Ireland as his country of origin cannot be sustained, and are no longer accepted" and that he was born at Duns in 1265-1266. ] ] 12:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks Angus. --] (]) 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:::: Presently looking out of the window at the cairn commemorating him at Duns would suggest that he was born here, or at least the Franciscan order believe that to be the case as of 1965ish. (cf. John Mair and ]) How to get verifiable folk memory eh, there's the twist!! ] (]) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:Angus appears to have sorted it: cheers Angus. ''Scotus'' meaning "Irish" is a rare archaism in Latin after the early 11th century, and after this point almost always means someone from Scotland or descended from such a person. ] (<small>]</small>) 15:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 27 June 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-27}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 26-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0153 -->

== Bishop move ==

] to ] ''(per ])'' please &#10013;''']]]''' 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 22:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::and also ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 12:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
:and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 21:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheers fella &#10013;''']]]''' 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:& ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::] to ] also please &#10013;''']]]''' 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 4 July 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-04}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 27-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 10:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0155 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 11 July 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-11}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 28-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0156 -->

=="Kings of Scotland" (legendary)==
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on handling the presumably fictitious early kings of Scotland/Dalriada: this is a practical DNB matter, in that certain biographies exist for them. ] is not the only example here, but it does have incoming links. Later today I'll be posting the "Eugenius I-VIII" biography at Wikisource, and it prompts me to think ahead to what should be the end result sought. In effect there is a list of these characters that could be created; the ODNB can be used as a reference to introduce historiographical remarks. So would it be best to create such a list and mainly redirect the names there? In other words have a single page discussing the fictional stuff, which would have links to articles about the actual historical characters. I can see this as being somewhat demanding to get right. But is that the best way? ] (]) 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:Those guys are objects of modern scholarship, and have historical significance for studies of late medieval and early modern Scotland. I'd be inclined to keep articles like this in as few places as possible anyway for management reasons. It's quite possible more people will add unworthy material to such articles than will monitor them, especially as some level of expertise would be needed for those monitoring. Articles such as ] or ] might be good models, though "Matter of Scotland" does not seem to be a well used historiographic term. ] (<small>]</small>) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a draft progressing in my userspace now. The situation about images isn't very satisfactory: but having tracked down your ''alter ego'' on Commons I see you know about that. There must be a series of engravings by ] (the four Ns being the DNB's idea, that article needs moving I guess); you presumably know in what form those were published. ] is from a different series? The website of the Royal Collection has images of a number of the paintings, and so far I have uploaded just one. There could be an image gallery for the list, but the ] style of thumbnail images within a table would require a lot more work. ] (]) 13:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Charles, please forgive the long interval from my last response, a result being on the road with poor internet access atm. It has been a while since I uploaded that, but the ] portraits are in the Great Gallery of Holyrood Palace. These are portraits of the Scottish kings from the legendary ones onwards. I have tried to find these online intermittently but haven't yet been successful. I presume if I searched hard enough in out-of-copyright books I'd find them, but haven't tried hard enough because of their limited historical value for historic kings as themselves. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

:Just tracked down your article, ], pretty wonderful stuff. I'll inform Angus Mclellan about this as (besides my own time constraints just now) this is his area of interest more than it is mine. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not yet done, of course: dates to add in particular. A couple of things where better references could help. Bede talks about a Reuda who is an interesting clue as to why Reutherus is there; but I didn't add anything, not having an explicit connection made. Also the reference to Edinburgh pageantry seems pretty interesting, would like to know more. ] (]) 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:There is a lot that can be added. Off the top of my head there's an entertaining account of the emergence of some of those kings in William Ferguson's ''The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest''. The early evolution of the king-lists and legendary Scottish origin accounts are reconstructed with meticulous detail in Dauvit Broun's ''The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots''. ] (<small>]</small>) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 18 July 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-18}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 29-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0157 -->

== More bishop moves ==

Please would you move ] to ]? Cheers &#10013;''']]]''' 18:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:Done. Sorry for the delay. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:] to ] also &#10013;''']]]''' 17:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::] to ] &#10013;''']]]''' 13:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:] to ] also please (the ECUSA bishops are proving a hefty job!) &#10013;''']]]''' 19:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::and ] to ] &#10013;''']]]''' 01:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 16:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Please would you also move ] to ]? &#10013;''']]]''' 08:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Done! ] (<small>]</small>) 22:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Cheers mate &#10013;''']]]''' 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Next, ] to ] and ] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:Did both, but ] has objected to the latter move so you'll need to take it up with him or initiate an RM. Regards, ] (<small>]</small>) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for the heads-up. I shan't bother with having an argument, it's not really worth it... &#10013;''']]]''' 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
] to ] please &#10013;''']]]''' 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

== Irish in York ==

Deacon, I recall seeing a post of yours somewhere in which you say it is likely the Norse were also using some of the Irish language in York. Is there any evidence for that? One would imagine that many members were multilingual and had to use Irish frequently. I think I remember reading in a paper that it was considered a language of culture by certain royalty in England at one point. Downham? ] (]) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think there are any Irish inscriptions or anything; we do know that Northumbria had Hiberno-Norse kings for most of the first half of the 10th century. Hudson in ''Viking Kings and Christian Princes'' talks a bit about this kind of thing. Regarding being a language respected by royalty in England, I don't recall reading an article about England, but Hudson has stuff that might be relevant too (e.g. "The Literary Culture of the Early Scottish Court") ... you might want to buy his ''Irish Sea Studies'' essay collection. Incidentally I recall from my own readings (don't remember if Hudson ever talks about it) that in '']'' ] was said to speak fluent Irish (as well as Scandinavian and Gallo-Romance). ] (<small>]</small>) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you. I think she is who I read about. And there was something to do with the royal family of Leinster (]) and the friends they had in England, whoever they were. For the Hiberno-Norse I really should give Hudson a try, when I haven't so far because some of his genealogical theories are poorly informed and he is not the best at citing his sources (I have read). But that doesn't mean there might not be areas in which he has greater expertise. Thank you for the recommendations. I have just checked the catalogue and they have them at the New York Public Library available for the main reading room. If and when I learn about that paper again I'll tell you. ] (]) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm assuming you're talking about the pre-Diarmait mac Murchada era? ] is an interesting guy. In some ways he gets the ball rolling on Norman involvement in Ireland, though in others he just continues the longer historic connections between the English north-west and Ireland. ] (<small>]</small>) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::::], quite the impressive figure. I have found the paper, which Brianann sent to me back in December, and forwarded it to the gmail address you had when we had our first fight. It is Clare Downham's "England and the Irish-Sea Zone in the Eleventh Century" in ''Anglo-Norman Studies 26'' and she discusses Diarmait's friendship with the ] at some length, pp. 65 ff, and mentions Edith's knowledge of Irish. The Arnulf of Montgomery story is certainly a strange episode. I didn't know our sources might be questionable until looking at the article. ] (]) 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for sending me that. Will be useful. Do you happen to know anything about the Ui Mail Doraids of Tyrconnell btw? As per usual in Irish topics there is little historical work, but hoping there might be something useful out there somewhere. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I do now and you're in luck. They, the O'Muldor(e)ys (Mulroy) (Ua/í Máel Doraid), were once eligible for the kingship of ], and appear to have provided a fair number, and so should be perfectly legitimate ]. For their official pedigree go to p. 164 (]), first line under Genelach Ceníuil Conaill. According to ¶804 on p. 137 their closest kin are the Ua Canannáin. ] gives their pedigree on p. 602 in his work, with the style "ancient Princes of Tirconnell." ] (]) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 25 July 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 30-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0158 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 01 August 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-08-01}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 31-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0161 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 08 August 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-08-08}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 32-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0162 -->

== A bit of a mess! ==

I think I may have messed up both ] and ] by moving the former to the latter! Somehow that's even though there was content on the latter page... Please could you help out with some de-moving and some history fiddling? If they could just go back to how they were before I moved the former, I can probably take it from there. Cheers! &#10013;''']]]''' 10:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:OK. I think I fixed it. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
::Cheers. All done. Legend. &#10013;''']]]''' 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== Just when you thought it was safe... ==

I've come across another tricky bishop move – would you please move ] to ]? &#10013;''']]]''' 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:56, 23 February 2013