This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.40.8.112 (talk) at 11:23, 24 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:23, 24 April 2006 by 86.40.8.112 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Calgacus is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages on March 28 |
Good work!
DYK
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bridei III of the Picts, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Bravo!
Respect regarding the immense amount of high quality work you have been doing recently on the Scottish history side. I was a bit sceptical at first, but I am slowly becoming more convinced by your approach. Some comments, very minor stuff, like: lack of Edit summaries (yeah, I know mine are a bit brief, but at least I do do them!), linking and cats. But hey, that's what Wikignomes are for, isn't it? The English vs actual naming issue is probably one that will have to be thrashed out somewhere sometime, but so far I think that you have been largely reasonable.
Misplaced Pages is not a job, it is a pleasant hobby, so nobody has any right to delegate responsibilities, but as you seem eminently qualified, may I request a new article:
... along the lines perhaps of Style of the British Sovereign, and probably some other articles.--Mais oui! 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Thoraldus: this was put up by a newbie recently. I have done minor Wikification, but what do you think?--Mais oui! 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
LOL, yes, I'm afraid that Copernicus' case is hopeless. I can hardly understand it. All encyclopedias have him as Polish, even the German ones. I don't mind writing his German name in the article as he lived in German speaking part of Poland, so it seems only natural (we do the same with other people giving their Lithuanian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian names; after all only about 1/3 of citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth spoke Polish as their mother tongue), but as you see it doesn't end revert wars.
Anyhow, thanks for trying and also solving the other problem so quickly. You're right. We'll do much better devoting our time to writing articles.--SylwiaS | talk 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow
The Jogaila "incident" got me involved in the weird and wild activities of this clique or camarilla of "editors" that are always pushing POV propaganda concerning their pet projects. Their tired old names and arguments span the entire timelime of what Misplaced Pages entails, and its a little disturbing. Take a look at the talk page of the German 17th Infantry Division, and tell me I'm off the mark (if I am). Dr. Dan 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sex Offender Category
Hi Calgacus. I have added a topic to the Graham Rix talk page regarding the Sex Offender category. I hope it is an accurate statement, and I wonder if you have anything to add. Cheers TigerShark 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Calgacus, I re-worded the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders to make it clear that local laws apply and each article will specify the crime and site sources. Comments? I also added my thoughts on Graham Rix --FloNight 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"of Poland" format
Hi Calcagus,
In reply to your question, please have a look at my last edit to the Polish rulers NC page: diff
No, I don't suppose that in the end we will have "of Poland" for all Polish monarchs. But we will have it at least for some.
Presently I tend to think that a single uniform solution for all Polish monarchs will not work, so I'm looking forward to reading your further contributions at finding the most appropriate solution for all of them. You gave a good start, so please continue the work!
Note that also outside Polish kings there are a lot of monarchs not in a "of <Country>" format, notwithstanding that that is generally the recommended format. --Francis Schonken 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Invitation
You are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. If my great work inspires you to come up with your own ideas for a sticker, T-shirt, poster, symbol, sign, etc., please let me know and I'll be happy to try to do my best for you. I will only turn down anything racial, anti-semitic, fascist and so on. Yours Truly, Space Cadet 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice article
Nice work on the Roman de Fergus article, man! I learned something and I enjoyed reading it. -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 05:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
High King of Ireland
Yeah, sorry about putting Robert I as High King of Ireland. I got confused between him and his brother. Rshu 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Please
Don't erase information on duration of Partitions of Poland. --Molobo 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Molobo, my loveliest darling; you have some good knowledge about history and such stuff. But are you not motivated by anything except Polish patriotism? Fair enough, you feel Poland gets misrepresented and all, but I look through all your recent edits, and almost every single one of them is a nationalistic POV push. Are you not also interested in the general world of knowledge? It seems to me a bit of a waste, as wikipedia could benefit so much more from your edits than it is currently doing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (response deleted from Molobo talk's page)
Watch your language in the future. --Molobo 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- What precisely about my language am I supposed to watch? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching your language lately, and that of some of you detractors as well. It seems whenever they lose an argument to you, a barrage of insults follow from the same camarilla of people. This is then followed by accusations that you are guilty of what they have been doing to you all along. I use to think it was a matter of their not understanding the English language and of the subtleties of humor and wit that you occaisionally employ. I think I know better now. By the way, an absurd rant recently directed at me by SylwiaS, seems to have been deleted by someone, because I can't find it any longer. Is it possible for parts of a discussion to be deleted without a trail of it being deleted to happen? Like by an administrator for example? Dr. Dan 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was wrong, I lost track of where this nonsense was posted. It has not been deleted, but remains on the talk page of German 17th Infantry Division. I personally do not understand how someone can write something so absurd and not be embarrassed to do so. I've had some issues with my emails, and will try to enable it shortly. My receptionist has jokingly told me I'm going to face a medical malpractice lawsuit if I don't get back to work, and off of the Misplaced Pages talk pages. It can get addicting. Dr. Dan 18:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Translation Request
I think the Gaelic wiki could do with articles corresponding to a lot of the great work youve put up. Do you mind if i have a dab at translating some of them and putting them up? Il be sure to reference the original and yourself as the author.
- Ive just finished the first translation - its of your section on Donald II of Scotland in Scotland in the High Middle Ages with some fleshing out from the main article. If there are any problems or suggestions id love to hear them.
Hi!
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Ksenon 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - and more
Hi, thanks for helping us get a notice board. I was wondering if you could perhaps help us on one more issue that I haven't yet been able to figure out. We want to display the flags of the countries that speak German along the left of the screen, and I've figured out how to get the To Do's box to display to the right of it in IE (in Modzilla and Firefox it seems to do that fine without further tweaking). Trouble is, when I do put in the code to place it to the right of the flags, and remove the TOC (which we want to do) then the flags run into the sections - or at least the section underlines. Would you have a suggestion on how to get the sections to start to the right of the flags, underneath the To Do's box? In the alternative, could you suggest who might be able to help us with that issue? Thanks already. --Mmounties 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like everyone's happy with your solution to our little problem and we're going to stay with it. :) Tanks again. --Mmounties 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom of Scotland
Good work on the "Scotland in the High Middle Ages", now I think a lot of that could be incorporated in the "Kingdom of Scotland" article, which I know you feel is a little bare on that period.
- I know it is a little bare in that period but I think we can get it up to featured article status, just my period is Early Modern and Modern Europe.
Scotland in the High Middle Ages
Nice one! SilkTork 01:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to leave a note saying how impressed I am by this article. Just out of curiousity, was this subject the topic for a postgraduate study you have done in Scottish History? You might also be interested in improving the pages Early Medieval Ireland 800-1166 and Norman Ireland and particularly with the Gaelic society aspect ofthe former, which has such a strong overlap with that of Scotland. Jdorney 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. If the Norman Ireland page has no glaring errors in it then I'd be reluctant to expand it too much as its long enough already. Do you think we should have a seperate page on the overall history of Ireland in this period?
The Early Christian era however badly needs a good narrative article. Its the only one in our template that still links to a section of the History of Ireland page rather than its own article. Likewise, the current early mdeieval one is not up to much currently. You might also be interested in having a look at the early medieval sections of the History of Ireland page. We don't want to expand this page (actually we're trying to cut it down to get it into a featured article state) but we do need accurate concise information and I'm a bit doubtful about some of these sections at present. I'm unfortunately very ignorant about medieval history as I mainly know about the early modern period and later. However, User:Fergananim has done a lot of biographical articles on medieval Irish figures and may be able to help.
Cheers Jdorney 02:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting points. As you probably know, mainstream Irish teaching of medieval history (and as far as I know, Irish historiography as well) focuses on periods defined by the Viking and Norman invasions rather than more general European periods, so its natural for the current articles to reflect this. I would certainly agree that the early medieval article currently focuses far too much on the Vikings and would have no problem with this being completely re-written. The Norman period though, post 1170 or so, does seem to me to constitute a real turning point in Irish history. At the same time, I would have no problem with an article that also covered Gaelic Ireland in greater depth. Would you prefer to overhaul and rename the existing Norman Ireland article or to keep it as a spereate compliment to hte main high medieval one? The later middle ages I would agree is a different period and should really have its own article, but I don't think any contributors around right now could write it.
Re the History of Ireland articles my preference would be for someone with good knowledge such as yourself to re-write the medieval sections without expanding them too much in terms of size. Would it be possible to do this first before writing the main articles?
I realise all this is a huge project to saddle you with btw! Just out of curiousity, given your interest in all things Gaelic, an bhfuil Gaeilge no Ghaedhilig agat? Jdorney 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Break
Know you are on break. Hopefully on an exotic vacation in a warm and sunny clime. When you get back, take a peek at the discussion page on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The whole thing is pretty easy to speed read, but I particlarly hope you can peruse the recent part from around the 15th thru 18th of this month. Dr. Dan 14:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The Polish-Lithuanian War talk page is a hoot too. Dr. Dan 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I never met you before at Wikiepdia but even if it was Molobo who lead you to the pages that I watch and edit, I think this is one of the most useful things he did for them. Please stay around. --Irpen 04:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I join my voice to Irpen's. I found your comments so helpful that inserted some of them into main space. Hopefully you don't mind. --Ghirla 10:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm...
I can understand that you are a bit peeved, but (and I really do mean this in a friendly way, although diplomacy is not my strong point) I really do think that you will advance your arguments better if you do not allow your opponents to obviously annoy you. I have a poor track record myself as far as this is concerned, so I speak from bitter experience: just ignore the sillier things and concentrate on powerfully advancing your argument. Please try to avoid personal references. Yours, hypocritically... --Mais oui! 16:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- PS you do know that you still have that Wikibreak template up? --Mais oui! 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll get rid of it. I'm afraid that, I'm cynical from experience. While I obviously take the wiki Good Faith thing seriously, I just know that with guys like that on ideologically sensitive issues like this, arguing is a waste of time. If they're gonna make an issue of a thing like this, it is virtually certain they have an axe to grind. They're gonna come up with a bunch of arguments - usually the "Visiting Ignoramus" argument - all of which are going to lead to their anti-Gaelic conclusion. Ultimately, that's always going to be the bottom line for them, so all the argumentation is a waste of time. Any good faith my cynicism leaves to remain goes when they start pretending they're neutral and that their opponents are POV. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a greater joy than a new anon user with an agenda?
I see youve come across this fellow User:84.135.230.40 as well. A quick look at his editing history pretty much says everything that need be said but i just thought id point out hes started a discussion on the Scots language discussion page which might be of interest/amusement. An Siarach
- Hey, I'll just respond here. I was actually going to give you a buzz about that guy, as I'm about to go on another wikibreak. I wish wiki would just ban anons on English wiki, they distract infinitely more than they create. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Retro junkies
What is the Gaelic name of Selkirk? there isnt a galeic name for selkirk, unless you boys make one up. face it gaelic wasnt spoken in the south, dont just make up words for places that have never had gaelic names
- Actually, you'd be surprised; there are early Gaelic names for places like Lindisfarne and Alnwick; and although Gaelic probably wasn't spoken by any majority of the population of the Selkirk area, it was spoken in nearby areas. But you gotta get it out of your head that placing the Gaelic name for an area is claiming it was once Gaelic. I've no interest in claiming that the border counties have always been as "Scottish" as Galloway or "Scotland-proper". That is not the purpose of those boxes; Scots was never spoken in most of the geographical area of Scotland, but it has a place in the box, because the template is designed for Scotland in general. Like it or not, Gaelic is used officially by the Scottish government and is the historical language of the Scots. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Calcagus, I appreciate your work very much. It can be very wearing to correct the lack of knowledge of Gaelic language and placenames through Scotland, and then be told that you are pushing a POV... Gaelicmichael 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Campaign to "Shire-ify" Scotland
Please see:
--Mais oui! 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Shire-ification campaigners targetting Template:Scotland counties too. --Mais oui! 09:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Signature, counties, Gaelic
- For some reason you managed to date, but not actually sign your last comment at Talk:Ross (area).
- Please check out the questions I left at Angus' Talk page re Subdivisions: User_talk:Angusmclellan#Counties_of_Scotland_-_Thanks.
- Finally, we would appreciate your input at Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Poll_on_Gaelic_and_Scots_names_in_the_2_standard_Infoboxes.
Many thanks in advance. --Mais oui! 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Gaelic: if all three of us switch our votes to Option 2 then perhaps we have a better chance of persuading Angus and some others that the otion should at least be available. Otherwise we lose the indigenous languages from the Infobox altogether. --Mais oui! 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ive switched my vote - might have jumped the gun a bit by not waiting for any consensus between us. An Siarach
Scotlandshire
This academic concept of Scotlandshire deserves some treatment. I have Googled for it (866 hits) but the first couple of pages have only come up with forums, song lyrics etc. Could you possibly start a stub on it, presumably to be categorised under Category:Scottish culture or Category:Scottish society? --Mais oui! 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Image uploads
Hello Calgacus. Thanks for uploading Image:Burghs1153.PNG and Image:Firstscotiantowns.PNG, but Misplaced Pages requires that all uploads be marked with a license. Since you are the creator, please add an appropriate tag, or the image will be deleted in a week. If you did not mark other images you uploaded, be sure to get those too. ~MDD4696 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ancient Celts
Hello. You may have heard of Wikijunior, and you may have not. Basically, the aim of this project is to produce a series of short (48 page) children's books, and there are three titles being worked on at the moment. One of these is an Ancient Civilizations book, including a page on Celts. I stumbled along it awhile ago, and basically had to delete everything, and never got around to replacing it all with real information. In my absence, no one else was able to contribute a single word. I'm going to start writing in it again, and hopefully make it a decent page. I know you're quite knowledgable in this area, and would appreciate any contributions you could make.Canaen 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bruce Wars in Ireland
I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 19:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, a mac. Actually, I have Duffy's book, along with some other deeply relevant articles and books. As I seem to be improving, healthwise, and am annoyed enough at the original article, I think I might actually now do it and a Bruce wars thing. Is what I done okay so far? P.S. Any more new articles I can read? Thanks again Fergananim 20:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Władysław II Jagiełło
What's monstrous about this? It's one-sidedly Polish, but is there anything else wrong with it? Septentrionalis 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your unexplained revert of Richmondshire on the Norse-Gaels article
All Viking-era maps and atlases display their colonisation of the land which became Richmondshire. IP Address 21:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for reacting belligerently to your first revert. I also wish you had addressed my questionable edit via talk page at the outset. IP Address 07:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Still, no word from you that would bring about change. You go straight back to revert warring. How quaint. IP Address 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's leave it in the past. Angus sure has a feel for things. IP Address 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Re. wasting my time
BTW, Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło#Individual items was Pmanderson's initiative, not mine. And I think it a good one (even better than mine). Polish cabal or not, let's try to get thing going. No use to stay at the side an moan. As long as Jimbo doesn't intervene (and frankly, the chances he would intervene at Jagiello's page are rather small, but maybe he does one day against cabals) you're as important as Jimbo. The same goes for me, etc, and I love it. --Francis Schonken 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Alt Clut, Strathclyde,Cumbria
I was aimlessly browsing while waiting on the oven warming up. Hmm, all of a sudden there are actual historical articles on kings of Alt Clut. Seems like I'll need to try and read MacQuarrie's stuff. I'll have a proper read through them later and maybe tweak one or two (Archie Duncan changes his mind on the Cumbrian kingship in The Kingship of the Scots). Having read and digested them, I'll then get back to Kingdom of Strathclyde. And after that, back to SitEMA. By the way, the Norwegian gentleman who made a fine job of translating SitHMA was talking about writing an article on Scandinavian Scotland as I recall. I wonder if he'd be interested in translating it for use here. Have a good weekend. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The newer Duncan book is not bad at all, and very good indeed on the 1286-1292 period. He disagrees with Hudson on Moray, but their accounts are not so far apart. However, it isn't worth the outrageous cover price unless you've got money to burn.
One quick question. How did you manage to persuade the Stanford library site to cough up the Brut from the Rolls Series ? Ten minutes of back and forward and I'm no nearer to finding the right place to search.Inevitably, no sooner had I saved this than I got it at last. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"Maelcoluim, son of the k. of the Cumbrians" after Duncan. p. 38, Siward invades in 1054, "making king Maelcoluim, son of the king of the Cumbrians" (Malmesbury), Duncan says: "Here Macbeth is not killed (that must have been been W. of M.'s misunderstanding), and there is no claim that M was made king in Macbeth's place." A page or two more on what Siward didn't do, whose fault it all is that everyone is confused (Fordun's), and so on. Then on p.41 he says
Maelcoluim of Cumbria was presumably a son of Owen the bald or an unrecorded successor, excluded from his father's kingship in Strathclyde by a Scottish king after 1018, and restored by Siward in 1054 after the defeat of Macbeth. His name had been borne by a C10th Strathclyde king, and might have been repeated as a complement to MII, who surely dominated that kingdom. It is true that this leaves us ignorant of not only what happened after 1018 in Strathclyde, though it was clearly part of Macbeth's kingdom by 1054, but also of what became of M. king of Cumbrians after 1054. In fact the Scottish king seems to have intervened in the Strathclyde succession more than once in the C10th, but the record is fragmentary and obscure, and its absence between 1018 and 1054 should not surprise us. MIII could well have swallowed the kingdom of Strathclyde again after 1058, for he certainly controlled in in 1070 when he invaded England from the west.
On p. 48 he summarises the Siward/Cumbrian Maelcoluim/Macbeth/Maelcoluim III stuff. And that's it. The one source he mentions, apart from GWSB, Annals, and so on, is C. Phythian-Adams, Land of the Cumbrians (Aldershot, 1996). HTH. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser
I've completed your CheckUser request; Bluegold was indeed engaging in sockpuppetry (full results on WP:RFCU). Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Bluegold got shitted on, I'm not Bluegold, a bit of fun turned sour, but I didn't make the judgement! 83.71.68.11 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Got your message, just some minor edits, hope is alright, not SP