User talk:Celtus/Archives/2008/March

Family Articles

I know we have had our arguments in the past, but that is the past, and now I need your help so that it doesn't happen again. :) Below on the Furse (Surname) part of your page, you told them to create a Furse Family article. Well, I am going to create a Kincaid-Lake Family article, and would like your help so that I don't do anything wrong. Your input is welcomed! PLEASE help! Thanks so much. Rbkl (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rbkl. I'm not an admin or anything, just so you know. But if you want your article to survive you have to prove its notability with independent sources that can be verified by others. Look at this Wikipedia:Notability, and these Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research. And this Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.--Celtus (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Celtus! I will. :) Rbkl (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Furse (Surname)

Please note that this article had been okay-ed by at least two administrators so please refrain from what looks for all the world like the persuit of a petty personal vendetta against me. I can't imagine what you have against the article nor why you insist that family shouldn't be recorded here. Perhaps you can explain? Showjumpersam (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Showjumpersam. The article (like the other surname articles just click on the category) lists people on wikipedia with a certain surname. It is not about your family history. Like i explained to you before on your talkpage though you never responded, WP:NOT#DIR wikipedia is not for publishing genealogical entries. If someone is notable write up an article about them, and then you can add that name to the list. Taking edits personal, crying "petty vandalism", throwing around insults and applying for vandalproof doesn't solve anything.--Celtus (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's not about my family history. It is an history I and others have researched however, independently of one another. If it were my family history, as a professional scientist at the University of London, I would appear in it. I didn't respond on my own talk page because I do not feel your entry created the right tone either for me or for wikipedia -- so responded on your talk page instead. I am not "throwing around insults", merely attempting to state truths that clearly were less than comfortable. As you can see this article was never an attempt to be for personal or any other glorification, an entry of historical interest referring to the Landed gentry in England, and so the family as well as individual members are notible. I am sorry if the article does not please you, I hadn't meant to upset anyone, only make some scholarship available. Please note that at least two administrators have okay-ed this article as I have edited it and so I am confident that it does not infringe wikipedia policy. My vandalproof application was nothing to do with your edits -- more to do with vandalism I have seen on other pages I have edited, e.g. Prince Albert (piercing) that involve vandals deleting parts of articles and replacing with expletives, which I don't find acceptable. If you have any further questions about any of the above please do ask. Showjumpersam (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All your edits are just adding "family history" which has no part in this particular article, or even in wikipedia. Because you don't seem to want to actually create an actual article on this family it is almost like are trying to weasel it into this article. Family information doesn't belong on this page (Did you click on the surname category?). How about starting a Furse family article? Then it could be added to the disambig page?--Celtus (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the history of the page is a bit more complicated than that. I started the Furse page as a way of bringing a number of notable people, some of whom already have in-depth articles devoted to them (e.g. Dame Katharine Furse), together so that scholars can be sure fo the common link without needing to repeat leg work by myself and others. I added the history to demonstrate this commonality and also because it is of interest for itself: they share a single male ancestor (Robert Furse, that mentioned in the Domesday book), as I understand all Furses across the world do, but more because the history of that family and what happened with their property provides an enclcyopedic reference to some of effects of the industrial revolution in England outside of the more resources-rich north, and some of the human and political consequences that surrounded the decisions they made as a result of it. I daresay the former aspect could be made clearer, and the latter expanded, and I shall endeavour to do those. There are also people (especially Americans) whose link to the family cannot be proved formally though have reached note in their own right and so are mentioned, but this also serves to clarify whether or not a link exists. So this article partly served to join up those of notoriety with the same name as well as provide a description of their common history.

Someone wanted to disambiguate that Furse from the name for Gorse and from the American ship of the same name -- not unreasonable in my view -- and so Furse (surname) was created for what I had written and the disambiguation page used for their usual purpose. The article was again changed to Furse (family and surname) a short time later for reasons I can't remember though of course that has now been revoked. I understand your suggestion of a separate article for the shared history, though two articles for topics that are sides of the same coin might be going too far? I can see your logic for suggesting it, but based on wikipedia policies I think administrators and other editors might see that as over-doing it, cheifly because the Furses are all related (more or less) and so anyone looking them up would find it more convenient to look on the same 'central' page I should think. I'll see if I can tinker with the structure of the article a bit to make it clearer. I am currently researching the Furses in more depth and can add relelvant points and join it up with the members listed in as far as is appropriate (i.e. as concisely as possible if at all). Does this answer your questions? As I say please do get in touch if not or if you can think of any angles I have not covered. Many thanks Showjumpersam (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, you have perfectly described an article that is pure genealogy, apparently wikipedia doesn't allow that. Thats the whole thing. Since several people seem to be closely related then explaining that would be encyclopaedic - but when you start outlining descents and lineages, the "North Devon Records Office" and links to genealogy websites.. you have left the realms of an encyclopaedia and have stumbled into someone's family tree. How can you not see that? Though i noticed there is an Category:English families category, have you seen that?--Celtus (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Furse (surname)

In this edit, why did you delete the Category:Surnames I added to the article? Your edit summary "removed genealogical entry" does not explain what is wrong with having that category in the article. Unexplained removal of content does not seem constructive. I notice another editor has already reverted your edit. Please reply here (I'll watch your talk page). Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neparis. Here's your edit: [1] - you placed "Category:Surnames". My edit reverted the article to its original form which had "Category:English surnames". The edit summary refered to removing the previous editor's family history and restoring the article to its original form which was a list of people with the surname.--Celtus (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Category:English surnames is more specific, so it should be used instead of Category:Surnames. Thanks, Neparis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 233 Squadron RAF

On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 233 Squadron RAF, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Congrats on making the lead item :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request

On 18 September 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Clan MacAulay. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 428 Squadron RCAF, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard

Glad to see that you joined the Anthroponomy wiki project. We need all the help we can get. Feel free to focus on the Scottish name articles, since you seem to be interested in these. Once again, thanks for joining. Remember (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. :)--Celtus (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

crest badge

You Wrote Hi Eva bd, i was hoping someone knowledgeable on heraldry could you look over an article i just made. This one here -> Scottish crest badge, please if you could, would you look it over and possibly correct any mistakes, poor wording or whatever? Thanks.--Celtus (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look later today. Thanks for the great addition to the heraldic knowledge base here. Well done.--Eva ^bd 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks good to me. --Heraldic (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On February 22, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MacCrimmon (piping family), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done! You have earned the pictured slot. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Macrimmons

Congrats on an excellent article and a great DYK. It had been irritating me for ages that there wasnt an article on this topic and id intended to get round to starting one myself eventually but im very happy to see you beat me to the punch! siarach (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrer (Family)

Dear Celtus,

good points concerning sources and your precision in interpreting their significance and limitations - keep up the good work. :-)

However, I fail to understand your essentially undoing the Ferrer (Family) article; no "dodge" is intended, simply that it seems to me that you are writing a precise article about a multinational surname, while you, StuartStewart and an anonymous user seem to be in a trench war about what appears to me to be essentially a family article. I have no intention of standing in the way of the trench war, the democratic right to which I wholeheartedly support; but it seems to me to be beneficial to have the surname article on its own. Thus, no dodge - only clarification.

You are quite correct that these are my first edits; I do hope I haven't bungled anything? (Forgive my asking, but everything looked fine to me after having checked the how-to pages and previewed my edits before saving them.)

One more point: someone, possibly an administrator, has apparently felt the need to specify on the discussion page the following guidelines: - Be polite - Assume good faith - No personal attacks - Be welcoming

I think they would be beneficial to the ongoing discussions; and having noticed that you have added the same guidelines to your talk page, am I correct in assuming that you agree with me on this perspective?

Kind regards,

Jeanarmand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanarmand (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WPSI Collaboration

WikiProject Scottish Islands: Collaboration of the Month Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clan MacLachlan

I read and approved the GA request, and added a few suggestions.Wuapinmon (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Hello, Celtus, I see that you have Werdnabot set up to archive your talkpage. I do as well, but, it has not archived my talk page since early January. Is the bot no longer working? Or, have I done something incorrectly? I do not recall changing the template, though that does not mean it did not get damaged at some point. Any thoughts you have on the matter would be appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmmmm... quite aggravating. Well, I suppose I can just do it myself. Thanks for your reply. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, apparently, Werdnabot is no more. I noticed the "howto" link was suddenly a redlink, went to the page, and see that it was deleted just today. I appreciate all the notice we were given about it. D'oh! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Clan Mackinnon

What a fantastic job you have done on Clan Mackinnon, if I may respectfully say so. I don't suppose you'd be prepared to have a go at Clan Mackenzie, by any chance? (One hardly knows where to begin.) 45ossington (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll read up on the Mackenzies.--Celtus (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

A suspected sockpuppetry case you listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/StuartStewart has been dealt with and closed. Thought you might like to see the outcome. _GB^T/C 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Celtus (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Celtus,

having just seen the ruling concerning the case, I would like to express once more my appreciation of a most gentlemanly exchange. I fully accept and agree that whatever the circumstances, my action did constitute a breach of policy, and I have no intention of reoffending. However, given the fact that I now have a sockpuppetry case in my past - as well as apparently indelible, although quite incorrect, accusations of "nonsense" etc. attached to my writings - I would very much like to perform a clean start under a new name. Since my writing style is somewhat characteristic ;-) , and since at least some of my writings would concern articles/subjects I have touched upon before, I would hope to be able to make such a clean start without being suspected of sockpuppetry once more - for which reason I find it only proper to advise you beforehand of these deliberations. I would appreciate your views in this respect.

Kind regards, StuartStewart (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i understand its up to you. Its no problem at all, and i won't cause a scene. I'm glad you have decided to stay with the project. I've started a little blurb on two Anglo-Norman Ferrers families (see: User:Celtus/sandbox 3).--Celtus (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Celtus, thank you for your feedback. :-) And my compliments on your Anglo-Norman research - it covers the Ferrières angle very well indeed!! An incidental point: I have taken the liberty of archiving the anonymous entry ("nonsense"), thus ensuring its permanent accessibility while also making sure that its less than desirable tone and style is not the first impression readers get of how (not) to engage in discussions. Naturally, I have in no way touched your comments - they are extremely pertinent and relevant and, I believe, not only cover but expand the points made by the anonymous user. This was the best solution I could think of to a (minor, I admit) problem that nevertheless keeps nagging me. I hope you find the archiving acceptable; if you disagree, I shall of course stand corrected and accept an undo. Kind regards, StuartStewart (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No disagreements on my part.--Celtus (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)