User talk:Rcpaterson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Welcome[edit]

Hello Rcpaterson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thankyou for contributing your knowledge to the Covenanter article. However, instead of simply inserting a contradiction into the text, which interrupts the flow and makes the article confusing, please try to re-word what is already written to reflect the correct info. Don't worry about annoying anybody by changing text, Wikipedia is a collaboration! I have tried to merge your contributions into the text of the Covenanter article, please have another look and change it further if you don't like the way I worded things. In fact, the whole Covenanter article is pretty patchy, so the more you can contribute the better!

Have a look at How to edit a page for more, and at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia for background. Please don't take this advice the wrong way, I do hope you decide to stay and contribute. Regards, ::Supergolden:: 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you-I most certainly have not taken your points the wrong way. However I note that corrections and amendments made on the discussion page sometimes appear to be ignored. A case in point is the article on the battle of Flodden, which contains some gross inaccuracies. I am sorry to be a nuisance but once again I have taken the liberty of highlighting these on the text. I would suggest that this section is best removed altogether, but I did not want to do this without saying why.

Raymond Campbell Paterson

Yes, comments are sometimes ignored. As Supergolden says, the right approach is simply to correct the statements, even if that turns them on their heads or removes them entirely. Then jump over to the talk page and explain yourself, if you think it's necessary. And welcome, from one of the other R. Pat[t]ersons out here :-) RossPatterson 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce and Balliol[edit]

Hello ! Thanks for your efforts to try and tidy up some of the misinformation about the Great Cause, they're much appreciated. I see that you are well informed on the period. Would you be able to write anything on some of the earlier Comyns ? Earl Walter in particular, if you had the information, as he was a very important man in his day. We don't have an article on Alan Durward either, another depressing gap in coverage. A question: would you be the same Raymond Campbell Paterson whose book on the Lords of the Isles I have ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To answer to your last question first, yes, I am.

I'm glad you appreciate my efforts to straighten out some errors and misconceptions. I've being doing this elsewhere in Wikipedia, not just with the Great Cause. Unfortunately, there seem to be a great many elementary mistakes in the treatment of Scottish history! I've only recently discovered Wikipedia, and my labours are nothing more than the casual pastime of an insomniac, drawing on an existing store of knowledge. The kind of work you suggest would obviously require a much more serious commitment, and I'm not really sure if can give the required amount of time. I will, however, give your suggestion some serious thought. Very best wishes. Rcpaterson 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I'm lucky enough to spend most of my working hours waiting for things to go wrong, more or less. So I have a fair bit of free time for editing. Writing things from scratch is much harder than revising something already written. My earlier comments should be read as humble suggestions, if not presumption. I appreciate that you'll have better things to do ! If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please do leave me a message. Best regards and good luck with whatever it is you're working on at the moment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

Our discussions have convinced me that you're pretty solid on history, but the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability means that we have to cite sources both to allow checking by others, and to show that it's not an opinion or original research. These policies and guidelines are rather daunting and in my experience can take a while to get to grips with, but they've been hammered out to properly resolve disputes and difficulties. In the context of history I'd expect it to be second nature to have reliable sources, and the system now shown at Wikipedia:Footnotes makes it pretty easy to have links in the text to a list of footnotes which appear at the bottom. This is something my earlier articles lack, but it was very useful at Catherine Cranston where different sources were giving parts of a patchwork.

Speaking of sources, my "history of Scotland for beginners" type books give no credence to claims of a treaty with France and Norway signed by William I, but something more authoritative would be very useful. It's unfortunate when people with, for example, an exaggerated anti-British agenda try to force their viewpoint on an article, but the policies give solid grounds for requiring proper substantiation. It's pretty easy to change back to an earlier version by clicking the history tab, clicking on the date of the undamaged version, then when that version shows clicking on the edit tab, show a reason in the summary line then save page. The problem is that this can lead to an edit war, and it's important not to break the WP:3RR rule, but there are procedures for resolving such disputes, and solid evidence should prevail. On the most contentious subjects (see evolution!) it can seem a labour of sisyphus rather than hercules, but there are plenty of good people who will help with the aim of getting good articles rather than conforming to an agenda. ..dave souza, talk 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I've brought Auld Alliance back to a tolerable if not terribly informative state, and will watch out to stop nonsense from being added: see also Talk:Church of Scotland#Scots, Bishops and Kings. Do let me know if there are any other articles you'd like me to keep an eye on. ..dave souza, talk 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the Lord of the Isles bit above. It reminded me to hunt out Wikipedia:No original research#Expert editors which is rather relevant: "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." Worth reading the whole brief section. The Lords of the Isles seem to have fought William I, which rather undermines the idea that he had signed a treaty with Norway (as well as France), though obviously you know a lot more about that than I do .. ..dave souza, talk 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Monastery, Regensburg[edit]

One article I have done some work on which has a Scottish history element is Scots Monastery, Regensburg; it would be good if you could cast an eye over it. --Doric Loon 09:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II[edit]

Yeah, I'm not fully familiar with the Irish situation. It also wouldn't surprise me if the royalists proclaimed Charles II. The ODNB entry on Charles (I don't have access to any books at the moment), doesn't mention it specifically, but does imply it, as does the article on the Duke of Ormond (I'm not sure what other figures would be useful to look at in this context). Of course, Dublin was not under the control of the royalists. The main difference between Scotland and Ireland is that in Scotland Charles was proclaimed by the hard-line Argyllist covenanters, who were the most anti-royalist faction in the country. He was only deposed due to, essentially, the military conquest of Scotland by the English. In Ireland, on the other hand, Charles was proclaimed (assuming he was proclaimed) only by one of several factions in an ongoing civil war, with the other main faction, which controlled the capital, rejecting his accession. john k 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenanters[edit]

Good work on this page. I think part of the problem stems from the fact that this article comes largely from the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911 - not really the best source considering more recent research. It would be great if you could back up your edits with some reliable sources or references (see WP:CITE). Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the Covenanters, wasn't there a secular "national" element to the National Covenant as well as a religious one? I don't have the books to hand right now, but I think I remember reading (maybe in David Stephenson's Scottish Revolution, I'm not sure) that the Covenenters of this era also demanded better trading rights for Scotland and more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Do you know anything aboutt this, and if so do you thinks it is worth including it in the article? Jdorney 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, it's a perennial probelm on wikipedia. Do you include enough information to be comprehensive (which will also generally have the advantage of discouraging people from adding rubbish) or do you make it short and easy to read for someone who knows nothing about the topic. In theory of course you want to do both, but its very difficult to do. Take the Cromwell article. When I first did a little bit of work on it it was a short, impressionistic article, but I felt, useful for the first time reader. Since then though, so many people have added information, some better than others, that I think it needs to be re-written with detailed facts in all its sections to leave the reader with a clear picture.

That's interesting about the Scottish Parliament though. Did the politics of the Covenanter era have any permanent effect on the Scottish Parliament before its abolition in 1707? Were Scots elected to the British Parliament more likely to be Whigs or Tories? Or did this reflect poticial/religious divisions? Jdorney 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's interesting. What way did they split over the Home Rule issue?

Jdorney 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Unionism[edit]

Thank you for your replies, I hope you don't mind if I ask one more question. What factors caused Scottish whigs to line up on different sides over the question of Irish Home Rule? Was this a reflection of differeing ideas over Scotland's consitutional status? Or was it based on differing reactions to Irish catholic immigration? Or was it imperialist v radical (as in England, as I understand it). Or all or none ofthe above? I'm very curious about why an Irish issue would be divisive in 19th century Scotland. Again, sorry for bombarding you with all these questions,

Incidentally, I think the Covenanter article should have a small paragraph concerning some of the information on its importance in the evolution of the Scottish Parliament etc. Jdorney 23:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your replies. Interesting stuff. Jdorney 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Glenshiel[edit]

OK thanks Thruston 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Isles[edit]

Concerning the Sommerled article: Might I suggest that "Lord of the Isles" was always suspicious to me, given the power/title of "Rex/Regis." Basically for diplomatic representation, someone who accepted "Dominus/Lord" as a title would be accepting a subordinate relationship with the local monarchs, automatically weakening your negotiation abilities for everything. Those few that took "Dominus" as a title were usually monarchs who held smaller territories, most famously the British monarchs. "So {monarch}, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland and France, Prince of Wales, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Anjou, etc." Lord of the Isles always struck me as a bit of poetic and pretension added by heralds later. They probably styled themselves Kings if they were independently soverign. Did they claim fealty to either Scotland or Norway, if so Dominus might make sense. Let me know if that sound feasible. (PS:If you think Scottish History is loaded with crap, try Irish or history between Patrick and uh, now. Cheers. V. Joe 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: Thanks again for the kind attention. Would that make the Lord of the Isles roughly equal to a Duke, Count or Earl Palatine? Thanks again V. Joe 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John MacDonald of the Isles[edit]

Feel free to make any changes you wish to the article - being the (initial) author of an article on wikipedia does not allow anyone special rights or priviliges to it though i appreciate your courtesy. You are obviously far more knowledgable than i am on the area ( me simply being an orientalist with, as an islander, a general interest in the Lordship of the Isles ) and anything ive contributed has been based on the 3 or so rather general books i have glanced through. Its great to finally have somebody active within the scottish wikipedia community with a specific expertise in the history of the Isles and i look forward to reading your future contributions. siarach 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressed with your expansion of the article - it is now an excellent and very detailed piece. siarach 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject![edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverkeithing[edit]

Very good work, as usual. I have put in some minor additions lke the standard battlebox and have fleshed out the intro. One question, do we know what the English casualties were like on the day? Jdorney 10:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass of Brander[edit]

I was working to create this article which you appear to have deleted. Rcpaterson 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained only a rephrasing of the title, which is a criteria for speedy deletion. If you want to create the article by parts, it might be a good idea to use a sandbox as a subpage of your user page, or use the {{inuse}} template. --cesarb 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had already written an article on the Battle of Culblean in much the same fashion. Your action has caused me to loose a good two hours work. I am relatively new to this project and have been spending much time eliminating a great many errors in my area of expertise, and rephrasing badly written articles. It is only now that I am beginning to work up items from nothing. I am still unclear why you effectively sabotaged my work before I had a chance to finish. I will certainly think twice before I waste my time in this fashion in future. Have you nothing better to do?
Rcpaterson 02:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else had tagged it for deletion as being empty; I was just cleaning the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. To someone cleaning the category, it looked like nothing more than a newbie test (some newbies create articles that are nothing more than a rephrasing of the title, and these articles are useless; that's why there's the A3 criteria). The tagging caused it to appear on the category; it's done by some wikipedians who patrol the Recent changes feed, and last time you just got lucky that none of them noticed the article. They cannot delete the articles, so they tag them, and several times a day an admin checks all the pages on the category and delete the ones that match the criteria. But I'm curious: couldn't you just use the back button to recover the text, copy it, open a new edit session, and paste it? --cesarb 02:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't find it. As far as I am aware it is completely gone. I recently joined the military history group. There are a number of red article requests, and the two I worked on were both there, in that part concerned with the Scottish Wars of Independence. I simply took the red headline and started to work from that. The Culblean piece was fine-though it took two sessions to finish. You know what happened to my efforts on the Battle of the Pass of Brander; and I have to stress once again that I had been writing for well over an hour.
Rcpaterson 03:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that; I had no way of knowing it would happen. I'd guess it gave you an error when trying to save, saying the article had been deleted; when that happens, it doesn't save anything (the only thing that's possible to undelete is your original adding of the title to the page, and two revisions where the deletion request was added). The best way to recover from that would be to use the back button to recover the text (some older browsers, unfortunately, do not support that; when going back, they erase the text), copy the text, and click in the redlink again (pasting the text afterwards). Some more experienced wikipedians with older browsers copy the text to a text editor window before trying to save or preview (to avoid losing it if the whole site goes down, which unfortunately happens more often than it should).
I don't understand why you needed to first create the article containing only its title and only then do the real editing; wouldn't it be better to create the article already with the rest of the content? That would avoid the misunderstanding, since it would only be saved already with more than just the title.
Again, sorry for inadvertently making you lose hours of work.
--cesarb 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice board[edit]

You and I did not get off to a very good start, but may I extend the hand of friendship and welcome you aboard the (usually) fine ship Wikipedia. Reason (excuse) for my arsedness is that I just tend to avoid Talk page discussions (arguments) - you will find that you waste far too much time talking, at the cost of doing.

If you are not aware of their existence yet, please take a keek at:

In a hurry now, but just like to say that I still, kind of, disagree with your expulsion of all references to Norway from the Auld Alliance page. I will explain later if you like.

By the way, what exactly is the problem with autodidacts? I am clearly in some very fine company indeed:

(My private school and fine university must surely take some of the credit/blame too.) --Mais oui! 08:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, you are clearly not in a conciliatory mood, which is of course your prerogative. Fairy Nuff. Anyway, I certainly hope that if we are not going to be best chums then at least we can be civil and professional, cos it looks like we are both very keen on this ambitious endeavour called Wikipedia, and esp the Scotland-related bits.
As you have done such a sterling job at Union of the Crowns, could you please, please take a look at the Acts of Union 1707 article. I consider it to be utterly appalling, but it has been rather "sat" upon by some ill-informed people. With your authority as a proper historian, perhaps we can get a decent article out of the topic: an absolutely key one in not only European, but probably world history. --Mais oui! 08:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status - Scotland[edit]

Hi, sorry for the long delay and lack of response about your concerns about the article on Scotland and its GA status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Scotland that you raise here in May. I was cleaning up the disputes page and archiving discussion when I noticed that your concerns haven't been responded too. Do your concerns still exist with the article, I noticed you have been active in editing and discussions on the article since raising your concerns.. Please respond on the original discussion linked above, thank you Gnangarra 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles etc[edit]

Good work. I can't be of much help however, as medieval history is not something that I know anything much about. I must say though the articles on the Irish theatre of these wars have been annoying me for some time. The Faughart article is woeful and someone started the Irish Bruce Wars 1315-1318 article but never finished it. Sloppy stuff. Jdorney 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domhnall/Donald of Mar et al[edit]

I can't say I have any information on the man at all. I think you can't go wrong to follow your instinct here, not least because your work is a century more up to date than the stuff that informed the original Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 articles !

I generally followed the books I have, however illogical their choice of Gaelic or Angloform names has been, relying on date of publication to settle disagreements. The only exception has been Pictish kings, where I have preferred Gaelic names to Pictiform ones where I felt it was reasonable to do so. We'll find out soon enough whether the new Edinburgh University Press histories agree with me on the Picts. For Dál Riata, it seemed odd to refer to people there by anglicised names when all other (culturally) Irish people from the same era are called by the Gaelic names; a meeting between Aedan I of Dalriada and Áed mac Ainmuirech would be rather strange, as would a discussion of Donald the Freckled and Congal Cáech. I don't agree with Calgacus's naming of the kings of Dumbarton and Strathclyde, but I don't disagree enough to change them. As for motivations, I have no idea. I'm not a Gaelic-speaker myself, nor do I have any inclination to learn and I can't say I feel any strong emotional tie to the Gaelic past. I'd be inclined to think it was part of the general move away from anglicisations in history (if only the French would do the same).

If there's anything else you need, let me know ! Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle tags[edit]

Great work on improving those articles! It's definitely something that's badly needed in this area of Wikipedia.

As far as battles for which we can't write decent articles are concerned, I would at least create a redirect from that title to the relevant war article; that way, if by some chance someone does search for that name, they'll at least get some meaningful context. Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenanters again[edit]

Timotheus4 took issue with the Final Paragraph, and on looking into it a bit it seemed that there were many after effects which needed a mention, so I've expanded that into a new section. The reference to the aim being to deny freedom to everyone else has been toned down and related to their current terms of communion, but this is skating rather close to a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position without a reference to someone actually making that argument. I'd be grateful if you could point to such a reference, and give my edits to Covenanter a look to make sure I've not repeated some ghastly common error. ... dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, I've commented on my talk page. .. dave souza, talk 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cause[edit]

Thanks for taking up my suggestion that the Wars of Independence article be split - I shall look forward to reading the results. To be honest, I was amazed at the state some of the Scots history articles were in when I started to read them. Although they seem to be largely accurate the organisation is very poor, with relevent information on any given topic scattered over a wide variety of different articles.

Anyway, to get to the point I was thinking of rewriting the Great Cause article myself, but I'd be more than happy for you or someone else to do it if you've got the time. I'm not a serious student of Scots history (I'm not even Scottish) - I just have an amateur interest in the life of Robert the Bruce - so I'm sure someone better informed would do a better job. So let me know if you think you can find time to do it on top of the Wars of Independence and I'll leave well alone! MattDP 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've done the Great Cause. Thanks for the links you sent me - your article on the Battle of Verneuil proved especially interesting.

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006[edit]

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bannockburn[edit]

Thanks for the pointer to the Union of the Crowns article, very interesting.

Ironically, before I went on to do the Great Cause I'd planned to do a major expansion of the Battle of Bannockburn article, but I see you've beaten me to it! I'll confine myself to adding a few extras that you've not seen fit to cover.

I feel compelled to add that on the basis of those two articles I think your writing style is excellent. Formal enough to be suitable for Wikipedia but retaining a quirky and readable quality. MattDP 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Union of the Crowns[edit]

Not sure I am too much help here Ross, I am not familiar enough with the subject to edit this article with any confidence. If you think its going to be a problem you could list it in the "Pages prone to POV pushing" section of the Scottish Notice-board, or mention it on the discussion page there to get the attention of a broader group, although I see other editors are now involved. ::Supergolden:: 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second War of Scottish Independence[edit]

Hello. I noticed your merge request on the above. There is already a seperate article on the First War of Scottish Independence, whereas the Second War of Independence only appears as a cursory sub-section in the Wars of Scottish Independence item. I had, in fact, already announced my intention of writing a seperate piece on the talk page of the latter. It would, of course, be possible to expand this entry; but that would risk making it very long indeed. However, I would rather not continue writing if there is to be any fuss, and would prefer to abort the whole enterprise. I will remove the label and category box you have put on this; but if you feel strongly about it let me know and I will discontinue my work.Rcpaterson 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, write whatever you feel like. But please don't expect mergeto or cleanup/stub notices to go away until the article can stand on its own. The notices are really just reminders to other editors to tidy things up should you fall off the face of the Earth mid-way through your work and it never gets submitted = P. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on the rewrite, sorry about the delay in replying - lot on my plate recently. I have to disagree with you - I think it's an excellent article. I feel considerably better informed having read it. MattDP 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Desperate Plea[edit]

Rcpaterson, I come to you with a desperate plead for help.

Recently, a user called WangFeiHung has repeatedly added communist, POV comments on the Anson Chan pages, alleging that she, along with the British Administration of Hong Kong at the time, brutalizing Hong Kong people. When me and another user reverted the edits in accordance with the NPOV practices, he called me and the supporters of my actions "Nazis". I am extremely offended by these comments. As a person who lived in Hong Kong, and a person whose parents lived with the horrors of the leftist riots in Hong Kong during the 1960's, I am deeply offended by the action of WangFeiHung.

As far as I know, Wikipedia has not turned into Maoistpedia, so why are we tolerating these extremely POV comments? WangFeiHung's foisting of an extremist political agenda is counterproductive for Wikipedia and will ultimately harm Wikipedia's reputation permanently. As a loyal Wikipedian, I cannot even imagine the consequences. Wikipedia was established with a mission to "create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality". If we are to build Wikipedia into a respectable institution and allow it to serve its mission, we must prevent extremist edits, such as the ones made by WangFeiHung, from seeing the day of light.

Rcpaterson, I hope you can help me defend Wikipedia's reputation and its mission by speaking with an admin, with the ultimate goal of banning WangFeiHung from editing for a certain period of time. Wikipedia is an institution, and it has great potentials. The potentials and aims of this institution is too great to be harmed by extremists. I beg of you to please help me in the defence of Wikipedia and the Wikipedian Aims. Thank you.

With Regards

--Arbiteroftruth 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. Tyrenius 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006[edit]

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Pages listed on Categories for deletion[edit]

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldearn and Inverlochy[edit]

Good work. I made some minor additions to the Inverlochy page. One thing that interests me is the political aims of the Irish Confederates in the Scottish Civil War, something that is rarely addressed. In many modern accounts they appear as kind of deus ex machina, who appeared in 1644, for which no other expanation is needed.

If, as you wrote on the Inverlochy page, some Covenanter regiments were withdrawn from the Ulster theatre, then arguabley this was a successful realisation of the Confederate strategy. Perhaps might explain why O'Cahan and co were as keen as MacColla to campaign in the west of Scotland, rather than elsewhere (ie to draw off Scottsih strength from Ireland)?

Jdorney 09:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background, I wasn't aware of Alasdair's relation to Somhairle Buidh before. Also, the interlinking of Antrim's personal aims with those of the Confederates makes perfect sense.

Some observations, just out of mutual interest;

There is another another angle to consider from the Irish side re the 1644 expedition. Firstly, sending a contingent to Scotland was a sign of good faith in their negotiations with Ormonde and the Royalist side.

Secondly, there were domestic political factors at work. The 1644 expeditionary force was largely composed of rebels of 1641 from Ulster. These men were never really trusted by the Supreme Council of the Confederation, who considered them to be too radical in their demands and to have been guilty of massacres of Protestant civilians in the rebellion. Whereas the leading rebels of 1641 (with some exceptions like Phelim O'Neill) were landless Gaelic gentry and wanted the whole plantation land settlement overturned, the Supreme Council were conservative landowners and largely of Old English origin. The massacres of 1641 made reconciliation with the king unnecessarily difficult from their point of view. When the regular Confederate armies were formed in 1642, many of the 1641 rebels were either disbanded or were not given commissions. Sending them off to Scotland could well have been a usefull means of getting them out of the country. Even after they returned, the hardline Catholics alleged that they were betrayed by the "moderates" at Dungans Hill and Knocknanuass in 1647 and left to die.

Thirdly, I wonder whether the expedition to Scotland should be considered a success from the Confederate point of view? It drew off Scottish troops from Ulster, yes, but Munro's army had formidable supply and logistical problems anyway, so whether this made a mjor difference to the war in Ireland is hard to say. The other question is, did it offer a chance for overall royalist victory in the civil wars? Such a victory would have been the best case scenario for the Confederate Supreme Council, though not for some of the Catholic clergy or the more hardline confederates.

Regards, Jdorney 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the reply, keep up the good work! Jdorney 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keppoch murders[edit]

Sorry if I was too quick! When I clicked refresh, your page was right at the top; newpages patrollers can be quite quick. Good luck with the article. Picaroon9288|ta co 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clan Donald[edit]

I read your contribs on User:Jdorney's pages. Maybe you could take a look at Sorley Boy MacDonnell to see if we've made any mistakes, particularly in the historical background section. Thanks.--Shtove 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland[edit]

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faughart[edit]

Ah, excellent work. That one's been bugging me for ages. Any chance you could also do some emergency surgery on the Irish Bruce Wars 1315-1318 page? It has been lying unfinished for months now. Re Edward Bruce, I think you've already done some work on this? Before it had a cliam that the Irish turned to Republicanism after thier dissapointment with Edward! Bizaare stuff. Regards, Jdorney 09:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Quite Dreadful Edward Bruce[edit]

Please, feel free. I'm currently in no state to do much, sad to say. Yet bad as I am, I'm sure I did'nt put in the comment about his (posthumpus?) marriage - doubt that there was enough of him left after Faughart to put in a coffin let alone up the asile! Fergananim 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumpus marriage - is that another term for a shotgun wedding?--Shtove 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a typo. But a goodie!--Shtove 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tudor[edit]

Thanks for your work on Margaret Tudor, that's a huge improvement. I didn't know nearly enough about the topic to improve it much myself. Mrabbits 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Flagging[edit]

Rcpaterson - look over at Template:TestTemplates for a list of templates to add to user talk pages to warn them of disruptive behavior. In general, there is supposed to be a progression, with the first warning assuming innocent intent, and progressing from there. Argyriou 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've found Wikipedia:Vandalism a good source for the usual templates as it gives guidance on use, and the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning templates section has them set out ready to copy including the subst: bit we're supposed to use and the automatic signature. It's a bit of a chore, but can help to keep these pests in check! ..dave souza, talk 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd a look at the Cromwell case and left a subst:blatantvandal tag on the anon editor's page: that politely drops a heavy hint, and if more vandalism is committed gives the next editor looking to put a warning on the page the option of putting up the user in question for blocking. It's sad, but at least it's easier cleaned up than spray paint or whatever, and quick retribution may teach a useful lesson. The subst:blatantvandal-n|PageName tag is useful to name the page that's been vandalised, but from the toolbox/user contributions link on the left it appeared that the IP address had only made that one edit. It's as well to be be polite at first and only come in with the test4 ones when someone's actually going to block the user in response to the next offence: quite often the same IP address will revert the vandalism, perhaps because a parent has found out. For some reason the English Civil War attracts vandals, as does Cheese and Charles Darwin. No doubt there's a meaning to these patterns, ..dave souza, talk 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Langside[edit]

Sorry, that was a mistake to call it start-class, though it is missing the military conflict infobox, and it would definitely be B-class if that were present. I'm not looking into great detail at these articles as I rate them, the necessary thing is to just get them assessed within one class of what they ought to be, for the Military History Wikiproject has an unassessed article backlog that goes on forever. I was acting somewhat robotically when I rated it that, sorry, I'll change it now, but please do add the infobox if this article is really important to you. -KingPenguin 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006[edit]

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish monarchs[edit]

There is a vote going on to determine the correct naming of articles about the early Scottish monarchs at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland. Your input would be very welcome.--Nydas 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more messages, please[edit]

I have now finished with Wikipedia; so I will not be responding to any messages left here-sorry. For those with the wit to understand I will leave with one final thought: knowledge may be Democratic; the acqusition of knowledge is Aristocratic. Rcpaterson 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, just to say that your contributions have been invaluable. I've always found your edits well worth reading as a way of improving my education. Many thanks, ..dave souza, talk 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experts unite!![edit]

I've started a page User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion. This is simply a list of user pages whose users have expressed frustration with the poor quality control at WP. Some of these have now left WP for that reason.

Feel free to edit the page if you have knowledge of experts who have left because of the well-known reasons about quality control, vandalism, trolling, cranks &c. Give a link to their page, or to anything they have written. Thanks.

(Note I am not collecting instances of people leaving in a huff because of some neighbourhood dispute. It has to be for the reasons cited above). Dbuckner 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please spread the word. I'm getting a lot of interesting feedback about this. Dbuckner 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page[edit]

I take little pleasure in seeing a wikipedian leave, especially one in possession of a fair level of knowledge such as your self, regardless of how utterly repugnant their personality or flawed their character. I hope you will reconsider your petulant decision to abstain from any further contribution. siarach 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving[edit]

Sorry to see you go. I also get frustrated with wikipedia sometimes, but that's just the price to be paid for the mass involvment aspect of th project. You can still take encouragment from the fact that you have contributed a lot of information and put it into the public domain that wasn't there before. All the best, Jdorney 11:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006[edit]

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

List of Scots[edit]

You left the following edit summary on this article "Why is Blair on this list, a pseudo-Scot if ever there was". I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We go on verified facts from reliable sources here. I have restored the entry to the list and cited a reliable source stating that Tony Blair was indeed born in Scotland. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006[edit]

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006[edit]

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Auld Alliance[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auld_Alliance&diff=67356093&oldid=67345663 Numerous edits identify you as the author of most of Auld Alliance; this one in particular contains the first appearance of the cliffhanger: "In growing to manhood King James, fully aware just how treacherous and faithless Louis could be."
Can't wait to hear what comes next! Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rcpaterson&oldid=1183572716"