David Lauder (talk | contribs) →Blocked: comment |
David Lauder (talk | contribs) m →Blocked: comment |
||
Line 288: | Line 288: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|1=The reason for you not unblocking me is untrue and impossible. This is some sort of frame-up by 'The Troubles' brigade.|decline=It is very hard for me to believe you're not a sock. If you're not a sock, you're a meatpuppet. Either way, I'm declining the unblock. — <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080">'''Kwsn'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080 ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|1=The reason for you not unblocking me is untrue and impossible. This is some sort of frame-up by 'The Troubles' brigade.|decline=It is very hard for me to believe you're not a sock. If you're not a sock, you're a meatpuppet. Either way, I'm declining the unblock. — <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080">'''Kwsn'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080 ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}} |
||
I refer to the comments being made |
I refer to the comments being made here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TER#User:David_Lauder.2C_User:Chelsea_Tory_and_User:Counter-revolutionary]. I am NOT Sussexman and I don't know him from Adam. No-one else has ever edited from my computer. To the best of my knowledge I have NEVER been involved in any ArbCom other than being nominated for inclusion in 'The Troubles' ArbCom.....by the same team who have blocked me now. You need to do some very very thorough tests with your checkuser system. I am NOT the others. I am sorry Angus has turned against me. I felt my contributions to Wikipedia spoke for themselves. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] ([[User talk:David Lauder#top|talk]]) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:16, 14 February 2008
Archives |
---|
Geograph
David, I know you wrote/write geographical articles from time to time. For pictures, are you aware of the Geograph project? They have a wheen of creative-commons licensed images which can be uploaded to Wikipedia (or better yet, to Wikimedia Commons) for use here. For example, in Ayton... There's a special license tag (same on both Wikipedia and Commons) {{geograph}} which can be used on these. Saves a lot of faffing about. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks Angus. I'm a bit thick with IT and even now I sometimes have difficultes with loading my photos. I shall look at your suggestions but I may get hopelessly bogged down if it is not exceptionally simplistic! The project looks interesting, though, especially if we can load photos without any of this tedious copyright business. Regards, David Lauder 11:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I saw your reply. Yes, the pictures are rather variable, but the average is pretty damn good. Basically, all you need to do is to cut and paste stuff from the Geograph page into the upload box. If you look at any of the ones I did, it should be clear (I think). Seems like everywhere in East Lothian that there is a picture of now has a picture, even Macmerry. Onwards to Fife! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Have you perhaps looked at the geographic coverage in England? Comparing East Lothian and the Borders to Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire, I feel that the English coverage is very much more detailed. But look on the bright side, Ireland is even less detailed. Every time one of my pieces of historical fluff could do with linking to a place there, sure enough there's no article on it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Common era
WP:CIVIL please, and WP:AGF too.
I'm sure that you can make your point without resorting to terms like "manufactured garbage" for references, and that you can express your concerns about the article without provocative rhetorical flourishes such as asking whether Wikipedia is "an atheist or Bolshevik or French Revolutionary construction?"
Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have not referred to any individual just to an article. The simple thing is, have I said something that is patently untrue? Common era is a communist and French revolutionary idea and very offensive to all decent Christians. Now that said, is not one of the implied conditions of the recent Arbcom decisions that the two purported factions stay away from each other. Yet I see from VK's Talk Page that is clearly not so and that you are following me around (and even sneering at a simple spelling error). If that is not true, could you say when you made an edit, any edits, to the Common era page or its Talk page please? David Lauder 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- As an admin, I have posted a 1st-level warning. If you object to that, or feel that the warning is inappropiate, I'm sure that you know how to lodge a complaint.
- In the meantime, it would help if you would re-read WP:NPOV and remember that the message at the top of that talk page clearly says that "discussions about whether or not CE/BCE is a good idea are not on-topic". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do object and I shall complain. You were an "involved admin". Please leave me alone. David Lauder 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Adding my tu-upence-worth, I recently edited the Anti-semitism article (by the addition of a Gibbon quotation and a link to the Dion Cassius source - it's subsequently, rather tiresomely, been removed), and, in accordance with the rest of the article I used the dreaded BCE. Frankly, apart from considerations of continuity, it would have seemed rude not to, given that the Jews are still patiently waiting for the first of their 'years of our Lord'. The rest, I suspect, is just rather PC - we just have to get on with it, just like the wierd American spellings that occur. No doubt, from this inconsequential beginning, a new edit-war will arise and Wikipedia split along BC/AD and BCE/CE lines - offense in already being taken and grievances nursed!--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Chamberlain
Don't get too hot under the collar! I never suggested he wasn't influenced by Nietszche - only that you ought to cite something to that effect. From what I have read of Chamberlain, he seems imho to have grasped - as many did - the wrong end of the stick about Nietzsche's thoughts, i.e. those which best suited his own racist prejudices. I do think that by citing Nietzsche in proximity of racist thinkers, you risk implying that Nietzsche was also an Aryan supremacist, which is at least highly debatable (and, again imho, wrong). Best regards, Smerus 11:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was not at all "hot under the collar". You placed a fact tag on an article without realising that the comment you made on the history log was simply wrong. I was merely trying to bring this to your attention. I did not write the bio you refer to so cannot really comment on 19th century 'racism' although probably more were 'racist' then than are today. Regards, David Lauder 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The Lord Redesdale source is an awfully glowing account of Chamberlain, perhaps understandable given the time it was written but jarring in the post-WWII era. Most modern sources obviously tend to lean the other direction, but regardless of bias either way, the facts reported are what matter, so I'm removing the "mysterious depths of Wagnerian music and philosophy" quote and just plainly stating what happened, with no endorsement (or condemnation) of Chamberlain or Wagner's ideas. Feel free to discuss. HIS33407DougLimey (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just realized editing without giving you a chance to respond is bad form, so in fairness I'll revert what I just did for now.HIS33407DougLimey (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is in Lord Redesdale's introduction to the Foundations. (I thought I had correctly attributed it?) If you read the whole intro (which is quite long) it is actually quite balanced. He is not all praise for Chamberlain. I'm really not interested that much in "modern sources" as what you're really saying here is 'modern opinions'. That would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. This is a biographical article about someone who died in the 1920s, and we should bear that in mind and not try and place 2007 opinions into the article unless they reveal something we don;t already know. Redesdale knew Chamberlain and was aware of the man himself, his views, and, of course, his writings. He is an excellent creditable first hand source. he said these professors were "great" (not Chamberlain), and surely someone of his standing would not wish to make himself ridiculous by making an untrue statement? You said you wanted to remove the direct citation, and my question must be - why? That is surely directly against Wikipedia's policy, especially as it is entirely relevant to the bio. I don't see this as "bias", just writing up what was said about the article's subject at that time. Personally I thought the recent addition (by you?) of some clearly biased and modern opinions was wrong, but I did not remove it. I hate edit warring. But I do believe that we would be totally wrong to wipe out the remarks of someone who was a reknowned scholar and who knew Chamberlain. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on deleting the citation itself (which was indeed correctly attributed and is, as you say, informative), but rather giving the facts imparted in the quote (to the effect of "At this time Chamberlain began an intense study of the music and philosophy of Richard Wagner.") without the the source's bias, e.g. the deep metaphysics of the Master. Using "the Master" as shorthand seemed a bit much for an encyclopedia, that's all.
- Wagner was commonly referred to as "The Master", even by Liszt so I don't think in this context Redesdale is misquoting. David Lauder (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on deleting the citation itself (which was indeed correctly attributed and is, as you say, informative), but rather giving the facts imparted in the quote (to the effect of "At this time Chamberlain began an intense study of the music and philosophy of Richard Wagner.") without the the source's bias, e.g. the deep metaphysics of the Master. Using "the Master" as shorthand seemed a bit much for an encyclopedia, that's all.
- The business with Chamberlain's professors is just a nitpick, but the way it's written makes it sound as if their greatness were an established fact.
- Maybe they were "great", I don't know. Maybe we should investigate them? David Lauder (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The business with Chamberlain's professors is just a nitpick, but the way it's written makes it sound as if their greatness were an established fact.
- I did notice one of my sources (Allan Chase) was particularly biased against Chamberlain, but I figured since I was only using him to cite a fact or two and not voicing his opinions (as I had planned to do with the Wagner-related quote), it would be alright. I have no problem whatsoever with using Redesdale or Chase as repositories of information (and Redesdale would likely trump him in importance because he knew so much about Chamberlain), as long as their biases are filtered out of what's reported in the article. HIS33407DougLimey (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, i thought Chase was more than obviously biased. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- So we'll keep both sources then? The Wagner-related quote still jumps out at me, but I'm willing to let it go. Greatness is always a matter of opinion, though, no matter how much investigation one does, and I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to drop it from the description of Chamberlain's professors, which is part of an ostensibly neutral description of the man's life and is not a quote. HIS33407DougLimey (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, i thought Chase was more than obviously biased. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did notice one of my sources (Allan Chase) was particularly biased against Chamberlain, but I figured since I was only using him to cite a fact or two and not voicing his opinions (as I had planned to do with the Wagner-related quote), it would be alright. I have no problem whatsoever with using Redesdale or Chase as repositories of information (and Redesdale would likely trump him in importance because he knew so much about Chamberlain), as long as their biases are filtered out of what's reported in the article. HIS33407DougLimey (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Earl of Kildare
Not a problem. It's actually good to start pages at the longer name and then move them, because that automatically creates the redirect from the long name (John FitzThomas FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare) to the short name (John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare). Take care, Choess 12:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Would benefit from your touch if you have a moment. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, kitty, but I seem to have written most of that article already (despite the presence of numerous other editors in the history log). Clerk's problem was that he had fingers in many cultural pies as well as his official duties in life. What do you feel is wrong with the article as it stands? Is it that tacky? I have sectioned it now. Regards, David Lauder 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had not looked on the Talk Page. There is a lot of info there but it is muddled and applies to different Johns. I could sort it out but it will have to be later. Regards, David Lauder 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. And my starting point is to draw up a family tree - which seems to be thought somehow anti-wiki in this weird reality. I find myself discouraged from writing anything but MP stubs lest it be rubbed out by the tribe. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Its hard work, I know. Harder than it should be. Regards, David Lauder 14:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. And my starting point is to draw up a family tree - which seems to be thought somehow anti-wiki in this weird reality. I find myself discouraged from writing anything but MP stubs lest it be rubbed out by the tribe. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had not looked on the Talk Page. There is a lot of info there but it is muddled and applies to different Johns. I could sort it out but it will have to be later. Regards, David Lauder 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your user page
I hate to be the one to point it out but your user page suggests (1) that you hate irrationality and (2) that you are a Christian. Some flawed logic there. :) I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! I am what I am! Maybe I'm just a bore. Here is a better new book: Avoid Boring People by James D. Watson. Regards, David Lauder 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty, surely your not a Dawkins fan? I'm afraid I'm doing a bit of a Simon Heffer on The Wind That Shakes The Barley, but I hear that book's absolute drivel. --Counter-revolutionary 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly am. Read it before forming a view. Also a fan of Richard Feynman. About to move on to Christopher Hitchens. I may be more complex than some people have supposed. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer Peter! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly am. Read it before forming a view. Also a fan of Richard Feynman. About to move on to Christopher Hitchens. I may be more complex than some people have supposed. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kitty, surely your not a Dawkins fan? I'm afraid I'm doing a bit of a Simon Heffer on The Wind That Shakes The Barley, but I hear that book's absolute drivel. --Counter-revolutionary 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Thanks for removing vandalism on my user page. Looks like the usual sectarianism vandals. Astrotrain 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Saw it by sheer chance. David Lauder 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Notes/References
David, re your q. to the Deacon: according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, it's either a "Notes" section and a "References" one, or a single "Notes and references" section. Based on how the typical featured article looks two sections are preferred in practice. But like all Manual of Style guff, it is merely a guideline. Still, it does make it easier if the standard sections like these have standard names and uses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Angus, but I still don't understand what the difference is between notes and references. I can understand a footnote saying something like "but see xxxx where the author differs" but in the case I was referring to everything was a clear reference. No "notes" involved. Maybe I'm past it all? Regards, David Lauder 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey David, didn't mean to appear to be outrged. Terms "Notes" and "References" are fairly arbitrary, but you need to use two different sections if you're going to make use of both. In my life I've never seen anything where footnotes/endnotes hang on top of a bibliography between the headers and the list of works. It's really ugly. PS, I didn't realise it was you that was doing it; all I knew is that I've had to spend loads of time fixing it. I also notice in your footnotes that you tend to put full bibliographic details in, often not adding referenced works to the bibliography/"reference" section. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kinda bad when you do it to an established article that is already following a different style; I looked over and noticed that many articles you've edited now effectively have two competing reference styles. Since there's nothing wrong with your reference habits, all I would ask is that if you edit an established article you either 1) respect and follow the reference system in use in that article or 2) Change the reference system in use in the article to accord with your own style. The important thing is consistency. If you edit articles I've written, you should know that I use a footnote section called "Notes", where the citations are abbreviated (I didn't abbreviate so much in earlier articles), and a bibliography section called "References" where a list of works used is given (e.g. Thomas de Rossy). Also, if I know of works I haven't used but are useful, I put a "Further Reading" section (to avoid the implication that these works support the wiki text). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll try and follow that. I have been assailed previously for not putting actual clear citations. I thought it was exceptionally petty because on the articles concerned there were clear general references and pages given for the article. So I then added even clearer references by showing which sentence came from which book. (Tedious, I know). The reason I left them both up was because one was a particular reference, whilst the book given in the references was a cover-all reference, if you know what I mean. I'm still a bit confused but I'll do what I can. David Lauder 17:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey David, didn't mean to appear to be outrged. Terms "Notes" and "References" are fairly arbitrary, but you need to use two different sections if you're going to make use of both. In my life I've never seen anything where footnotes/endnotes hang on top of a bibliography between the headers and the list of works. It's really ugly. PS, I didn't realise it was you that was doing it; all I knew is that I've had to spend loads of time fixing it. I also notice in your footnotes that you tend to put full bibliographic details in, often not adding referenced works to the bibliography/"reference" section. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kinda bad when you do it to an established article that is already following a different style; I looked over and noticed that many articles you've edited now effectively have two competing reference styles. Since there's nothing wrong with your reference habits, all I would ask is that if you edit an established article you either 1) respect and follow the reference system in use in that article or 2) Change the reference system in use in the article to accord with your own style. The important thing is consistency. If you edit articles I've written, you should know that I use a footnote section called "Notes", where the citations are abbreviated (I didn't abbreviate so much in earlier articles), and a bibliography section called "References" where a list of works used is given (e.g. Thomas de Rossy). Also, if I know of works I haven't used but are useful, I put a "Further Reading" section (to avoid the implication that these works support the wiki text). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Help!
Hello, David. On the basis that you have a working knowledge of Spanish, please could you confirm or deny something for me: that Cácafuego translates as literally the 'shitfire', or depending on the placements of the accents, 'spitfire'.
This was apparently the alternate name of the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción (a Spanish treasure galleon taken by Drake off San Francisco). Incidentally, as something you may not have known, the Golden Hind was 68' x. 18' (!), had a crew of 70, and initially included one 'black Moor', Drake's servant, more being picked up along the way. I imagine that that black man was probably the first (depending on whether Magellan had black crewmembers) - or at least the first black Englishman - to circumnavigate the world.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cannot assist with the translation, Major. Try:User:Javitomad. Best regards, as always, David Lauder (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Muchos gracias! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! I'll try to help you... 'Cácafuego' is literally 'shitfire'. 'spitfire' means something like 'escupitajofuego'. Did I help you?
:D
PD: It's not said "Muchos gracias" but "Muchas gracias"
Javitomad (...tell me...) 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! I'll try to help you... 'Cácafuego' is literally 'shitfire'. 'spitfire' means something like 'escupitajofuego'. Did I help you?
- Thank you very much; yes, you did help! I think the answer is to add the reference to the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción and to exclude the rather dubious reference to the Cácafuego. One thought, though: this was after the Battle of the Three Kings and Philip II's conquest of Portugal: would 'spitfire'/ 'shitfire' work in Portuguese? Also, would the translation of Nuestra Señora de la Concepción as 'Our Lady of the Conception' be correct? (I'll add all this to the Golden Hind article in due course.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Barrow
I haven't seen it, but if (a wild stab) it's "Maldred son of Crinan" you're interested in there's a bit on Crinan in Woolf's new book, pp. 249–252. Your rates, or council tax, or whatever it is called these days, should have bought a copy of Pictland to Alba I'd think. Lots of interesting things in it other than that, not all quite as convincing as they could be, but around gazillion times better than Warlords and Holy Men. Two examples: I don't remember reading about this (check charter witnesses under events) anywhere, or this (charter witnesses again) either. Interesting, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks. All grist for the mill. I suspect there are many muniments lying around so far untranscribed. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:
I have actually tried to get a hold of that article in the past; the library I normally use doesn't have it though. Why? Are you having some such problem, or have you got it and it says something interesting I should know? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think it makes some salient points about the genealogy of families of that period and how difficult it is to establish lineage because of the dearth of materiéls (although he seems to cite a vast number of them, some if which I have never consulted). Most of the big libraries carry the SG but whether they've kept them back to 1978 I don't know. However they are available on line at the Scottish Genealogy Society's website for £2 per journal. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. The library did have it, but ... well, a long story. It was boxed away in an annex because of restructuring. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- "materiéls" sure is a pretty word. DEVS EX MACINA pray 10:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. The library did have it, but ... well, a long story. It was boxed away in an annex because of restructuring. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A note of appreciation
David I saw your comments on an Arbcom candidate talkpage and just wish to assure you (for what its worth) that in the area of "the Troubles" your input was first rate. My support for the candidate is absolutely no comment of you and were you standing again I'd certainly vote for you - so you could sort out your differences together! Best Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
- I thought the ArbCom degenerated into a sheer nonsence. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Edward Bruce
I had a look: I think it was just a / missing at the end of the reference thing. Is it ok now? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Most grateful. I simply could not work out what was wrong. I ought to do some more work on these people but at the moment I am pushed for time. Regards David Lauder (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Houston Stewart Chamberlain
I'm not much an expert on the topic, but edits like this are not helpful. Keep focused on the contributions, not the contributors (see WP:NPA). If need be, I would be happy to take a more active role in trying to come to some kind of agreement--or I can refer you to the usual dispute resolution paths (usually starting with WP:RFC). I'll take a look back over the talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to be a lot of original research.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the couple of complainants are attempting to push an entirely POV here wheras I am attempting to contribute to an article. Tea Drinker: if they provoke users by threats, as he did, that is possibly a fairly mild response. David Lauder (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that this is a bit peculiar: In 1889 he moved to Austria. During this time it is said his ideas on race began taking shape, influenced by the Teutonic supremacy embodied in the works of Richard Wagner and Arthur de Gobineau.[1], in particular: [...] the Teutonic supremacy embodied in the works of Richard Wagner [...]. I suppose that I can see the point that the author is making, although it's certainly a tendentious point; mutatis mutantis, does the music of Elgar or poetry of Blake embody Anglo-Saxon supremacy in the same way? If not, why not? (Note to any of my Irish correspondents: don't feel left out - the same question applies to the Londonderry Air and The Minstrel Boy!)--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] PS: I've always thought that Wagner's music was more influenced by a High-Victorian love of the Arthurian mythos than any more enthusiastic cod-philosophy (a good book here). The old Germans seem to have a thing for King Arthur; they built 'Dvor Artusa' ('Arthur's Court') as a sort of guild-house in what was then Danzig - well worth a visit.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very fair point. I didn't write that. Why don't you tidy it up. The problem here is that certain contributors wish to put the boot into Chamberlain, and, doubtless, Wagner, because they were anti-semitic. But it wasn;t against the law then and its not now either. It is important to keep these articles balanced and for these people to leave their POVs at home! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- To answer your question: Elgar was a patriot but not a raving anti-Semite as was Wagner. While some of Wagner's views can be excused because of the political climate of the days other of his expressions cannot. Morality and fair thought are above the law. many Germans were not anti-Semitic but they kept their mouths shut. Wagner did not he was vociferous in his anti-Semitism. In his article "Das Judenthum in der Musik" of 1850 under a pseudonym Wagner wrote "Jewish music is bereft of all expression, characterized by coldness and indifference, triviality and nonsense" He went further in claiming that "The Jew has no true passion to impel him to artistic creation..makes a confused heap of the forms and styles of all ages ". Wagner also expressed the view that to allow a Jew into artistic circle resulted in "pernicious consequences". Writing in an art magazine Wagner discussed the "harmful influence of Jewry on the morality of the nation" now I may not an expert on Elgar but somehow I don't think his glorification of the Worcestershire countryside in music has ever been mentioned as incitement for a holocaust, not even the more jingoistic "land of Hope and Glory. Do correct me if I am wrong. Giano (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that Wagner and his anti-semitism can be held up as "an incitement for a holocaust" which occurred 60 years or more after he wrote. You and others may make the connexion of course, but that remains a personal hypothesis with, of course, much hindsight. Anti-semitism in Europe has been rampant for centuries and Wagner is hardly an exception. David Lauder (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question, which was about Wagner's (supposed) belief in 'Teutonic supremacy' rather than his (alleged) anti-semitism. Just for the record, my own belief is that Wagner was probably not the sort of person that I would like to take tea with; his views on Judaism seem rather naive and unpleasant and it's a matter of record that he treated his wife and patron (mad King Ludwig), and many of his friends, very badly. Incidentally, I have corrected your spelling of 'jew' (with a lower case) - obviously a mistake, but it was, unfortunately, how the Nazis used to refer to Jews, particularly in their posters. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm just slightly suspicious about the phrase 'Teutonic supremacy', an undefined term and with no supporting citation, presumably designed to invoke comparisons with white supremacy, and increasingly meaningless when considering contemporaneous German politics. Why don't we just say that he was a patriot, in the same way as Elgar or Blake? (Or does 'Teutonic supremacy' also equate to anti-semitism? Can/ could a German Jew be a 'Teutonic supremacist'?) Where is this 'Teutonic supremacy' embodied in his works (as alleged)? That's just a daft claim: his greatest Operas include one about a (flying) Dutchman, a French-Irish girl and a Cornish knight (Tristan), and the Arthurian Sir Percival; the common theme is the redemption through love. I really do think that it's stretching a point to describe Wagner as an inciter of the Holocaust; I have always understood the main objection to him/ his music as arising out of the German guards at Aushwitz forcing the camp orchestra play Siegfried's Funeral March, the Ride of the Valkyries, &c., at the daily roll-call.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. Anti-Semitism and racism usually derive from a combination of the truth, half truths and downright lies. Wagner was in the habit of preaching downright lies, he was not expounding the views and ideas of others but those of himself. These beliefs were then transplanted to the characters of his very nationalistic operas, particularly The Ring. Which later fitted in very neatly with Nazi culture, it was certainly not necessary for the Nazi's ministry of propaganda to re-write any of Wagner's works - they positively celebrated Nazi ideology. This is one of the reasons that Wagner's music was not performed in Israel until the very end of the 20th century and even then it was to protest. Giano (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for that but I do feel that is your personal opinion. Its one I've not come across before, and doubtless the people who pay £150 for a ticket at Covent Garden havn't either. I think the reason his music wasn't performed until recently in Israel was simply because Hitler/some nazis loved it. Certainly Daniel Barenboim (Jewish) thought it was great music and should have been played everywhere. But really I'm not that interested in Wagner or in complicating this entire issue over H.S. Chamberlain which has been made into a mountain from a molehill. I personally have read (many years ago) HSC's work on Goethe and also Immanuel Kant which I found stimulating. So when I saw his article page for the first time I did some work on it. It is that simple. I feel it is important for Wikipedia articles not to be flooded with POVs and interesting articles vandalised to such an extent that they become political polemics. David Lauder (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really missing the point here. The Ring cycle is nationalistic? Only insofar as it has the Rhine in it; the other inhabitants are the dwarves in Niebelheim - incidentally, a telling swipe at totalitarianism - the giants on the Earth, and the gods in Valhalla. The various human inhabitants, presumably proto-Germans because of the Rhine, are shown in a bad light: Sieglinde's husband is a rapist and murderer of women and Hagen later rapes Brunhilde and murders Siegfried. The theme of the cycle, redemption through love, is surely anti-fascist, which glorifies the strong. Even the bit in Siegfried where Siegfried interacts with Mime (and you have the wonderful forging of Notung interlude), which is sometimes wheeled out as dubious evidence that Mime represents a Jewish caricature, also shows Siegfried (presumably the Aryan hero) as an ungrateful bully. If the cycle is nationalistic, given that it ends with the destruction of the world, it should have acted as a warning rather than as a prophecy. The Nazis also made films, I believe, of Oliver Twist and A Merchant of Venice; the fact that Dickens' and Shakespeare's work was purloined to fit an anti-semitic agenda shouldn't blind us to the fact that all three authors were trying to create rounded characters. Surely Fagin and Shylock are far more offensive as anti-semitic caricatures than (presumably) Mime? Incidentally, news to all those who troop down the aisle to the Mastersingers' Wedding March! (I myself got married to the Tannhauser overture.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Really I had somehow visualised you coming down the aisle to "Shine Jesus Shine" but then I came down it to "Ave Verum Corpus" but that is what happens when one is young and allows one's mother-in-law to much influence. I'm glad David can still find tickets to Covent Garden for £150 I'm afraid Mrs. Giano hates sitting with the tourists so I don't escape so lightly, not so much a problem, I find, at La Scala. Next time you are there though if you can afford it buy a "souvenir program" and during an interval while queuing for a glass of warm Australian chardonay (£6.50) try reading it, especially the philosophy of the opera etc. Giano (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I shall have to leave the discussion there; I'm off to Polska tomorrow morning until the New Year. You have, however, inspired me to take my DVDs of the cycle with me (Bayreuth festival 1976, Boulez conducting). (Polish Christmas television is even worse than its British counterpart.) I just hope that you haven't spoilt it for me as I study all 16 hours minutely for traces of 'Teutonic supremacy'! In the meantime, I've posed a question here that you may be able to help with. Congratulations on your showing in the ArbCom (although you probably saw that I voted against - can't have been that much of a surprise). Happy Christmas to you both. (Do I really want to know what the Hell is "Shine Jesus Shine"?! - probably not.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Shine, Jesus, Shine is a modern hymn, in my experience, generally sung by people leaping and waving about while clapping and displaying happy, beatific smiles and bonhomie, all of which are virtues I consider suspect. I was devastated to see you opposed me - tell me. what have I done? - Christmas in Polska will be fine at least they enjoy a drink. Have a nice time. Happy Christmas. Giano (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well, we havn't been to Covent Garden in a while so doubtless prices are continuing to climb! I send you all my sincerest best wishes for a happy and holy Christmas/ Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think thats my lot with Chamberlain. It is clear just a few individuals wish to demonise the article and I have not the time to devote to saving articles like this so that they presented as neutral as possible. The media repeatedly comment on the personal POV taking over WP. Maybe they're right. David Lauder (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Smarmy Rex
- Very kind, so many thanks, and the the same to you! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:
You are very mistaken to think this is an ideological issue for me; well, not in the way you seem to think at least. It's best not to bring politics into wikipedia editing. That's for the eastern Europeans! And I would have thought that Gaelic would have been dead enough for even the most insecure Lothian man or Teutonist to feel conformable dealing with the realities of the British Isles' linguistic and cultural past. C'mmon, let's get things into perspective! I really think you can get yourself above such things! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- David, I accidentally reverted your descendent's edit while anglicizing the names. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. I was reading through back edtions of The Scottish Genealogist today and came across them. I thought maybe I should add them to the article? David Lauder (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bit short and ugly looking, but I don't personally have much of an opinion on its inclusion ... and I didn't wanna re-instate it and confuse people on authorship. Anyways, it is relatively obvious that his descendants include all later Scottish monarchs and their descendants. It's not so obvious that, among his great-grand children were Henry II of England and Eustace IV of Boulogne, son of King Stephen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- We get lots of tourists from north America here and I am often told how they claim some sort of descent from The Bruce. Needless to say I just say "oh yes". When I saw the article it seemed to me it was mentioning numerous other more ordinary families as lineal descendants (Cunninghams, Crawfords, Dunlops, etc) and that therefore it might be relevant to the WP article, given they are blood descendants. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bit short and ugly looking, but I don't personally have much of an opinion on its inclusion ... and I didn't wanna re-instate it and confuse people on authorship. Anyways, it is relatively obvious that his descendants include all later Scottish monarchs and their descendants. It's not so obvious that, among his great-grand children were Henry II of England and Eustace IV of Boulogne, son of King Stephen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. I was reading through back edtions of The Scottish Genealogist today and came across them. I thought maybe I should add them to the article? David Lauder (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Current proposal
I wasn't under the illusion that my current proposal would succeed; but the first step to fixing this problem has to be to try best first (which it is in my mind). What has emerged from the current discussion beyond doubt is that there is no consensus on the topic - wiki is a divided place on this. Anyways, the title 'King of the Scots' cannot be found in any sources before the last decade of the 11th cent. It was fashionable in western Europe until the 13th cent. to use the combo rex + gens rather than rex + regnum, and the continued favouring of the former by Scottish kings after that period is probably a sign of Scottish conservatism. At any rate, I don't believe there is any meaningful legal difference between the titles ... both were used. I do believe though that Scottish kings after Edgar should be titled X N, King of the Scots, not X N of Scotland. I've been playing around on User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/King moves, but won't propose anything until I get some feedback. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Campbells
What? You didn't like my work-in-progress (not much progress it's true) on Duncan Campbell? I suppose this means I should finish it rather than starting Colin of Glenorchy. Anyway, may I ask where the before 1387 date for the marriage of Colin and Mariota comes from? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Truly sorry. I was looking for something else (his grandfather) when I came upon it. I'm afraid I did not look at the history until after I'd done it! Believe me no offence was meant. Also, I had no idea that work was in progress. There was no indication. When I looked at the article as it stood I felt it needed tidying to get it into proper and clear format, thats all. The date comes from The Complete Peerage. I had proposed to return there and enter more plus a couple of references. If you would rather I did not I don't mind. Let me know. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and expand it if you get time. I have a heap more material from Boardman's book, and a photocopy of some stuff from Campbell's book somewhere, so eventually I'll get round to it, but who knows when that will be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Simon Dodsworth
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Simon Dodsworth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of Simon Dodsworth.
I am personally extremely sympathetic to articles on all significant historical figures, but they need to have done something notable--at least notable enough to be mentioned in secondary sources, not just archival documents of landholdings. I'd be glad to discuss this, because I want to support all efforts to expand our coverage in historical topics. DGG (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Givern the countless articles on Wikipedia which are entirely unreferenced and utterly un-noteworthy I am wondering why this rather interesting one has been singled out. Anyway, I did not commence it, only tidied it up and added excellent references etc. I have replied on your Talk page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) See my response there for further discussion. DGG (talk)
At AFD
- Apologies, You should have been notified--this article is now being discussed at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dodsworth. Your participation is invited. DGG (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- A classic example of the petty-mindedness and authoritarianism of far too many on Wikipedia. If all they've got to do is run around flagging up inoffensive articles for deletion whilst leaving up countless others, it demonstrates something is wanting. What a pity these people don;t address themselves to positive contributions rather than negative ones. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies, You should have been notified--this article is now being discussed at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dodsworth. Your participation is invited. DGG (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Monarchs' naming conventions
It's under discussion just now. Various matters are under discussion, but I think most are interested in talk rather than action. I personally think the form David I, King of Scotland or Henry II, King of England is preferable to Henry II of England form, because the latter is slightly ambiguous. It appears twice as many people agree with that suggestion as disagree, but no-one cares enough to do anything, so it'll prolly stay as it is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I don't think you need to worry about it as a pretext, well not from me or any of the others who've been contributing to the Naming Conventions discussion. The Polish monarchs, because of the dynamics of wikipedia, will always be their own issue. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really have strong views on this subject. It does seem to me preferable to have some guideline on monarchs and Henry II of England would seem to me, at least, obvious that he is the monarch. Who else would it be? What I am generally opposed to are the raving nationalists from every country on earth setting up their monarchs as "The Bold", "The Fat", "The Idiot" or whatever when generally in the English-speaking world they would be known as and searched for under their titles alone (academics excepted, perhaps). As I said elsewhere, one nation's hero may be anothers hate figure. That is why it is as best for us to be as neutral as possible. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I look forward to you recommending Alfred the Great be moved then! One Night In Hackney303 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I have been clear enough. In the English-speaking world he was known as Alfred The Great (at least for the past 1200 years) and so it is appropriate that his title is that. It is inappropriate for monarchs to be given nicknames on the English-speaking Wikipedia if in our world we have never known them as such (or indeed, like many, never known of them at all!) regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alfred became "the Great" in modern times according to Lapdige and Keynes, the byname being popularised by Spelman's 1678 Life . Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah well, even if that is the case, that is what everyone has known him as for centuries. That is the point I was trying to make. We are supposed to be making an accessible encyclopaedia. We can't go flagging people up in a clinically academic manner which browsers either cannot locate or relate to (or both). I can't find where I have put my AS Chron in the mess here but as my earliest book here is 1584 (and not on English history) I can't really comment further. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- A reasonably long time, so not an invented tradition in the Hobsbawmian sense anyway.
Publications
I have a challenge for you. I know that before the current blue and mauve Edinburgh multivolume history of Scotland series the previous ones were the E.J. Arnold (and now Ednburgh UP) ones (the small, ugly black books by Barrow, Grant, Smyth, Wormald ...) circa 1980 and the bigger pale blue EUP books (Duncan, Nicholson, ...) in the 70s. Before that W. Croft Dickinson and George Pryde did a 2-volume New History of Scotland (dark red covers) for Nelsons, and I have those elsewhere, in around 1960. My question is - you probably thought I'd never get here - what passed for a serious effort at a history of Scotland in multiple volumes before the Dickinson and Pryde effort? Obviously there are Tytler and the like back in the C19th, and Agnes Mure Mackenzie from the 30s, but what about the 40s and 50s? When R. L. G. Ritchie was writing The Normans in Scotland, for example, what did he cite in the way of more general works on the before and after periods? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hobsbawn! Ugh!! Equates to books for the bin. Not sure I can give you an immediate answer, Angus. I have several works of Croft Dickinson but without looking at them I thought they were much earlier than 1960? There was quite a bit published between the wars and in the years before WWI. As regards your query, I'll have to go and dig about a little. But World War II and the 15 years which followed it saw a real downturn in book production due to the the massive paper shortages (and other privations - things had to be considered 'necessary') and even HMSO books of that period - of which there are few - are on simply awful paper. I have somewhere Simpson's The Province of Mar and I'm sure that was a wartime production - but it is a rarity. Graeme Ritchie's books, whilst published in limited numbers in the 1950s by the Edinburgh University Press, saw far greater sales in, for instance, North American where in both New York and Toronto the same firm reprinted editions there, where there were no shortages. Gordon Donaldson was at work then but I am unsure how much he had published before 1960. My feeling (before looking) is that academia between 1940 - 1960 were expected to get on with what they already had. I recall reading an article years ago about Robinsons (the cartographers) which said that in 1960 children in most schools were still using pre-war atlases and maps. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insights. I'm not Eric Hobsbawm's greatest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but The Invention of Tradition and Bandits are well worth a read. More than curiosity this - I'd like to try getting Bruce and Wallace up to snuff some day - do you have a copy of Barron's Scottish War of Independence? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but he was an avowed Marxist and therefore any history he writes must be flawed. One must read any criticisms from such a writer bearing in mind his declared bias. No, I don;t have Barron, as far as I can see. I have had a look in my library and can find hardly anything pubished in the years you seek. I have R. P. Hardie's The Roads of Mediaeval Lauderdale (1942); and Croft Dickinson's John Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland (1949), interestingly published by Nelsons, who were Graeme Ritchie's publishers in North America. According to the old paper index I should also have several of Nelson's Medieval Texts Series but I cannot find them. They may be in a tea chest somewhere, as I have insufficient bookcases and wall space in my library for the c3500 books, even though its 32 feet long. I'll see if I can find them. Some of them may have been published before 1960. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insights. I'm not Eric Hobsbawm's greatest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but The Invention of Tradition and Bandits are well worth a read. More than curiosity this - I'd like to try getting Bruce and Wallace up to snuff some day - do you have a copy of Barron's Scottish War of Independence? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Taranto Barrage
I reverted your recent edit of Battleship. I think the information you added has value only if the links to Taranto Straits and especially to Taranto Barrage are fleshed out with actual articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Apology
Thank you. It takes more than an average editor to apologize; and I commend you on being one of those few. Regarding 'great', I do think that it is not offensive. As a Pole, I have no problem with Frederick the Great or Catherine the Great, even through both of them did much wrong to Poland. They were nonetheless known as Great to their people, and I respect that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankish
Initially I tried doing exactly what you had, with the same results. Then I put in a google search for Frankish ancestry or some such, just looking in wikipedia, and I found someone who had the template, so I could look to see what the name of it is. It's Template:user ancestry Frank. I added a picture to the template from Frankish. You can change it by going to the template page, clicking edit and looking where it says "image". Tyrenius (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect of Simon Dodsworth of Settrington
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Simon Dodsworth of Settrington, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Simon Dodsworth of Settrington is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Simon Dodsworth of Settrington, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not create that page. I found it by chance and then assisted in formatting it etc. What I think is particularly irksome are the number of so-called editors running around inoffensive articles which genuine editors have sincerely worked on, tagging them, often for spurious reasons, and then tagging them for deletion or even speedy deletion. Yet often thousands of articles which are often offensive remain most without any citations or sources given. It seems anarchy reigns supreme on Wikipedia. I thought the deletion of this page was possibly one of the most mean-spirited acts I have come across. David Lauder (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take to Wikipedia:Deletion review and make a case that it should have been closed as "no consensus". Tyrenius (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have done and thank you. (I realise its a waste of time but I thought I should make a stand for common sense.) Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Paintings
A marvelous pre-Raphaelite addition! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tennyson's poem is equally as magnificent! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
RE:Naming
Doesn't appear to be going that well. The high number of surprising consecutive opposes recently suggest some IRC or other such vote stacking mini-campaign has been waged behind the scenes, but of course that can never be proved. We'll see how it goes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree re the vote-stacking. It becomes patently obvious the longer you have been involved on WP, especially with the crowd who see themselves as some sort of defacto WP Gestapo (I call them the school-teacher brigade - they see themselves as superior to everyone else) and are busy deleting all over the place. This became more than evident during 'The Troubles' ArbCom. They have mastered the endless WP guidelines which cover just about everything in life and when you demolish a few of these guidelines rationally, they come up with a few more. Then there are the various European nationalists who support each other when the moment arises. By the time you've made complaints and the complaints were addressed (if at all), even if the decision supported you vast damage is done in the meantime. I'm afraid its complete anarchy. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Horthy
Thanks. At least someone who really cares about truth. It's difficult to change the world, since many people like Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs still think that they should prove their superiority over Hungary. Ethnic Hungarians are beaten up quite often in these countries, because of their ethnic origin. They do not realise that the Hungarians are not their enemies. There's nothing wrong in national pride, since every country has its values, but chauvinism is not right. There are exceptions, but they're mostly silent. This still affects their views for hungarian history and historical leaders. The hungarian political leaders mostly ignore these problems and are cynical as they apply the divide and rule policy. I did read the french, spanish and italian versions and I'm disappointed. The spanish version was written mostly by a romanian nationalist. He admitted this on his user page. Horthy was not perfect, but he tried his best for his country. Even in Hungary you still find a quite strong propaganda from ex-communists. The question of jewish deportation is still a good ground to attack him. If he resigns the arrow cross party takes over immediately and all the jews are deported and as later they realised killed. Later his enemies could have said, that he left his country when she needed him the most. In this case they blame him and not the collaborators in the already occupied country. There's no proof to say that he knew what happened to the deportees. Many jewish immigrants were greatful to Horthy and supported him after the war. Among others his friend Ferenc Chorin a wealthy hungarian jew. He is really a tragical person, because he had one of the most difficult period in Hungarian history. Most of the western historians are not interested at all. As for the number of victims of the white terror they still say 5000, which came from Bohm, one of the communists leaders of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Even hungarian studies on holocaust-antisemitism reveal that it's an exaggeration. The problem is, if I use a hungarian source I'll be attacked here, but I cannot buy Sakmyster's book as it's not available on amazon (I live in London). I'll be away for some time, but I'll check my messages. Regards, Carlos72 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Poles like the Hungarians - as far as I can work out, largely because their joint king Stefan Batory beat up the Russians. The Hungarians also refused to get involved with putting down the Warsaw Uprising; they told the Germans to do their own dirty work.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I like the Hungarians. I enjoyed my two trips there during the communist days. I went to a large reception in a grand old (decaying) restaurant, packed with old nobility who were still trapped there and who had not yet been bumped off by the communists. They were still very grand, even though dispossessed. Intelligent and far more worldly wise that one would have expected. They were sadly resigned to their fate at the time. When I asked them about the war they all agreed they had to play a very careful game at the time. All hated Russians/communists. Needless to say all were the keenest supporters of Horthy, who they all said had been treated badly by the so-called 'Allies'. My reply was that the history books, mostly written by the opposition, had treated him far worse! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice to hear that David. As for the polish-hungarian friendship it originates from the medieval times, indeed. Though the two nations are not of the same origin their history is very similar. Strong kingdoms at the beginning, then the greedy aristocrats created chaos. Tatar invasion. Both were victims of german speaking and russian people. The sympathy still exists between the two nations. Carlos72 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I concur with your sentiments here, especially re aristos and German-speakers, but there we are. Horthy was part of what we'd call the Landed Gentry, or minor nobility. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Simon Dodsworth DRV
Sorry DRV didn't work out. I take issue with the WP:NOR argument, as facts were published; there was no speculation, analysis or synthesis to advance a position; and information had reliable sources. Secondary sources using this info would have helped immensely, but I think the weakest aspect was apparent lack of notability. I think arguments could be developed there, but would need to address a systemic bias in favour of contemporary subjects in a culture with information overload, as compared with the limited records available on historic subjects. This is reinforced by the massive resources poured into recording contemporary culture, as opposed to the relatively meagre ones that are available to fund historical research. This is worth taking up in other quarters such as WP:VP to start a change in wiki consciousness, should you feel inclined. Basically the scales need to be weighted here to account for the factors I've mentioned.
However, you mentioned further research on the article, and if that is going to take place I can retrieve the text if you need and put it on a user sub-page for you to work on. However, this is not permitted merely as a long-term storage of it. You can copy it and store it off-line if you wish though.
Tyrenius (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Can I think about that? You see, it was not 'my' article. I cannot remember how I came across it, but it was by chance. It was then untidy and with some template or other, so I tidied it up and I think found at least one further reference. It had minor merit and notability but it was not given a chance re expansion. The vultures struck. I sometimes wonder if my precious time is worth it. Regards David Lauder (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Other
I have written an essay at User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias. Maybe you have some changes to improve it. Tyrenius (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- And here's another case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Frigerio. Tyrenius (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I shall see if I can assist. How much time do I have? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The AfD is due to finish on 15 February. If you can find anything in your library, the sooner the better. Likewise for Cesario Renzi, who's already been speedy deleted, despite being a pupil of Guido Reni. I may well restore it. No doubt a number of articles by User:Caravaggisti are endangered species. Tyrenius (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is an art section, but it is not dramatically big, just three or so shelves. There is a ten-volume set of the Encyclopedia of Visual Art (with an incredible board of editors). I'll see what I can find. Reni, of course, is in there with multiple mentions. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tyrenius, I cannot find anything on those two. I've had a thorough look. Sorry. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests#User:David_Lauder.2C_User:Chelsea_Tory_and_User:Counter-revolutionary. Tyrenius (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. I have left the only comment I can. What is it with this little gang that they are so obsessed with me? Just how offensive is my work on WP? They have never got over my opposition to them on AfDs and telling them off from time to time. Nasty bits of work. The next time anyone mentions personal attacks and good faith I'll point them in their direction. David Lauder (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman, I have indefinitely blocked this account due to sockpuppetry SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Procedural notification by Tyrenius (talk) (not blocking admin) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:TER#User:David_Lauder.2C_User:Chelsea_Tory_and_User:Counter-revolutionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
David Lauder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing against this block on three grounds. (1) it is untrue. (2) I have been blocked for no obvious reason re my work on Wikipedia and (3) the block has been carried out by a close member of a small cabal dedicated to my elimination and who have already attempted this in 'The Troubles' ArbCom dispute. Having failed there they are now pushing this conspiracy theory. User:David Lauder 18:26, 13 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.189.47 (talk)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. "Note that this does not confirm the people are one, but I can confirm that they have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other" — Yamla (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
David Lauder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason for you not unblocking me is untrue and impossible. This is some sort of frame-up by 'The Troubles' brigade.
Decline reason:
It is very hard for me to believe you're not a sock. If you're not a sock, you're a meatpuppet. Either way, I'm declining the unblock. — Kwsn (Ni!) 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I refer to the comments being made here[2]. I am NOT Sussexman and I don't know him from Adam. No-one else has ever edited from my computer. To the best of my knowledge I have NEVER been involved in any ArbCom other than being nominated for inclusion in 'The Troubles' ArbCom.....by the same team who have blocked me now. You need to do some very very thorough tests with your checkuser system. I am NOT the others. I am sorry Angus has turned against me. I felt my contributions to Wikipedia spoke for themselves. David Lauder (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Chase, Allan. “The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977, pp. 91-92.