User talk:81.129.30.212

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scottish monarchs

Wikipedia serves all readers, and the use of names and name-forms not common in standard English is confusing, and the style is problematic: referring to Kings only by patronymics is not helpful if a reader is not expressly familiar with the patronymics (witness Gruoch, whose article referred to Kenneth II and Kenneth III so obliquely that it was impossible to decipher which, if any, monarchs were being canvassed as her grandfather). I'm sorry, but the articles need to be brought into line with the rest of wikipedia to be made more accessible, more user-friendly; that means standard English-language forms are required where they would be expected. Michael Sanders 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no standard English language forms. Popular anglicizations are mentioned in the text, though of little importance to the subject ... if the reader is such an idiot that they can't read then they are unlikely to benefit from the articles anyway. There's no discrepancy between these articles and the rest of wikipedia, though you are attempting to create one by anglicizing the forms for the sake of it. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, how incredibly offensive. Readers are idiots, according to you. For whom do you write, then? Michael Sanders 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
They aren't idiots of course, though guys like you suppose them to be. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If the articles are titled by the English forms, and the English forms are more common in English, the English forms should be used. Michael Sanders 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You have broken the 3 revert rule, by the way. Michael Sanders 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Woolf, Duncan, Hudson, Broun and the other authors used as sources were writing in English. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, articles have to be as readable as possible. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly tracts. Michael Sanders 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So those authors aren't readable? Maybe they shouldn't be used as sources then. Why don't you rewrite the articles using Encarta! 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Real mature. A good article has to balance between being informative and readable. Michael Sanders 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're giving me a maturity judgment? This from the fellow who responded to a highly intelligent and reasoned post from one of wikipedia's most respected editors with thank you for the rant. Wonders may one day cease my friend, but you're giving me doubts. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If 'highly respected editors' complain about "the grinding of the axe" and "wurrs your Alfred the Great noo" etc, etc, then "highly intelligent and reasoned" is not an appropriate description. Michael Sanders 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are still trying to disparage Angus. What has he ever done to you other than disagree? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You've broken the 3 revert limit on Donald II of Scotland. Michael Sanders 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This editor needs to be blocked ASAP, he is clearly breaching Wikipedia rules, and disregarding warnings. Scots Gaelic should not be used in this way.--UpDown (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A friend of Mickie's?! What connection is there between those two sentences, do you suppose? And why is it against wikipedia rules to be sensible? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked Michael to avoid using words like "ludicrous"; they don't help us to have a civil discussion. He's now stating his opinions strongly but with less local colour in his language. Could you please do the same? Calling him "Mickie" isn't going to make him see things your way all of a sudden. I'd like our efforts to generate light, not heat. Mike Christie (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
He won't like "Mickie"? I guess I can't argue with you over your own name. If you see the first response to Angus, you will see he wasn't really that anxious for an amiable and reasoned conversation. I like nothing more, so I don't see any problems co-operating. It would also help things if Mr Sanders didn't revert on the same topic he is discussing while the discussion is taking place. I don't see how that could possibly help. After all, it is his wish to alter the status quo which has brought this up. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree he didn't start off on the right foot; and you're right about the status quo. However, I don't think there's a clear consensus on this issue in the policies, and I suspect the right answer is to broaden the discussion and get agreement from more people. One instance that would affect articles I've been involved with would be Æthelberht of Kent; the article's current name is based on reliable sources but I think Michael might feel the name should be "Ethelbert" since that's more common in general use. So I would like to see a principle established that we could refer to. I agree with Haukur that the policy Michael cites doesn't give a definitive answer. Mike Christie (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)