User:Pádraic MacUidhir/archive002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Christmas Article

As you noticed, I was eyeing the Christmas article as well, and I don't think the anon's edits were vandalism. In fact, I think most of them were improvements. Christmas IS celebrated by non-Christian populations in Western, non-predominantly Christian countries. Take Japan as an example. (Well, it might not be considered by some to be "Western," but hopefully you get the example.) Thanks for adding my edits back in though. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. His/her earlier edits were a bit too wishy-washy, though. They seemed to want to imply that the holiday has become more secular than it really is, which tells me that they are writing from an (at least vaguely) Western/American POV rather than a world-wide Christian POV. The person's most recent edits are a significant improvment, so I will probably feel all right about leaving the article as it is when I finally slither off to bed in a few minutes. No problem on re-adding your edits- that bit of expansion was definitely needed to give the alternate date some context.
Oh, and sorry am I for misspelling your username in my edit summary. I was in a bit of a hurry at the time in order to finish before another edit conflict happened. ;)
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah ok. I only saw his most recent ones which explains a lot.
Yep. :)→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry about misspelling my name. If I had a nickel... ;)
Yes, but I have little excuse, as I value my sense for precision and careful nature in text editing. I should have taken more time in the editing.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and yes. I'd say 86 reviews, 350 BBS posts, and 1526 Blams/Protects constitutes being a "fan." Probably in excess of healthy levels. :D Merry Christmas.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
An even bigger fan than I!
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
If I'm not being nosy, do you have a screenname there? :)
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 11:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Not yet, no. I really should do so, though. I was introduced to that site's content by a good friend in 1998 CE, and have been avidly enjoying it since that time. If I set up an account, I will let you know.
You can be as nosy as you wish, Hinotori. I always tell people exactly how much that I feel they should/need to know, and I am nosy by nature as well, so feel free to be the same. ;)
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. 7 years and no account. That's OLD sk00l. :D I first came to it my freshman year in college, and the site's been a great stress reliever these last 3 years, though I haven't been visiting the site all that much (except to deposit experience, because I'm insane). And I would indeed be interested in hearing if you set up an account, so thanks for that. I tend to be rather nosy myself, so I try to err on the side of caution. ;) By the way, I'm on AIM often under the name "ShinriVeritas" or "HinotoriZ." On MSN, I'm hinotoriz@hotmail.com. Feel free to drop a line. (Don't bother emailing the account though. It's for junk only. :D)
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spring-heeled Jack/Davis 'murder'

Thank you for your note regarding this incident on the page Spring Heeled Jack. In fact there is no (contemporary) source for the alleged murder, which is a hoax created by Peter Haining, the author of the only full-length book on the subject (The Legend and Bizarre Crimes of Spring Heeled Jack, 1977). Haining's intention was probably to add sensation to his book. I pointed this out, with full references, in a paper on the subject written in 1996, and made the relevant information available to the author of the Wikipedia article six months ago in a long posting made to the relevant talk page. I am still waiting for the author to complete revisions based on the points I raised; sadly she seems to have significantly reduced the amount of time she is spending working on the site. Unfortunately there were so many errors in the article that I have not had the time to spare to tackle them myself. Next year, when I have more time, I will thoroughly revise this article myself if it still requires significant work. Mikedash 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi P.MacUidhir,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

Your vote and nice comments meant a great deal to me. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of academics

As I just noticed you voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Celmer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurance Doyle, I wonder if you may be interested in helping to revive the stagnant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. I have started to list previously debated articles at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics/Precedents, but it should hopefully contain more on reasons why things have been nominated in the first place (although sometimes it is just somebody who considers all professors non-notable), and why each article in the end has been either kept or deleted. up+land 10:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured that a debate of that sort had to have occurred at Wikipedia already, but was not able to find it before your pointer given above. This is an interesting topic to me. I will go view what has been said.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why did u remove spaniards?

Spaniards are yes a unique because they speak a Latin Lagnauge but are by most part of Nordic decent. (24.60.161.63 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

See the Talk page for Germanic Peoples. Spaniards are not Nordic. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Germanic Neopaganism

Why not? The main article doesn't generate length warnings yet, so I don't think there's a hurry; and the "history" section is, after all, the chief point of the main article too, but if you're more comfortable with a sub-article, that's fine too (particularly if you have lots of details in store that you'd like to add). regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Germanic peoples page

No problem as I'm glad to help out! The page needs to reflect reality not conjecture. The Spanish people page completely avoids the Berbers as if they were a plague. The Spaniards do have some germanic and celtic ancestry but its superimposed upon a Mediterranean population. It's like saying Italians or Greeks are Germanic. It's meant to be a language group first and foremost anyway. Ciao. Tombseye 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My Request for Adminship

Hi, thanks for voting in my RfA. I got it! If you need anything, just give me a shout! Oh, and the kind words are most appreciated :) - FrancisTyers 00:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witchcraft Act

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by pointing the first paragraph of Wicca to something more specific than the generic Wikipedia page.

I meant that I want to reference the relevant Acts of Parliament to which it is referring rather than the rather odd Witchcraft Act page.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if it were just reworded to say something like after the repeal of the last British Witchcraft Act, but I wasn't sure if that was what you were getting at. So, I went looking for any information I could find and I stumbled across this. I don't think it is really useful in the current context, but I found it amusing to say the least. I thought you might as well. I never really knew the story behind why the Witchcraft act was repealed and I especially didn't know who we have to thank.--◀Pucktalk▶ 12:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of speculation and otherwise unverified/unverifiable information at that link... but if it is all true, then I agree, it is a rather hilarious way of getting that Act tossed into the wastebin of history!
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
According to Ronald Hutton (Triumph of the Moon, p. 107), the Witchcraft act of 1736 was reinforced by the Vagrancy Act of 1824 and replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951.
I found the text of the 1736 act here, here and here.
The Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 is here: here
I have not been able to find the text of the Vagrancy Act of 1824, but I did find some links to recent UK legislation that amended it here. I hope this helps.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, yes- but we have to use reliable sources for cites in articles. Most of those links are not authoritative as far as Acts of Parliament are concerned. I can find the 1951 act in dozens of places using Google, but all of them are on unreliable websites in the sense of accurate reproduction of the text of British laws. The last link, though, on the amending of the Vagrancy Act of 1824- that may prove useful in itself, yes. Good find there. If you can figure a way to use it as a cite in the main Wicca article, I say go for it.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Are you aware that the code for your signature is over eight lines long?

Yep.

I don't mind myself, but there are a lot of people around who would be annoyed at such a long sig.

Such a reaction would utterly mystify me. Annoyed by HTML code? Odd, that.

You might consider shortening the code before people start yelling at you. Raven4x4x 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I could, but since there is no rule against it, and I like it, I will keep it. There are plenty of other examples, too- pull up this page here and click the 'edit' button at the top. A large portion of the support votes show sigs as complicated or more so than my own. Not really saying I want to be a sheep and follow the herd, but I *did* get the idea from seeing a lot of other folk with complex signatures. If nothing else, it makes it easier to skim a talk page and find the comments of those who use HTML-coded signatures.
Why would anyone care, anyway?
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know why anyone should care. As I said I have no problems with it myself, but I was just warning you that there are other people who may. Raven4x4x 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, then. Thanks for the note about the matter.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

[edit] Re: Gododdin

You wrote: "Claudius Ptolemaeus, "Geographia" (ca. 2nd century CE)"

Why do you consider it useless? → P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

I wasn't referring to that footnote. It appears to be untouched, but if it has been changed, then either I did so accidentally or someone else did so.
llywrch
Ah. Noted. I will add it back, then.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

"Those living around Stirling were known as the Manaw Gododdin (Watson, 1926; Jackson, 1969)." Watson did the best groundwork in specifying the actual locale for the Manaw Gododdin. Jackson elaborated on the topic. Why remove Watson from the cite? → P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

How many people with the last name of Watson are there? And how books & articles did they publish in 1926? The point of a citation is to help people find the original source & verify what it says. An incomplete reference is worse than no reference at all, because if you make a mistake, a hurried reader will accept it as a reliable point; whereas no citation will dissuade a reader who cannot be confident whether the fact is verifiable or invented out of thin air -- & thus this reference is useless. (And when I first saw it, my first thought was to blame a previous editor, thinking that she/he had deleted the work this inline note references.)
llywrch
Oops. You are correct- I forgot to add Watson's work to the secondary references list in the article. My mistake. I shall rectify it in a short amount of time.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
I could supply the necessary information for Jackson's work, but not for Watson's. If you have the full bibliographic cite, please add it.
llywrch
Give me a few and it will be done.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
(P.S. Your Talk page is 102 Kb in size: you may want to archive the older discussions.)
-- llywrch 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes... I know. Been being lazy about it, I suppose. Noted, and thank you for mentioning it.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
Thanks for being understanding. I honestly don't try to discourage improvements to articles, but I admit that sometimes I do get grouchy while I make copy edits.
-- llywrch 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, Pádraic! I promise never to tip-toe per your comment. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Haukurth's RFA

Hehe - Frankly I doubt he could spend more time on Wikipedia than he does already, so you aren't really doing me a disservice by nominating him ;) You made Haukur happy - ergo, I like you :D Arndisdunja 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage (P.MacUidhir)

(copied from James James's talkpage.)

Thank you for correcting that spelling error located on my userpage. Quite honestly, it surprised me a bit since I tend to isolate myself to only a few subject areas in editing Wikipedia articles, so I assume that very few people are viewing my userpage. :) → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite simple. I was looking at the RfA page. I don't usually bother with it but I saw Haukur's name, which I recognised, and saw you'd nominated him. I was curious (mostly because of the name!) and checked it out. I hope that doesn't seem too sinister! James James 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, no. I suppose I am just used to being an unknown online, at least in most places. :) Good to meet you, James.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism:unmade yet made

Hello, fellow islander! Just wanted to tell you that Category:Surrealist Wikipedians has been created. - 13:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone

[edit] signature

I noticed your signature is unique and nice looking. It is occupies a lot of wiki source text though, and it turns out much of the markup is redundant. You can collapse consecutive font tags and bolding wiki markup. Let me know whether that makes sense to you. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:01Z

How do I do as you describe whilst also retaining the colour variations for the individual letters? The only way I know how to do so is by using a graphic file for my signature, which I would prefer to do, but seems to be taboo around here. → Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to not use any <font> tags. I just mean that something like <font color="red">x</font><font color="red">y</font> can be replaced with the equivalent but shorter <font color="red">xy</font>. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 00:51Z
I ask that you forgive my ignorance regarding HTML. Since I use a slightly different shade for each letter in part of the sequence, how can I block them together using those tags?
→ Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Instead of this: 
<font color="006400">'''P'''</font><font color="4B0082">'''.'''</font><font color="008000">'''M'''</font><font color="008000">'''a'''</font><font color="008000">'''c'''</font><font color="228B22">'''U'''</font><font color="228B22">'''i'''</font><font color="228B22">'''d'''</font><font color="228B22">'''h'''</font><font color="228B22">'''i'''</font><font color="228B22">'''r'''</font>
You could use this: 
'''<font color="006400">P</font><font color="4B0082">.</font><font color="008000">Mac</font><font color="228B22">Uidhir'''</font>
—Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 03:36Z


That works perfectly! Thank you!

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)