User talk:Celtus/Archive Dec 2007

Macfie the Outlaw

Hello Celtus, in regard the the Macfie the Outlaw entry on the clan Macfie site I explained your reasons for wanting it to remain there to the Commander and he still believes it doesn't enhance the image or history of the Clan. His aim I think is to keep that article as an overview of the whole clan, and also to promote the Clan in the best possible light. That of course is not necessarily the purpose of Wikipedia or the limits of what the articles should be. May I suggest the best compromise is to do as Wwhatsup mentioned and have a seperate page altogether about him, and a link placed on the main page. In fact it might be an idea to have a whole section on notable macfie's, with this of course being one entry or sub-page. Best regards, Scot McPhie Scotness 23:33, 30 October 2007

Hi Scott. The Clan Macfie is an encyclopaedia article, not a promotional piece on the clan. So, it doesn't matter whether an article "enhances the image or history of the Clan", or not.--Celtus 05:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you, I'm just explaining the Commander's position, and the changes I made on his behalf. I definitely think there should be an entry on Ewan Macphee in Wikipedia, but I do think it should be a seperate page and there should be a referring list of notable Macfies.Scotness 22:16, 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.41.95 (talk)

I can see the difficult position you're in as a webmaster taking orders. But its common sense that if articles get edited-out because an organisation feels its not forwarding their cause enough... then the article and Wikipedia has lost it's integrity. Doesn't he understand that?--Celtus 06:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the question isn't so much as to whether or not there should be an entry on Ewan Macphee, but rather where it should be. The Clan Macfie page should provide an overview of the Clan itself, and as it was there were no entries of any depth on any individual Macfie's on it, except for Ewan Macphee - and in defence of the Commander there are alot more notable Macfie's that could have been featured on the main Clan page than Ewan! The Commander would all but not have him mentioned, which I personally think would be a big oversight, and compromise Wikipedia as you say. There should be a page on Ewan, and if I get round to it I'll set one up by porting the text from the original entry on him - unless someone else would like to (I'm short of time right now!)--Scotness 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the matter is you and the Commander want to remove a section of the article, solely because the feeling is it doesn't add to the clan's image or morals, or something along those lines - so instead of an encyclopaedia article we've now got a fanpage.--Celtus 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clan Hay-Origin of the Clan

Hello Celtus,

You wrote: If you endorse 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 the page. Celtus 07:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I would like this page deleted. It was meant as an edit to the article Clan Hay, but being a novice, I made a new page instead.

A quick question. To what page do you want me to add {{db-author}}? Still learning!

Cordially,Inver471ness 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clan Johnstone

Celtus, I'm glad that someone other than me is paying attention to this page, but I need to contest a number of edits that you made. I'm going to refrain from undoing your changes for the time being b/c I'd rather talk about it first.

1. I want to hear your rational for removing the Johnstons from the Armigerous clan page. If the Maxwells are there, why aren't their rivals, the Johnstons?
2. I do not see the point in removing the links to Johnston information at scotclans.com and electricscotland.com. Please justify this removal.
3. It is customary that all non superfluous words in titles be capitalized. Please justify your undoing that in all section titles.

Thank you. Signaj90 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Furse (surname)

Hi Showjumpersam. Please stop turning this article into your personal little genealogy page. This article is no different than any of the other surname articles - that list the origin of the surname and the notable people listed on wikipedia (you can click on the category English surnames at the bottom to see examples). Nothing personal.--Celtus (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a surname, it's an article about a family which has been expanded to cover other people who have assumed the same name. It was originally just 'Furse', however some bright spark decided it would be better as 'Furse (surname)', clearly this should be 'Furse (Family and Surname)' if we are being throrough. It is not a personal genealogy page -- I don't do that nor do I want to. In fact, most of the living members of that family do not appear on the page. The reason those members are there is by virtue of the justification of their entries in Who's who and Who Was Who etc. and so it seems are of historical interest to some (though not really to me, I am not an historian). It's hard to believe it's not personal when you delete all edits, seemingly without reading them...! Perhaps the reason why they are made is clearer now.

Showjumpersam (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)