User talk:QuintusPetillius

Welcome!

Hello :), i send this message about the chiefs of clan Sutherland. On his tombstone, John William Sutherland de Forse is mentioned as the chief of the clan Sutherland. The title of chief of chief of the clan did not revert to the Earls until Elizabeth became Countess in 1963. Prior to this, the Earls descended from Elizabeth 10th Earl could not be chiefs of the clan as they bore the name Gordon (they only called themselves Sutherland when the 16th Earl reverted to the name Sutherland, formerly Gordon). After the marriage of the 18th Earl's daughter to George Leveson-Gower, the Earls called themselves Sutherland-Leveson-Gower. The Sutherlands of Forse then became chiefs of the clan until Elizabeth took the name Sutherland instead of Sutherland-Leveson-Gower to become chief of the clan. But thanks for editing if i maked a mistake, have a good evening :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutherland32 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply later today when I get home from work. QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying but if you want to adjust the article with that info then you will have to find a published source to verify it. At present the article is to a good standard and well sourced. Also, I have seen sources that show that the 16th Earl was recognised as chief after resuming the surname of Sutherland and that this was to gain the clan following during the Jacobite rising of 1719 and this included being recognised as chief by the Lord Lyon. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on not listing notable Persons is a mere opinion. I require a unbiased 3rd party in this matter.

It's not my opinion, it's fact. Just because someone has a clan surname does not actually mean that they are a member of the clan. This was discussed many years ago back in the early 00's on the Scottish clan's Wikipedia project page. You could put in a line to say for a list of people with the surname see MacPhail. Or you could put that link in the See also section.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuintusPetillius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Robert Mor Munro, 15th Baron of Foulis. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 21:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out when I have time. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quintus. Just letting you know that I nominated your new article on Robert at WP:DYK.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert de Munro, 8th Baron of Foulis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind comments. Donald Gregory is next in my sights. 45ossington (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Munro, 12th Baron of Foulis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, could you possibly have a quick look at (i) the recent discussion at Talk:Clan MacNeacail and (ii) the reverts to which the discussion relates, and contribute in any way you think fit?

Many thanks,

45ossington (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful input. 45ossington (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

been a while, but I see it was done. Sorry, but not that active on wiki these days. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuintusPetillius. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QuintusPetillius! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for looking at this and working on the box. I'm not sure that it is quite right as yet. E.g., there could be two civil war boxes for Mary, Queen of Scots, one for her battles and campaigns 1561 to Carberry, "Scottish civil conflict in Mary's reign" including the Chaseabout Raid, and a "Marian civil war" box for events from Langside to the fall of Edinburgh castle in 1573. This latter period 1568-1573 when Mary went into England, is called the "Marian civil war." I'm sure you'll be able to find a solution for the boxes, I don't understand them very well.Unoquha (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the cleanup of Clan Shaw of Tordarroch SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your work on many Foo Fighters articles, wonder if you could help on the Foo Fighters live performances article I made the other day - you can even move some info on the band article that you complained about to there. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to take up you offer. I don't think your article will last very long on Wikipedia. I mean are there other articles detailing other artists "live performances" ?, its not very Wikipedia-like. And besides its poorly referenced.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. As you may have seen, there have been quite a few editorial disputes on Green Day discography recently, but all editors seem to be doing is reverting each other continuously without anyone getting anywhere, and the page is thus very unstable. To curb this, I'm beginning a discussion here to try and come to some sort of consensus on the big issues I've spotted. Although you haven't been involved in the problems I bring up, the tireless work you've put into many rock articles and discographies in the past leads me to think your judgement could be very useful. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you seem to be voluntarily stopping, but I still feel like I need to make it clear: the level of edit warring that has gone on in this pair of articles is unacceptable. The next one of you that reverts in either article will be blocked. SuperVirtual, I draw your attention to WP:BRD: once an addition you have made to an article is reverted, it stays out of the article until there is consensus to include it. QuintusPetillius, I draw your attention to WP:3RR#3RR exemptions: none of your reverts fall under any of those exemptions, and being a reviewer doesn't give you a special status. I could, at this point, block both of you, but I will not so long as you both cease edit-warring and start discussing.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuintusPetillius

I am trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Years, and I thought you may be interested. Please respond to this message here, and post your name here if you are interested.

Thanks, Matty.007 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh has suggested that I ask you this, as he says you have "a good book that likely covers the term somewhat: Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia, a book endorsed by the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs."

My question is, how should "of that Ilk" be capitalised? My own feeling is that it should be "of that ilk", just as the word "same" would never be capitalised. But throughout Wikipedia, I see "of that Ilk". I would appreciate your view. Maproom (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I suspected as much. Ironically I was the one who amended the reference to the Nevermind 20th anniversary reissues (pointing-out that there were multiple such packages as opposed to only one super-deluxe edition). Thanks for the heads-up. I'll see if I can track down an article to help back this up. LazyBastardGuy 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. I found a source within minutes (Rolling Stone) of saying I would, I was surprised at how far I didn't have to go (which of course only proves you were right). I don't know if I made it entirely too brief on the page, though, so feel free to touch it up if you like. LazyBastardGuy 19:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My clan name is Hetherington and my family is from Ireland and Scotland. I've shown this to my family and they find this a great offence to what Wikipedia or inaccurate sites saying about the Hetherington's aren't a Scottish name or Scottish clan. Our Tartan is shared with Murray. In the middle ages/ Scottish wars, every Scottish clan and tribe would have wars and battles between their land/clan/ because they didn't like each other. Hetheringtons were even with William Wallace fighting and killing the English soldiers who invade Scotland. In the Tudor/ Stuart era Hetherington was a Scottish Christian rebel clan against James the 6th of Scotland or James the 1st of England and England. The king hated these rebellious Scottish clans and ordered his men and convinced many other Scottish clans to hunt them, torture them and even kill them. Most Hetherington's hid all over in Scotland (like Shetland and Orkney isles). Some Hetherington's immigrated/ exiled to Ireland or Northern England like Northumberland and Cumbria. I never said it was a Armigerous clan. Like it or not its a Scottish surname, clan and Tribe. And also remember the Scottish borders kept changing. Hope to be pals in the future.

Thanks for spotting my error linking to the wrong map for the Battle of Glen Shiel. I corrected the mistake and re-inserted the link. Best wishes Triptropic (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request for temporary protection from IP editors and hopefully it stops people from adding fake chart positions which help no one. Noreplyhaha (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Freskin categorization, Category:12th-century European people is a container cat, so it can only contain subcats, not articles. Pick a subcat for it or remove the cat. --Slivicon (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the correct category should be 12th-century Flemish people, which does not yet exist. I will make adjustments in due course.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear QuintusPetillius,

I hope you were joking here. I spent a lot of time yesterday undoing damage caused by that little pest, as you can see in my recent contributions. I'm glad that you detected that for some odd reason that vandal was correct on that occasion, but I was merely reinserting information, which cannot be called vandalism. See for yourself here. I should have checked the source first but I did that with other information he changed in other articles, and it was always wrong (besides, how could I know that the page watchers of the Green Day discography article would let that RIAA Gold certification for Bullet in a Bible remain there for several months, at least? Yes, that includes you!). At that point I stopped assuming good faith because, after all, that person is a vandal, and verifying the information of every edit would have taken forever. Here's solid proof that I was dealing with a vandal. I'm one of the good guys! Cheers... Dontreader (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, replying to your message on my talk page, as far as I know, there is no way to search the imgur site for specific images - you need to know the specific URL of the image you're looking for. I've only uploaded about 10-15 of these top 100 scans (guestimating) to use as references so far. There is a book published by Gavin Ryan, Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010 that I also use for ARIA peaks between 51-100, between January 1990 and December 2010, but I've uploaded some of these scans to use as a reference because it's more readily verifiable for people who don't have the book (which is now out of print, I believe, although the .pdf version on a USB stick can still be purchased). As for the top 100 scans, I only have those from January 1994 until March 1999, with a few others between December 1999 and April 2000. So far I have only scanned the 1994 singles charts, and a couple from later years. The ARIA Report was sent out as a .pdf from January 2001, and archived copies of this are posted here http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790 , but only from 2001. ARIA are in the process of scanning all of their ARIA Reports, which will then be available to purchase, but I don't know when they will have this project completed. Are there specific charts/peaks you're looking for?Nqr9 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have one ARIA top 100 singles chart scan from 1992, which has 'Lithium' at #98, but shows its peak (HP = highest position) of #53 - I've uploaded it here http://i.imgur.com/zsGz9E9.jpg . This was its final week in the top 100; normally I prefer to source a scan that shows the week where it has fallen out of the top 100, to show that a single's chart run has ended (but sometimes they can re-enter, of course). I added Gavin Ryan's chart book as a reference for the ARIA peak on the "Lithium" page a few months ago. My State Library (where I photocopied these charts from 10 years ago) doesn't have any 1993 charts, so I don't have any showing 'In Bloom's peak. I do have photocopies of the charts showing Foo Fighters' peaks for "I'll Stick Around", "For All the Cows", "Big Me", "My Hero", "Walking After You", and "Stacked Actors", but haven't scanned these yet. I will do eventually, but it might take a while.Nqr9 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I think I added Gavin Ryan's book as a reference to the Foo Fighers' discography page a couple of months ago, too.Nqr9 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence on that article, but just as a warning to be careful, the content you removed actually was from one of the reliable sources cited in the section just before - I remember reading it while trying to get the fringe junk out of the article last year. It's here. So that was a good faith edit even if not a perfectly formed one. Blythwood (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Suonii180. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Donald Mackay, 11th of Strathnaver, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Suonii180 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Donald Mackay, 11th of Strathnaver, QuintusPetillius!

Wikipedia editor Odysseus1479 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Some passages could use more thorough paraphrasing, but since they’re properly attributed to a copyright-expired source I don’t think this is a serious problem.

To reply, leave a comment on Odysseus1479's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, my laptop started glitching last night and kept taking me to pages I didn't want to go to so I didn't want to mark a new page as reviewed when I hadn't intended to review it in the first place. I'm sorry for the confusion, I didn't realise it was already a reviewed page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suonii180 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually that's not more accurate, just because someone is Irish does not necessarily mean that they are Celtic." I agree; however it far too many instances I have seen Celtic used as a synonym of Irish. Why not just say Irish? Fergananim (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert to as per source. Wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say. Learn the rules before editing." You're right. The problem lies in the source, which obviously has no idea when or where the term should and should not be used. Fergananim (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to "explain" WP:USCHARTS to me. I edit charts all the time, and from our previous interactions, I'm pretty sure you know this, so I am absolutely aware of that policy and most chart-related policies. In fact, I corrected instances of Bubbling Under peaks being added to 100 myself several times yeterday. I even explained it in an edit on Disturbed discography. I was not finished with my edits to Alice in Chains discography, so your revert when I was restoring notes that were deleted five years ago and had no corresponding explanation for their inclusion for that period of time, which you didn't notice or fix yourself in that time except to come along when I restored the notes (and didn't add the Bubbling Under peaks) and revert me, with what I felt was a condescending explanation of a chart policy, was wholly unnecessary. I feel like you could have just left a message, or corrected in subsequent edits. Ss112 23:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift deletion. It's this kind of thoughtful considerate co-operation which makes it such a pleasure to contribute to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Clifford Mill (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I notice you haven't deleted the alteration to the article Battle of Pinkie Cleugh. In your quest for authenticity, I think you ought to consider doing so. Please be consistent! Clifford Mill (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for your edits. Understand re the sourcing. It's tricky with modern history due to sourcing requiring uploading and citing private legal documents belonging to my father. The official family website with the family trees confirm the information - but I think you'll find these sources to not be independent enough. What do you suggest? Best, Harry HJCSwinton 14:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryswinton (talk • contribs)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you comment Just because the founder of that family was a cousin of the Douglas does not mean the were necessarily a branch of the clan mistakes the point that was made in the Clan Douglas article. The pseudo-history story of the the mythical progenitor of Clan Douglas, Sholto, says that he had two, presumably also mythical, sons, William and Marius, who married into leading families in Piacenza, in modern day Italy, founding the Douglas Scotti and Scoti Douglas families. There are 17th sources that make the claim. See also The History of the House and Race of Douglas and Angus By David Hume. Your point about use of foreign language Wikipedia entries as sources is, of course, valid. Shipsview (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that I may be to blame for the edit wars happening on the Clan Douglas article. I suggested that the recent reversion of (unreferenced) entries referring the European branches of Clan Douglas highlights their omission from this article. Perhaps Equord and Tataral would like to rectify this? See Talk:Clan_Douglas You have suggested that a separate article would be appropriate for the Swedish branch. I disagree - at least for now. The story of the clan is poorer for their exclusion. Can we find a way to work together? Shipsview (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the context; I'd have been happy to do them myself.

I've always tried to assume good intent, I've put a lot of work into these rewrites, including extensive research using original articles rather than generic statements so perhaps you might want to reconsider the way you've phrased the last part of your comment. My interest is in the Glorious Revolution and the differences between the results in the Three Kingdoms, not obscure debates about Scottish clans.

Hope that helps.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the context; I'd have been happy to do them myself.

I've always tried to assume good intent, I've put a lot of work into these rewrites, including extensive research using original articles rather than generic statements so perhaps you might want to reconsider the way you've phrased the last part of your comment. My interest is in the Glorious Revolution and the differences between the results in the Three Kingdoms, not obscure debates about Scottish clans.

Hope that helps.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to make sure I do this the right way; my problem with the article as written is that it is over-detailed in some sections (eg the background etc) but more or less stops with the retreat from Derby. It also misses out the Aftermath; I've rewritten the Invasion part but I realise it's taken a lot of effort so I don't want to offend the original writer; what's the protocol for that? i.e. should I explain my concerns first and what for comments or should I just get on with it? Robinvp11 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed the rewrite of Invasion of England; given most of the article as written reads like a cut and paste job (who says 'profess' these days) and manages the unusual feat of being overly detailed, while missing out the entire tactical background in favour of long lists of muskets and powder, deleting my edits on the grounds that 'it's worse written' and referenced is absolute tripe. Rather than quoting huge hunks from one of two authors, I even looked at original records - that might be more important than telling me I can't even do references properly (even Wikipedia is not consistent and I've written articles for published magazines, where this is how they were done). Again, if you'd said that, I would have changed them.

I have a degree and PHD in History; I've spent most of my life continuing that interest, I've written for published magazines and I started looking at this topic this because I've recently read three new books on the topic). That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right but I'm not some 18 year old and I'd prefer to be treated as a grown up; so far, I've been called a sock puppet, told I can't even do references properly and if you'd told me about not using non-Wikipedia links elsewhere, I could have done that without you behaving some infuriated teacher.

I started with a lot of enthusiasm but I'm rapidly losing it. I'm happy to defend and/or discuss changes but if you'd prefer to simply keep the article as written, for whatever reason, then tell me now so Having seen some of the petty back and forth on various Wikipedia discussions, I can vaguely understand your concern but I've simply displayed the fact I'm new to Wikipedia, not some bloke with an obsession about whether its McDonald or MacDonald. I want to make these articles better but I have enough stress in my life not to want that to be part of stuff I do for fun.

Robinvp11 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key principles of Wikipedia are (per Wikipedia) collaboration and respect. I feel I've been treated with neither, which unfortunately appears to be a common complaint for new editors. I know it makes life a lot easier to provide responses to things that you've taken the care to make up yourself but;

What I did not say; my background means that I'm somehow superior. What I did say it is a topic I know something about and as result, I'd prefer to be treated as an adult, not simply dismissed like some 18 year old.

What I did not say the segment as written lacked sources. What I did say the content isn't very relevant (I've explained why on the talk page) and appears to be largely copy and paste from one book. The sources are irrelevant to the question of whether it's either useful or accurate; otherwise the implication would be that within limits, I can say anything I want as long it's sourced. That's ludicrous.

Wikipedia value of Respect; so far, on another page you've asked me if I'm a sock puppet, told me my writing is poor (based on a criteria you haven't shared), that I 'don't even know how to write a reference' and how difficult I'm making your life by linking to non-wikipedia pages, which I freely admit but could easily have changed myself if asked. It's not so much the arrogance displayed as it being utterly unnecessary but it reflects discussions you've had elsewhere (In these discussion, I like to check to see if this is a one-off or a pattern and the latter clearly applies).

Wikipedia value of Collaboration; you said several times the content is fine, without explaining why and you have yet to answer my comments on the Talk page (which I was told by you is the right way to have these discussions). You haven't told me exactly why my amendments were 'badly written' (yes, that does annoy me). You haven't disagreed with my references (some of which were orginal documents and rather than simply using one book, I tried to vary them); you removed them because 'I don't even know how to write a reference.'

Are you the author? I'm happy to discuss why I think it needs changing (collaboration) but if you're simply going to say no, it's great and set yourself up as the ultimate authority, then I'd rather not bother. If you only allow changes you agree with (so far, I've not seen anyone else comment) that's fine but how does that help Wikipedia?

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with including text based on its entry about "Clan MacAlpine", is that "Clan MacAlpine" doesn't exist. Its not acknowledged by the Lyon king of Arms - the only official anything about Clans. And even the people promoting the concept admit here (end of 1st paragraph) that no-one acknowledges it.

And since the very concept - the concept that in their own words, you note, is not acknowledged - directly conflicts with the Siol Alpin - indeed, one might say the concepts are rivals - it isn't exactly going to be a reliable source about Siol Alpin clans. 80.5.30.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, first things first, Clan MacAlpin does now exist and is officially recognized by the Lord Lyon King of Arms who has recently appointed a clan commander. So while it does not have a recognized chief it does have an officially recognized clan commander by the Lord Lyon and is such an officially recognized clan. The point I was originally making was that the Clan Encyclopedia which is a reliable source states that there is no evidence to support the tradition that any clan is descended from the so called Siol Alpin. I have left the same message on your talk page. QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time, I wonder why I have you on my watch list, and then up pops another interesting discussion. This time it is Clan MacAlpin. Thank you. Shipsview (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I am the original editor and that is what it says in the source being quoted. Wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say." Then you need to get better sources, as the connection with the Votadini is unproven; Gàidhlig is the correct name of the language (Celtic is a linguistic classification); and Cunedda is plainly not 'Cinneidgh'. The rest of the article seems fine, its only these three points that stand out as wrong. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have reverted a lot of recent vandalism on the Faith No More discography page. The pattern of vandalism - multiple accounts and IP addresses adding false and unreferenced chart peaks (the "UK Rock Chart", which I've never heard of before, seems to be their latest thing) to discography pages, and persistently doing so with new accounts and IP addresses - is characteristic of TomWatkins1970. I have dealt with this vandal for just over a year on Bros-related pages. I would encourage you to open a new sock puppet investigation, on the username page I linked earlier (check the archived cases for examples of their 'work'), so that they can be dealt with (again). It seems they have now moved on to vandalising discographies by rock/alternative artists, such as The Smashing Pumpkins, Faith No More, and Silverchair. Be warned - they often turn abusive in edit summaries, and even edited my user page at one point, with comments like I'm a kiddie fiddler, I've been in jail, etc. They are also incredibly persistent. Other hallmarks of their behaviour include random capital letters in sentences, poor punctuation/expression/grammar (writing as though English is not their native language), and claims of being a music/chart historian for decades (check the user page of EL Foz87, and also note the poor expression). I suggest you also request page protection and administrator assistance in dealing with vandalism if they persist.Nqr9 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(Even if you are correct you still need to learn the basics of editing Wikipedia: you are not allowed to remove well sourced information like this without prior disucussion.)"

If I thought it was well sourced information I wouldn't have edited it in the first place. It is a basic mistake that anyone with a little knowledge of Hebridean history should have picked up. At the "Battle of Corpach" in Lochaber c1470, Iain Garbh Maclean of Coll was killed in a battle with Clan Cameron. From that time, Maclean of Coll's patronym was "Mac Iain Abraich"/"Son of Lochaber John". Definition: MACKENABRY: In his "Description of the Western Isles of Scotland, called Hybrides; by Mr Donald Monro High Dean of the Isles" (1549) states that the island of Rum "appertained to MacKenabry of Coll" (Macfarlane, Geographical collections, 111, p. 280). This is merely an English rendering of Gaelic Mac Iain Abraich, 'son of John of Lochaber.

I am not going to correct it again, as you so freely admit, method trumps fact for many Wikipedites, and life is too short to be spending time arguing the obvious.Theirishslave (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in [1]. The text has been entirely rewritten, but the reference remains the same. The edit summary suggests that the editor believes the DNB (the reference) to be incorrect, but it is still cited as the reference. So where does the new material in the article come from?
Makes me wonder what other obvious stuff like this is out there.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1689 in Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jacobite rising of 1689, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Line (Foo Fighters).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will admit that my first two edits wasn't thought through all of the way, thinking that early band names can be aliases (especially when it was advertised on posters back in 1987!), but I am legitimately shocked that when I decided to add more clarification to a specific paragraph that detailed these early band names, you rejected the edit for "the same reason as before". Did you even read the paragraph before you rejected my edit?! Not only was I correcting the sentence (there is a historical error), but I was listing their other earlier names. The whole point of that sentence was to talk about the creation of the band's name! Can you please elaborate on the matter? I would love to know why it was rejected, specifically.

Hi how can we discuss the content of the page in order that any add ins I put meet the requirements. I have attempted to reference the info I have added but been advised that maybe I am still contravening the purpose of Wikipedia.

Could you help as I really don’t want to cause upset just ensure it’s accuracy. For instance the crest is blazoned as a serephim volent proper, which is depicted on the arms of Holmains as either a cherub which is incorrect, or 6 wings with a head in the middle.

Currently there is a petition with the Lyon to matriculate the Holmains Arms if our chiefly line. Once accepted the crest and clan badge will reflect that. My understanding is also that the red Carruthers tartan will be made official of all goes well, but we have a ways to go and it will be evidenced.

Any assistance would be gratefully received. I am involved with the clan society supporting the petitioner and as I said would like to ensure the page, which is an important port of call for our family, remains as up to date and as accurate as possible.

Any advice will be gratefully received Bruce7169 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it requires a secondary source and it will have. Both from the Lyon Court and the Clan website. It was the artwork I was talking about but I have to assume that you will be able to get that and upload it. The information will be evidenced and more importantly accurate as I am as keen as you that the site reflects the truth of who and what we are.

I thank you fir creating the page and for your tenacity in keeping it factual. Bruce7169 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me. It shows me some appreciation, and I love it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quintus, appreciate the hard work you've done with the Nirvana articles

Halpert88 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, responding to your message on my talk page, I've taken a screenshot of the Megadeth entry in Gavin Ryan's 2011 book, Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010, which is based on the ARIA chart, here - https://i.imgur.com/fdOCTXU.jpg . This is from the pdf edition, page 184, published by Moonlight Publishing. The HP column displays the 'high point'/peak, with weeks at (WA) peak in parentheses if it was more than one. The WI columns tally the weeks in the top 100, top 50, and top 10, respectively. The EP column displays the entry position (an asterisk besides this indicates the release was the highest debut that week), and the Weeks2 Peak column displays how many weeks the release took within the top 100 to reach its peak. The Acc column displays accreditation/certification information (a circle represents gold, and a triangle represents platinum). This book covers chart data until the end of December 2010. As you can see, the only other single of theirs to enter the top 100 during this period was 'Symphony of Destruction', which peaked at #58.Nqr9 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me what article content means briefly regarding the picture. Also, the picture I put should be used because it's all labelled and free to use?

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! There may be some relevant info in Gillian G. Gaar's 33 1/3 In Utero book. Will check online as well. Halpert88 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a link to an article about DNA studies which appeared in the Clan Munro Australia. This is available online, though somewhat out of date.

You mentioned elsewhere the Munro of Lochfyneside family who were tenants of the Campbell chiefs in the 18th century. Genetically they are unrelated to the Munros of Foulis in the male line - they are group 4 in the project. Although their patrilineal kinship is of similar antiquity, it seems that they adopted the name Munro in the 17th C. when it became handy not to sound too Gaelic - before that they were McNorevichs or McInreochs. Again there are publications about this in Clan Magazines. Their closest male line relatives are called McCorkle who are of Northern Irish origin but one assumes the Loch Awe McCorquodales were somehow linked, being so near at hand. You are quite right to mention how sensitive folk are about the idea of descent from one clan or another. They are all genetically heterogeneous, and they always were. I gave a talk about this to the Neil Munro Society the other year (his mother was the Munro, of course, so not the same Y chromosome anyway) and a relative told me afterwards I had "upset her entire world view".

Let me know if you'd like more information.

LoneMore (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quintus, I would just like to let you know that I didn't upload that picture. It was already in the gallery, so I assumed it could be used.

Template:Campaignbox Rebellion of Domhnall Dubh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thanks for acknowledging my recent edit. I wanted to let you know that we found the article a great help when writing the paper that I have cited, but as with many journals citations to Wikipedia were not allowed. I have recently made some more major edits to Alexander Monro primus and wonder if you have time to look these over.Papamac (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You commented We shouldn't be linking sept names to surname lists or surname disambiguation lists because it gives the false impression that all of those listed belong to the sept of the clan, which cannot be correct which I accept as a fair point. Apparently I should not have linked to a disambiguation list anyway! So double error! Ouch! Shipsview (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas septs I do not think that the editor of the Clan Douglas page who reinstated the link to Drysdale was claiming that people paid Wikipedia. I think the payment claim refers to those who pay for details of their ancestors elsewhere. So, not silly. Poorly expressed perhaps, but not silly.

Can you confirm that it is your view that 'septs should only be linked to the relevant clan or sept page'; i.e. it would be OK if there were a Drysdale sept page? Shipsview (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have answered on your talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That wasn't meant to be permanent anyway, it was just a quick fix while I was working on The Colour and the Shape. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please don't, I like to keep them in one place...I see you've acknowledged me and that's all I needed dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Reddit article was posted on Foo Fighters' official Reddit page and the photo provided is not fake. You can clearly tell it's Dave Grohl. That's as legit as you can be.

I'll answer on your talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Scotland in 1499 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEMORIAL apply here. People listed in notable alumni sections should either (1) have an existing Wikipedia article or (2) be notable enough where it is plausible that they could have a Wikipedia article (i.e., many olympic athletes do not have Wikipedia articles, but per WP:ATHLETE are considered to be eligible). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will consider writing a Wikipedia article for the person in question in the future, given that it relates to the important issue of euthanasia.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is indeed a notable case within the context of some subcategory of euthanasia (e.g., Euthanasia in Switzerland), it might be more appropriate to incorporate information regarding this particular case into that article. I'm not sure that the subject would meet WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The man is notable as the youngest Briton to be euthanized and the subsequent calls as a result of his case for the British Government to legalize it. [2] QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Craig Cailloch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alexander of Islay encouraged Clan Chattan to fight the Battle of Craig Cailloch against Clan Cameron as revenge for the Camerons' defection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Craig Cailloch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Craig Cailloch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Battle of the North Inch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MIDI (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Opinion" article. Sure, let's get it done. :) Halpert88 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book Kith and Kin has the incorrect list of septs. Former Chief Lachlan Mackintosh of Mackintosh and his son, current Chief, John Mackintosh of Mackintosh have ruled that there are only 38 septs of the Clan. I have previously changed this and it has been edited and changed to the wrong list again. Please refer to https://clanchattan.org.uk/clan-mackintosh/

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Battle of Mulroy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I have it in the Battle of Mulroy article I did write it myself and did not just copy the prose. With this Article their is still a lot to be done.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QuintusPetillius, I thought you'd like to know that this article is scheduled to be on the main page in the Did You Know section in just under 24 hours at 00:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC), and will be there for 12 hours. An acknowledgement should be posted on this page when it appears on the main page, but in case you weren't around then, I thought I'd let you know a day in advance. Enjoy! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

On 5 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Mulroy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Clan Mackintosh fought against the Clan MacDonald and Clan Cameron in 1688, in what is claimed to have been the last Scottish clan battle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Mulroy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Mulroy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above: my proudest Wikipedia achievement: getting this article not only in the Did you know section of the Wikipedia main page, but taking it from just 10 views on January 4, 2020 to 3,219 views on January 5, 2020 ! QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings I agree with you completely as you might have seen. I have a lot of primary source material and support writings from Ronnie Black and Dr. Donald McWhannell (who have urged me to contribute to "Notes and Queries") on the MacLarens and MacLaurins which is a very different story from what is now on display. I am new to wikipedia as an editor.

Cordially

Hilton McLaurin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrorybeg (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed all the hard work you put into List of tallest buildings and structures in London, wonderful work in a tedious area, thank you. 𝒬𝔔 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:On a Plain CD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

If a table caption is inaccurate, then make it accurate, don't remove it and all others. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have corrected your mistake. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think more Nirvana articles can be created?Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

On Wikipedia, its only if a song meets the required standard of notability that an article can be created. There are not really many other Nirvana songs that do not currently have articles that meet this level of notability. Maybe "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" could be regarded as notable if enough information could be found (and sourced) to explain that the song was about the famous and controversial actress Frances Farmer.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That song is very notable. Any other songs you would think that would be notable? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There could be others if enough sources can be provided to verify enough notable information.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want to create more nirvana articles? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article for Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle. Check it out and see if it is good. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of errors I need to point out: the artwork is from an unofficial release so will have to be removed. Also, there have been two other versions released apart from the version on In Utero: an instrumental demo on CD2 of In Utero deluxe and another early demo on Montage of Heck - The Home Recordings. Otherwise, not a bad start. QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article Even in His Youth. Check it out. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endless, Nameless (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Come as You Are (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put the link for the track listing on Milk It? DarklyShadows (talk)

I've done it. By the way I don't think we need anymore articles for Nirvana songs. Speaking from over 10 years editing experience on Wikipedia it could cause problems down the line. All it will take is for someone to quote some legislation and the whole lot could be deleted for being "excessive", including some of the song articles from before you started creating them. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them get deleted in due-course for being non-notable.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Even in His Youth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even in His Youth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving Wikipedia for good because its to much stress with all the deletions going on and everyone snitching on me. You no longer have to ping this account every time you nominate an article for deletion. DarklyShadows (talk)

I did try warning you that songs need to meet notability criteria to have a Wikipedia article. I expect that Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle will survive the cull.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Septs of Clan Donald has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long tagged for multiple shortcomings, the material is of doubtful veracity, including dubious "eligibility" criteria, with the solitary reference a shopping site, no WP:RS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Mackenzie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you provide the revision url ? If not I'm afraid you'll bbe reverted, Thanks, User:Davey2010 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smells_Like_Teen_Spirit&oldid=963293022 QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for providing this, Having looked further I see it's been there since October 2019, Unfortunately I've seen many edit summaries similar to yours which have turned out to be false so before I made an idiot out of myself I figured I'd ask first lol,

Anyway many thanks for providing that link, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My adds are not wrong. Then you should do a fact check. The Europarade was initial started on 27th May 1976 on Hilversum 3 and was always a Top 30 because the DJ's then were able to play alll the records within 2 hours.

The Europarade as broadcasted by Dutch broadcaster TROS was discontinued on 25th. June 1987 on then Radio 3. So please check the facts about the program and the history of the program, the Dutch radiostation Hilversum 3 / Radio 3. Corsarijder (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My PROD’s of the UK dance and rock chart lists were based on the deletion of List of UK Dance Singles Chart number ones of 1988 via AfD. Do you think you should dispute that outcome? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on your talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]