Talk:John of Islay, Earl of Ross

message: This is an interesting and informative article.  The style needs to be cleaned up.  Phrases like So far John had done rather well and many others of such a nature which permeate the text are unencyclopedic.  This could be acceptable for a narrative historical treatment, where a distinctive authorial voice welcome; in an encyclopedia, however, it is inappropriate. Eusebeus 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldnt agree more. siarach 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. The style has a narrative cast that suggests plagiarism from something written fifty years ago or more. e.g. "John would however prove to be the last of the Lords of the Isles, overmighty subjects of the Stewart Kings of Scotland and virtual kings in their own right in the Western Isles."   It's over-subjective.   If a value-judgement "over-mighty" is going to be said, then it needs to be justified.  This was not a period where the kings of scotland had done much, if any, governing of the isles.  They had not set up a system of governance or done the isles any other particular service.  Arguably, their authority, then, was still little more than a claim they chose to make, one that had little established basis other than the fact that Scotland was geographically the nearest kingdom and that the islanders were a nuisance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.219.217 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic Standard 

message: I have always subscribed to George Orwell's contention that good prose should should be like a window pane, allowing a message to be conveyed with absolute clarity; there is nothing worse than bad English in the masquerade of pseudo-scholarship.  I have made an attempt here to convey the essential facts on the subject with as much clarity and precision as I can.  If anyone thinks they can do better by all means have a go-I will certainly not stand in their way.  But what I do resent-and deeply so-are unconstructive and petty-minded tags.  Those unhappy with the 'tone' of the present article are quite welcome to 'resurrect' the corpse in its original form. 
Rcpaterson 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of thing is bothering you so much you wanna leave? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the compliments. I've been grateful that someone has been filling the gaps in later medieval Scotland and correcting the inaccuracies than the topic of medieval Scotland seems to attract to it. I'm sorry you and An Siarach have gotten on the wrong side of each other. An Siarach is actually a good guy, it just happens sometimes that people don't take a liking to each other sometimes. I'm actually contemplating leaving to. Just too many POV pushers, busy-bodies and disruptive vandals, few of whom ever actually add substantial content, but who in the wiki system have just as much power and status as knowledgeable contributing users. I think I spend most of my time these days chasing POV pushers, educating the ignorant and quibbling on talk pages and repeating myself over and over to people who have either no intention or no ability to listen. It gets frustrating, and I lose my temper so often that I'm probably getting a reputation as someone who's not very nice. Really, I'm a nice guy, but few on wiki would ever realize it. All I really wanna do is write articles, increase my own knowledge by processing information, and help others increase theirs. Can I ask that you take a few days off or something. There's no rush to leave, is there? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I eagerly await enlightenment with regard to how the praise i left you on your talk page has somehow contributed to your current bout of petulance. If i might comment upon your allusion that yourself and Calgacus are perhaps similar in attitude to 'fools' - I have witnessed Calgacus become irate. However i have never witnessed him become so without having first put forward well thought out, cogent and highly educated arguments in favour of whatever stance he may hold on whatever subject is being debated. You, on the other hand, have in this page alone reacted to a very minor, well meant edit from a user with whom you have had nothing but decent relations by a)vandalising the page b) bad mouthing the user c) announcing your decision to cease efforts within the wiki project much like a child takes away his football if he doesnt get his own way. Both yourself and Calgacus have tempers - he, however, knows how to deal with his and how to deal civily with other people. siarach 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose 

message: I've removed the Template:Inappropriate tone tag as it's worse than useless: it advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find.  ...dave souza, talk 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from intending the tag as an "insult" to any editor i placed it because, having witnessed the major editors exasperation with other users and edits previously on other articles, i thought it might be less antagonistic to place the tag and then allow some discourse on what might be done to improve the tone rather than wading in and changing the bits with which i disagreed. As it turned out i shouldnt have bothered as RCPaterson has conveyed his opinion that any disagreement with his edits - be it with content or style - is a heinous crime. I cant recall being more dispirited by anything on wikipedia than the nonsense and behaviour which has gone on around this article over the last week ive been absent. siarach 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:An Siarach.  The same thing happened at Union of the Crowns.  As far as I know, I never had any Wikipedia contact with any of the people posting or mentioned above.  I simply happened upon that article, and noticed that it contained some unencyclopedia language, including such florid phrases as "Parliament may very well have rejected polygamy; but the marriage, if marriage it was, between the realms of England and Scotland was to be at best morganatic."  After adding the tone tag, I was immediately personally attacked on my talk page by User:Rcpaterson.  I don't buy the logic presented above about this tag.  There are dozens of such tags on wikipedia that are placed in articles.  They don't usually provoke outbursts such as this.  They are a useful way to call attention to articles that need work.  --JW1805 (Talk) 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having only just noticed it, i may as well belatedly point out RCPatersons response in my case was also to post personal abuse upon my talk page. siarach 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: In wiki convention, the title should go by his highest title, which was Earl of Ross. It's also a good way disambiguate him from John of Islay, Lord of the Isles. So I'd suggest either John MacDonald, Earl of Ross or John of Islay, Earl of Ross (of Islay was their standard family name at the time, though MacDonald became grew in use later). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well I'm going to move the article later today, probably in the evening, unless anyone objects. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: shouldnt this be at least mentionned  in the aricle. I mean thats how he would have been referred to in his own day. presumably he was known as Iain Donnalach? Seamusalba (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He is called "Eoin a Ile" in the infobox.  His dynastic name is "a Ile" and kindred name "MacD[h]omhnaill". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was his Gaelic name?