I am somewhat disappointed you did not contact me about swamping my version of the Brodie of Brodie Arms for yours. Especially as we have already communicated via email! --Heraldic (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar. Not to bug ya; but the centralized discussion is at United Kingdom (not Great Britain). GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar Brodie. Sorry about that. I didn't even notice that about the dates contradicting each other. The reference i used was (Grant, Alexander, Service and Tenure in Late Medieval Scotland, 1314-1475, in Curry; Mathew Concepts and Patterns of Service in the Later Middle Ages), you can see it for yourself on Google Books, here [1]. Though i don't have her book now, Wormald gives 1442 as the year of the first bond of manrent, as well. I can see why you would want to exclude the comment on the earliest bond because of the contradicting refs. But i also think that the ref mentioned (Grant) is much more solid than The Scottish Clans And Their Tartans: With Notes in regards to manrent. The clan book, i think, is meant for a popular audience and is also out of copyright. Grant and Wormald's are current and academic works, and both have authored other articles dealing with Scottish feudalism, and law in the late Middle Ages. Here's Grant's page at Lancaster University [2]. Since we only have a reference to Grant at the moment, would it be ok to put something like "according to Alexander Grant ..."?--Celtus (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right about the term first used, "the term "manrent" was first used in 1442". Grant seems to categorise the bonds prior to 1442 as 'letters of retinue'. On p.166 he says that 90 percent of bonds of manrent did not offer any reward other than 'good lordship', though half of the letters of retinue prior to 1442 have the lord receiving some sort of financial gain out of the contract. That could be added to the article, i think.

From 'The laberinth of thir difficulties', The Influence of Debt on the Highland Elite c.1550 – 1700 "The rising importance of debt as a major concern of highland chiefs is neatly reflected in administrative changes of the Campbells of Glenorchy. The Glenorchy chiefs issued many bonds of manrent in the later sixteenth century. These bonds were written reflections of dominance over neighbouring kindreds and they were carefully registered in special 'Books' by the Glenorchy servitors. By the seventeenth century bonds of manrent were more or less a thing of the past: Wormald informs us that very few were made in Scotland after 1600. A few bonds of friendship were still signed in the highlands in the later seventeenth century but in general the seventeenth century witnessed the disappearance of the bond of manrent in the highlands and low-lands. As a result, by the later seventeenth century John Campbell of Glenorchy, first earl of Breadalbane, had no requirement for a 'Book of Bonds of Manrent', instead a 'Register of Wadsets' was being kept for him"

There's kind of an interesting book on archive.org full of contracts made to Campbell of Glenorchy - The Black Book of Taymouth. Its interesting to see the language of that era, and the type of deals hammered out.

Here's another blurb, [3]. "the making of bonds of maintenance and manrent, whereby lords and men offered on another protection and support, normally for life, sometimes for perpetuity." So technically bonds must have been broken if they made them for eternity, i don't know of anything specific. I don't know what the consequences would have been, but you'd think the stakes would have been much higher for the lesser lord, and he'd do his best to stay on the side of power. The only reference i can recommend is Wormald's, you may find a few things dealing with the Brodies in it, i wish i hadn't skimmed so lightly though it.--Celtus (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll try and standardise the footnotes.--Celtus (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar. James Brodie, ah, ummm, yes, golly. You know, I hardly remember writing that one, and I can't remember how I got onto him (not my usual subject area). I think I must have cobbled together some internet sources for it, so "unreliability" may have slipped in. Not one of my better efforts, sorry. I'm sure that more substantive sources can be found, and indeed the sources in the article don't support the statement that he was born at Brodie Castle. Frankly, I don't know where that came from. Here's hoping you can tidy up my mess! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Scotland has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in a revert war over the appropriate coat of arms. Rather than endless to-and-fro (roughly the last thing that page needs), can you please take it to Talk Scotland, along with proof citations for your side of the case. (Message also being copied to the other participants) AllyD (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally delete it since it is from a user with a random IP address. However, remember that if the person who made such a comment is an established user you should contact them on their talk page before removing it. I hope I helped you out. Ignotus91987 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Barnstar Award
		For your thoughtful contributions to the discussion regarding Abongo Obama.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, my first one, I'm touched, thanks, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, i replied in length to you on my talkpage. Here's a wiki-page that ties in with the Scotclans permission letter: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - "To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it." So Scotclans needs to allow anyone to use their material for any purpose, even commercial. That's the sticker..

If they don't go along with this then i think we might be able to use images from the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website under wikipedia's non-free policy. I tried to explain how i thought on my talkpage. What do you think?--Celtus (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, thanks for adding the reference in the clan badge article.--Celtus (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal, I read the Clan Badge DYK post on your page. Thinking that you might be off-line for a while and might miss the chance for the DYK, and as you had put a lot of effort into the article and would no doubt welcome some kind of recognition, I took a few minutes to add the requested references. No problem. You might want to adjust the references to adapt into your list. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please keep my map image --78.148.77.75 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as said on your talk page, your continued edits now constitute vandalism. If you think an image should be placed on Scotland page, please take your suggestions to Talk:Scotland. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would it be helpful to you to have the Wikipedia:Rollback feature on your account? Have a look at the page and do let me know if it seems like it would be handy. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making your MacKinnon Coat of Arms available. I made some very slight mods to it on the borders. Hope that is OK. I like yours much better than the one I did many years ago.

--Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i hope you don't mind me jumping on you out of nowhere, but since you were the last to edit here, i figured you might be able to help me out, since you seem to be knowledgable in the area. I just came across this article, Culdares, which seems to be related to the Clan Menzies in someway, but i cannot make head nor tail of it, i think it might be about a castle related to the clan, but if it is, then the article seems to go off on some major tangents. On top of this, it seems to be copy and pasted from a number of different places. I'd be really grateful if you could take a look at it and give me your thoughts, or else refer me to someone else who could help. Cheers --Jac16888 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clan Forbes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I seek the opinion of an uninvolved editor whom I respect. If you have the time would you be kind enough to have a look at Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area#Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I would just like to know: 1. if you think the position I'm arguing is right or wrong and 2. if you think the position I'm arguing is correct, but that I should just give it up anyway. Thank you in advance for you help. Daicaregos (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you're not around. I'll ask another editor. Thanks anyway. Daicaregos (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've mistaken the date in the Homecoming article. Thanks for correcting it. --Duncan MacCall (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been informed..." how delightful. Inver471ness was not spreading libel, and escalating it like that serves no-one; he had simply misinterpreted the diff and I have just told him as much. I made no comment on your actions, nor did I comment on anyone elses, I simply cited the appropriate guidelines and policies regarding the issues.

The wiki-nazi thing came about I think (though don't know) because the IP seems to enjoy adding "(please search for Real Hay Clan as the wiki-naz1s won't allow a direct link)" to the article, and the talkpage. It was simply a misreading of the diff I feel.

I was approached for help from the user because I have helped him learn the ropes in the past. Further, I have not discussed you behind your back, the only comment I made regarding you was "There is nothing to be gained from pre-judging another editor before discussion has started." The wonder of Wikipedia is that it is transparent in these cases, you can see what I have written and discussed in the histories of the pages involved.

I think this is simply a misunderstanding, and I have always found Inver471ness to be very open to discussion. If you take issue with his edits, then please discuss them with him on the talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seemed like I came on a bit strong. This is a point I wanted to make clear, crystal clear, and as my edits on the respective talk pages were completely misinterpreted, I felt the choice of words should leave nothing to doubt. Thanks for dropping User:Inver471ness a line on the subject. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

I offer my sincere apologies.

I made an honest mistake in concluding that you were calling another editor a WikiNazi, when it is now obvious to me that you were not the guilty person. It is bad enough that you were called one; it’s worse that I unjustly blamed you for having used that term.

I am glad that you removed the offending paragraph. When I first saw it, I realized that it had no place in Wikipedia and wrote Wikipedia to that effect. The tone and subject were totally inappropriate. A volunteer replied that it had already been removed by another editor. I realize that I could have done the removing, but, as a relative novice, I felt uneasy doing so.

Further to your recent post, I had no idea that so much discussion was happening about the current Chief. I don’t think I want to get involved! Regardless, it does not belong in Wikipedia outside of talk pages.

To change the subject, I shall act on your editing suggestions about references as soon as I can. At the moment, I have a non-Wikipedia deadline to meet a few days from now. I had thought that by putting the references in the William II de Haya article would be sufficient, but now agree that it would be better if the current article on Clan Hay were referenced properly.

It is apparent to me that you share my desire to see the Clan Hay article improved. I shall be glad to work with you to this goal and will stay in touch. The one area that I have been digging into concerns the very early Hays in Scotland - William, Eva of Pitmilly (mainly about Pitmilly itself, because there is so little known about Eva), and Ranulf de Soulis, William’s uncle. Perhaps, you could look after the next generation.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

I would appreciate your looking over this section, which I have now referenced. Please let me know if I need to do more.

I am not sure whether you were suggesting a citation for haie meaning a stockade( I have referenced that) of for centuries old hedges in Normandy.

The latter proved a problem because all references I found referred to the fighting in the Normandy hedgerows in WW II. Personally, I wonder if we need a reference here because the hedgerows of Normandy may come under the heading of common knowledge. If we do need one, the best I have found so far is in John Keegan's Six Allies in Normandy, but I don't think it really is an appropriate reference. Have you got a better one?

I did not write the original sentence about Clan Mac Garadh and was uncomfortable editing it because I know so little about the subject. Does it still need a reference. I was dubious about the word often.

Problem I I ran into a problem concerning citing a journal reference. You will find my attempt at the end of the article. I don't know where I erred, but would appreciate your help. Incidentally, I know that Clan Hay Newsletter is not an academic reference, but the article I have quoted is quite good and I know of nowhere else to go.

Problem II

How do I get my sandbox back so that I can upload material into it? At present, it has a Pitmilly redirect page.

Incidentally, my Pitmilly article has been declared an orphan. I'll work on that one.

Cordially, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inver471ness (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

This is mainly a courtesy note to thank you for your help. Grandchild from afar has arrived so I shall have little spare time for a week or so.

I shall fix my sandbox as you suggest.

I agree fully that the Clan Hay Newsletter is an inappropriate reference for Wikipedia and shall remove it. I am going to continue to work on the Origin of the Name next and shall postpone working on Origin of the Clan until I get the former more or less correct. Bear with me.

I may have confused you. I do not think that the origin of the name from the French for hedge is common knowledge, although probably most Hays who have looked into the matter believe this to be the case. I was referring to its being common knowledge that there are a lot of hedges in that part of Normandy. Even that may not be common knowledge. I spent a lot of time looking for a suitable reference about the Normandy hedges. I shall use the Keegan reference (p152) until I find a better one. "The woodland (bocage)stands between small, thickly banked hedgerows, enclosing fields first won from the waste by Celtic farmers who tilled the land before the coming of the Romans,..."

I respect your inquiring into the origin of the word. Surely, there must be somewhere other than Wikipedia where you could publish your interesting findings. I won't even mention the word, newsletter, I promise.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no problem :) My first statement looks a little ambiguous now - I didn't mean that confusion could arise from 'country' being a fixed term, rather that confusion could arise from the word being used to describe nations that were not independent. I agree with you that 'country' isn't a fixed term, rather it means different things to different people, as does 'state' and 'nation'. I can see how my two statements could be seen to contradict each other but that was not my intention. It was clear that there were strong views on either side and that a happy conclusion was unlikely, so maybe we can pitch in next time there's a wider discussion on the matter - I'm sure that time will come! All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

Just to let you know I have tidied up the Wm II part of Origin of the Clan, along thelines recommended in Wikipedia, the missing Manual. As I understand it from that text, this summary does not need references because they are in the daughter article. I have removed certain points that you were concerned about.

I think this rewrite should do the trick until it is decided to merge the Wm II article into Clan Hay, which may or may not happen. I appreciate your goodwill in waiting for a concensus. For the present,it is more important to get the facts written up well.

I like what you have done with Earl of Erroll and am impressed with the Clan Brodie article.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and a problem. I have now rewritten Connection to de la Hayes of Normandy. Almost all the material is from Wagner, as I think I have made plain in the text. There is an error notification re tags at the bottom of the article. I tried unsucessfully to correct it. I would really appreciate your help in doing so. The notes appear to have disappeared.

All the bestInver471ness (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie Thanks. I don't really know what you did, but it worked.Inver471ness (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on Alastair Boyd, 7th Baron Kilmarnock, the late Chief. It's not clear to me whether Alastair's son James (born out of wedlock, but legitimated in Scots law by the subsequent marriage of his parents) or his brother Robin, now 8th Baron Kilmarnock, will succeed to the headship of the clan. Choess (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see your comments on the article on Paulo Coelho. Some of the earlier comments left here had been by people who seemed to determine to launch a vitriolic attack on the man who is, after all, the world's best-selling living Portuguese language author. You made a good attack on the claim that just because Coelho has borrowed ideas from other writers, that is not a criticism - indeed, I have made a point on the talk-page there that similar things can be said of William Shakespeare. Indeed, given that Coelho is a great admirer of Jorge Luis Borges, it would be surprising if there were not similarities in their writings. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pedlar of Swaffham, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/efft/efft14.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe you were confusing things a little bit. A peerage title can't become vacant:

• If a sole and obvious heir apparent or presumptive exists, he will succeed to the title automatically.
• If several heirs with the same right for succession exist, the title will become abeyant until only one heir is left.
• If no obvious heir is avaiable, but it is likely that one might exist, the title will become dormant until a such a heir has proven his claim.

However this applies not for baronetcies. Until a heir has proven his right for succession he is not entitled to use the baronetcy, which for this time is considered to be dormant (for a longer explanation see [4]).

With Adam Nicolson being the cousin of the 4th baron and his next heir male in line, he has succeeded to the barony, but not yet to the baronetcies - officially. The chiefship however is indeed vacant until the clan has chosen the new chief. Unfortunately at the moment I can't find an obituary or another document in the web, which confirms this black on white ... Regards

Heho, I use "thePeerage" regularly and through comparison with other sources I have learned that it is mostly accurate all things considered. However I agree that an email is not really the best reference. Therefore I have done another search per Google and have now found two websites which refer to Adam Nicolson and the title ([5], [6]). They both don't provide an explaining text concerning the circumstances of his succession , but at least say that he succeeded his cousin the 4th baron in 2008 and that he is the 5th baron, what in this case I think could be enough to meet W:V. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pedlar of Swaffham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Shubinator (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar Brodie. From what I understand both of the mottos can be used interchangeably. They both mean the same thing "Vinceri Vel Mori" is latin and "Buaidh No Bas" is Scottish Gaelic. But I was also confused as to why the Barra MacNeils would go with the Latin for a painting in Kisimul Castle. I would always go with Scottish Gaelic. Mingulay (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you essentially replaced the Clan MacIntyre article. Some of the information is correct, other information is just wrong. Clan MacIntyre is certainly not a "sept." By recognizing the clan chief the Lord Lyon has verified that it is an independant clan (as did . By also granting hereditary supporters with the chiefly arms the Lord Lyon has further confirmed that it was a significant clan. Further, although older books sometimes cite the plant badge as heath, in truth, sources going back to the late 1800s give it as white heather and the Lord Lyon explicitly included white heather in the grant of arms (in the compartment). Most of this can be verified in the MacIntyre article in Collins Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia, published in 1994 and which has much more up-to-date information on the clan. I also have a half dozen other sources, more recent than the one you used, that I was in the process of working in, including Adam's Clans Septs & Regiments, Seton Gordon's Highland Days, etc. that have much information on the clan. To be sure, the article you replaced needed much work, but it was reasonably accurate and had more information. I was working on adding much-needed sources to it. Is there some reason you chose such an old book as the basis to replace the entire article, while ignoring more recent published materials? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you.--Tomaterols (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry neglected to look at the article talk page as I should have. Thank you for not chiding me for my failure to do this first. You would have been justified in doing so. I now see what you were trying to do. I had copyright questions myself, but no one had previously flagged the issue and I think that content had been up for some time. I was going to try to revise and expand the article to defuse them. I'm not sure that simply substituting another copied (but out of copyright) article, as you have done is the solution. It makes it look as though you have a stake in the content, which I'm not sure is really the case. Am I correct that were I to go in and replace everything you have put in with new, sourced material, you would not care? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you.--Tomaterols (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your most gracious reply. I guess when you blanket substitute text it makes it more difficult for someone like me to go in and edit it extensively for fear of ending up in an edit conflict. Maybe putting a stub heading at the top might help? As I know from personal experience, clan material can be particularly contentious. You can call many clans "a pack of sheep rustler's" and they won't object. Some of them are even proud of it. But demoting a clan to a sept will always elicit a reaction! Rebuilding the article from scratch is going to be a lot of work. I do have access to a number of published sources, more than I initially realized, including not only books, but newspaper and magazine articles, some dating to the 1960's. I would appreciate your comments. One thing I want to do is change the footnoting style to the one I used when I expanded the Philip Frohman article from a stub. The more advanced style allows for more explanatory comments. What I will do is work on a draft on my user subpage and ask you to have a look at it when I get ready to move it in. Assuming nobody else gets to the article first. Thanks.--Tomaterols (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I now have enough sourced material to replace the old article on Clan MacIntyre although there is still additional work to be done. No one has made any edits since you and me. If you go to my user page and click the “drafts” internal link, (near the top of the page) you’ll see the material I propose to use. I think I have kept pretty much of the content of the article you inserted. There are at least three additional MacIntyre family groups I want to add to the last section, but I think this is a good start.

I am not planning to remove any of the boxes from the article. I will make corrections to the boxes and reset the footnotes, as needed, after I move the new text material in. I also think it will be simpler to put in the internal links to other Wikipedia articles after I’ve moved the new material in.

Regarding the book you have been using for clan articles, I found the following information on ABE.com: The Scottish Clans and their Tartans Book Price: US$ 190.42; Binding: Hardcover; Published by W. & A. K. Johnston, Ltd., Edinburgh; no date; before 1925 as advertisements are "by special appointment to H. M. Queen Alexandra"; Pocket Edition.” Apparently, there is just no way to concretely date this book.

At some point I should go through the article on Duncan ban MacIntyre, which also needs work.

Thanks for your interest. I look forward to hearing from you.--Tomaterols (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the response, which obviously I found. I do have the story about the MacDonald cutting off his thumb in already. I refer to a possible son of the Lords of the Isles, and I also mention the MacDonalds were Lords of the Isles.

The other point, about MacIntyre being an occupational name is a somewhat sore one. Sir Iain Moncreiffe, then Albany Herald, made this same point, in passing, in The Highland Clans. If MacIntyre were just a trade name, however, it would not be a clan and therefore the chief would have not have merited recognition from the Lord Lyon. So the Lyon Court itself has been inconsistent on the point. I agree that this must be raised, however, and I will also included a reference to Sir Iain, although I will also note that most writers do not find it to be the case.

I'll work on linking and creating other sections once I move what I have into the article. What I want to avoid is another editor making edits to the existing article and then me replacing it with mine. Thanks again. Hope to hear from you with suggestions--and constructive criticism (as you have provided--in the future.--Tomaterols (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than some clan folk tales and some (uninteresting) details about the individual chiefs which I don't think really belong in an encyclopedia article, I think I have gleaned the published MacIntyre materials for just about all the useful information. I have a friend who is a heraldic artist in Britain who has agreed to execute a painting of the chief's arms to which he is willing to renounce his copyright. I have not been involved in this type of exercise before. I know you have to get a recorded statement of copyright renunciation from the artist and then are supposed to place the graphic in Wiki Common, before incorporating it into the article. I have read the various materials on copyright and, frankly, they seem to sometimes be in conflict. Have you had any experience with this or know of someone who might help me out when I get the graphic (which probably won't be for a month or two)? I moved the McIain MacIntyre figure down the page and left the area next to the table of contents open for the eventual image. Thanks again for your help.--Tomaterols (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I have made it clear to my friend that he will be putting his illustration into the public domain so anyone can use it (or rip it off, if you will). I definitely intend to put the appropriate notices on the coat of arms "These are the arms of the Chief alone, etc." I hesitated even to include an illustration of the arms until I saw that many of the other clan articles do have depictions of the chiefs' arms. As to enforceability of rights to arms, as a practical matter in the U.K. that exists only in Scotland. I think I have read there is some, limited protection for Canadian arms now also. I'm doing some work on the Scottish heraldry article, mainly in the second section.

Yours aye--Tomaterols (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be posting again so soon, but I hadn't seen your note under Cletus's re the article. Thanks so much for the encouragement. I really appreciate your help and your interest in this article. I was only thinking of getting the article rated, hadn't hope for the possibility of a good article. You guys are great. We'll see what happens.--Tomaterols (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It's not that I dislike the new Clan Profile box, but we now have two "Clan Profile" sections. I was going to put the new illustration of the chief's arms at the top right when it arrives but I guess there's an effort to have all the clan articles look alike? Any thoughts on how to handle the two "Profiles"? The original one has more information than the box. Thanks.--Tomaterols (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing today's edits to Scottish clan, they're a good example of why reducing the number of lists makes life easier - it makes it much easier to keep tabs on well-meaning mistakes/vandalism. That list of clans in the clan article has to go before we start pushing it towards GA, I was only leaving it in whilst you were still working on the "big list". If you've finished taking what you need from it, it can be nuked. Looking at the "big list" I fear it's getting to the stage where it has to be split - not ideal, but perhaps a bare list of names at the bottom can be used help people using their browser Find function, something like "The above is a list of clans with chiefs. See List of armigerous clans for a list of clans without chiefs, including Clan A, Clan B...." Just an idea anyway. On other matters arising, Celtus and I have been kicking around some ideas on the newly renamed {{Infobox Clan}} - it would be nice to get that to the stage where it can be deployed en masse. Le Deluge (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot less bad - but I still think it represents a bit of an unnecessary vulnerability for the clan article, which we need to be pretty bullet-proof. Looking ahead, I doubt it would get through FA, and I'm not even sure about GA - someone is bound to start waving WP:NOTDIR and WP:LIST at us. As an alternative thought, perhaps we could have a navbox of clan names to go on the bottom of articles? Even then I think we'd struggle with the sheer bulk of it, but it would be easier to keep an eye on, we'd perhaps need one for chiefs and one for armigerous. Hopefully I'll be spending a bit of time on the 'Big 3' once I've got some more battles sorted - I'm a bit stuck at the moment. :-) Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you re: verifiability and Wikipedia. I'd like to reference more... It's just that as you say, there are few good sources. I *know* these are correct, but only inasmuch as I've had much experience with this particular clan and lots of correspondence with members and the Chief as well. I was myself wishing that the Standing Council would just update its list and make things easier. As it stands, we're forced to get along with what we have. I just want to make sure that material I know is correct isn't deleted only because there isn't a perfect source. But in principle I am completely in agreement--if we all have better sources, the Clan articles can all improve. And I have noticed, in your copious work, all the spamming/ignorant edits that are made in EVERY clan article. And everyone who has people who THINK they know the answer but don't. So, I admire you "holding the line."  :) If you want further references regarding this clan, I can try to find more if you leave a message. I do have access to some documents off-line and/or through Google Books that do provide specific bits of information, but I am somewhat limited otherwise. Let me know if you need something. Isoxyl (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for adding the clan battles template to the Battle of Allt Camhna and the Battle of Leckmelm, quality work. I should also compliment you on the Clan Brodie article. Great stuff. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

What do you think of deleting the section, Successors of William II de Haya?

I think that we ought to do so because I don't think we can expect to note every Hay as the centuries go by - just the important ones. Moreover, as it stands it is incomplete. The immediate successors of William II are noted in the main article devoted to him.

It seems more courteous to post this to your talk page, rather than the article's talk page. However, if I should have done the latter, please let me know.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I note your understandable concerns. I wish there was a better history of Clan Hay, but so much that is written is not referenced or verifiable. I shall continue to investigate the early Hays, especially their links to Normandy.

There is no rush to delete Successors of William, at least until we can offer something better. What do you think of a new section, Barons of Errol? That would take us to the Wars of Independence where Gilbert, the first Earl, comes into the picture.

Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I noticed you had edited the Profile section of the Clan MacIntyre article since I put the last posting under the "New MacIntyre article ready" section above, so you may have missed it. Anyhow, has there been any discussion on what to do with the two "Profile" sections we now have in the article? Is that going to be considered acceptable in the clan articles? If not, shouldn't all the notes and references be moved from the original "Profile" section into your new box? Also, do we need a source reference for the note saying "Cruachan" is also the war cry of the Campbells? I switched the position of the Cruachan note and source reference. Otherwise, a reader might think the source reference is support for the note, rather than for the text, which is what it actually supports.--Tomaterols (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on the clan infobox. I definitely think it is a good idea. I have a couple of thoughts about that I will post on the template talk page (I'm just starting to figure out templates--and that they even have talk pages). My main concern is that if we (I?) nominate the article for a Good article rating an editor will critique it for having the same information appear twice. You've taken care of that worry. Thanks for your hard work. I will have the chief's coat of arms illustration by the end of June. Once I figure out how to upload it into Wikimedia and give the article a good proof-reading it might be time to ask for a review.--Tomaterols

(talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for the fix on the Clan MacIntyre template. I'm sure you hadn't noticed it, but at one point some joker had the chief's slogan as "Damn Right!" Looks good now.--Tomaterols (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a peek at Sir Hector Maclean, I have it as a disambiguation page only for the three that have been knighted. I am sure you have had the same problem distinguishing between those knighted and those not knighted when you are reading literature outside Wikipedia. Another editor says that the "Sir" can be used for many of the other people named Hector Maclean and wants only one disambiguation page. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :) Just wanted to say good work on sprucing up the article! ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was looking at the list of scottish clans and think that I need your help to confirm something. I've noticed that my family (Roberton) has been listed as a clan with a chief, Gilbert Robertson of Struan, and is highlighted in blue referring to it as a highland clan. I'd suggest that this refers to the Robertsons of Struan, as the Robertons were a lowland Lanarkshire family with a history and etymology entirely distinct from Clan Donnachaidh. I see you've made a recent addition to Clan Donnachaidh entry on the list, so I assume you know enough to confirm my suspicions?

Thanks, Paul Paul Roberton (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that there shouldn't be any need for the list of clans at the Armigerous clan article now that they are all included in the List of Scottish clans article. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brodie. I notice your MacLellan arms. I think the shield may be 'Or' instead of 'Ar'. Though i read your ref on googlebooks; i think it may have been a typo. The myclan page gives 'Or' [7]; so does Burke's General Armory [8]; and so does B. McAndrew's Scotland's Historic Heraldry (which looks like an interesting book) [9].--Celtus (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are correct. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the info box on the Clan Munro page. Its really great you've included the clan seat and most importantly the war cry. However I should tell you that I removed from the page the map of Ross because it shows the modern district of Ross which is different to that at the time of the clan. Also the Munros only lived in a small section of east Ross. All the best with your great work. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie,

I have been trying to upload an image to Commons and from there to the Pitmilly article. I spent a lot of time on this and I still have problems.

I have finally been able to upload, "Pitmilly Law, near Boarhills, Fife, Scotland.JPG" to Commons. However, I was not able to upload it from Commons to the Pitmilly article.

I therefore searched Commons with this title, only to be told that there was no such page. I concluded that I must have once more failed to upload the image to Commons so I tried again. This time I was informed that if I did I would be overwriting an existing page.

I sure would appreciate your advice as to the next step.

If you go to the Pitmilly article, you will see that I botched the upload there. So I need your advice there, if you can solve my first problem.

A second problem: Two of my links in the Pitmilly article are in red, but those pages do in fact exist. How do I handle this problem?

All the best,Inver471ness (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie, On 20 May, I left you a suggestion about listing the Barons of Erroll, but I have not heard back from you. I suspect I should have sent you a new message, rather than adding to an older one. Anyway, what do you think?

I notice that an editor has suggested that Slains Castle should be retitled New Slains Castle. I agree, but I am a bit leary of changing titles of articles at this stage of my experience. What do you think?

Regards,Inver471ness (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Czar,

Thank you for letting me know that Carter-Campbell of Possil is not a clan, I was slightly unsure but with such a large page about them I assumed that they had to be, but obviously not! However, Carter-Campbell of Possil is certainly a part of Clan Campbell (under their chief the Duke if Argyll). I therefore agree with you that it shouldn't be on the List of Scottish clans page as that implies that it is a clan in its own right, but as it is definitely a member of Clan Campbell, and they have their own badge, then their crest badge should be listed on the page List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members.

kind regards

PS I have also now referenced the entry on List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members, you may like to check them.

I am not sure I expressed myself properly. The matter was with regard to Carter-Campbell of Possil beeing a Clan, and the lack of references defining it as such. Not if the head of the family has a crest and motto. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of French, German or Italian families could find dozens of references for having a motto and crest, but this does not make them clans, see also a reference for British crest arms and mottoes: The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, with over a thousand pages each with about 40 of mottos, crests, of various family branches...does this make them all clans? most branches have separate motto/crests with a difference to the main line, I see no evidence that this defines them as clans. Note that in List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members the title of the list of names is "Clan name", my thinking is that Carter-Campbell of Possil is not suited under such a heading. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on labeling Carter-Campbell of Possil as a Scottish clan, please take the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland so that the matter can be examined by other editors. Yours ever Czar Brodie (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above more carefully, I have agreed with you that Campbell of Possil is not a clan. I am arguing that it justifies being placed in List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members as that page is not for only clans.

Thank you for your reply. The main title of the page as you know is List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members. Carter-Campbell of Possil is (as shown in the references) a member of Clan Campbell (under the chief of Clan Campbell, the Duke of Argyll). I reiterate, I agree that Campbell of Possil is not a clan, but you must be able to comprehend that the MAIN title of the page and the opening sentence ("List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members encompasses all Scottish clans recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms and the Scottish crest badges used by members of these clans") justifies the individual member clan badges to be listed. If the title in the table reads 'Clan name' then it is a misguiding error and should be changed. Kind regards

yes but the list is headed clans, not branches. If you want to change the structure of the list, this can be done, but it is best to try for consensus. Try addressing the issue on the articles talk page. I have noticed some clans shew the branches crests and mottos on clan articles, it may be a valid point that they could have a place on the list. For this the title of "clan Name" would need need to be changed, so the change is quite radical in my view and best approached with diplomacy. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent change, to the column title. I feel this clears up the issue and also allows room for other clan members, without changing the meaning of the column drastically.

I think such a change could open the article to every armagerous person in Scotland. I think such a change is not apropriate, after all wiki is not a phone book and the purpose of such a list would be undermined. Such a change in my view should be taken as a proposal in the articles talk page. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the change would not create such an open ended list, not every armiger is a clan member. The title implies that it is for clan members as well as clans. You seem to be worried that this change would make the list less "prestigious", if you feel such clan members as Campbell of Possil are not prestigious, please look at their pages. Campbell of Possil is highly documented, more so than many Clans on the list, many members have been painted by artists such as Sir Henry Raeburn, Campbell of Possil is responsible for the construction of Torosay Castle, the family even has a Mausoleum. You are deliberately making it difficult for the page to display correctly what the title implies. Please remember wikipedia is as far as possible meant to be an unbiased information source, to be edited by anyone with sufficient knowledge on the topic in good faith. I am trying to display information to the public under what the title implies. If you feel that it does not designate in being there, you contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland.

You should especially be interested in informing the many members of Campbell of Possil information and not hindering them as it is Homecoming Scotland 2009 this year.

Hello Czar Brodie, Thanks for your recent help. Now that I know how to upload to Commons, I shall try to learn how to upload from Commons to a Wikipedia page and won't have to bother you. I figured out how to correct the red links in the Pitmilly article. I realize that earlier you suggested possible grades for quality and importance, but I was uneasy doing this on an article for which I had been the main editor. Thanks for doing it. I concur fully with Low for importance, but I think that the article deserves better than a C for quality. It seems to meet the criteria for A, or at least B.I am not offended, but I wonder why you selected C.

Still wondering what you think about listing the Barons of Erroll, as a substitute for the successors of Wm section.

Hey Czar Brodie you do a great job of these clan crest badges. Can you do one for the Clan Munro please and upload it. Youv'e done the chief's emlem but not the clan badge, if you could that, it would be great. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With best wishesInver471ness (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Clan Russell in the infobox, a sept of Clan Cumming, is generally spelled with two 'l's instead of one: Russell. I also left a message on the talk page of the Scottish clans article. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all that background, including the General Armory, on Clan Russell. I added some information about the crest to the Scottish clans page, but now, given what you've pointed out, it looks like that should be adjusted. I hope to create an entry on them in the near future, and as you say, the spelling twists could be incorporated there. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar,

I'm viewing the Carter-Campbell of Possil page with Safari and there is a very large gap before the title "History". I am not sure if it is there in other browsers, but this gap has appeared in recent edits by some users and it does not help the text flow well. I was wondering if you could help me to remove it as I have tried but I cannot seem to manage it.

Many thanks --Craigenputtock (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czar,

Thank you for your concern over this. I totally see where you are coming from here, however I have no affiliation with user ContribUnit and had only seen his edits. I am however, one of the IP numbers when I once forgot to sign in. I live and work at an institution currently concerned in Scottish genealogy that shares a single internet connection so our IPs will be the same when my colleagues make edits.

I hope this clears up any issues. --Craigenputtock (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brodie. I'm pretty sure that the arms you illustrated are those of the former commander, see this archived version of the clan website (near the bottom). The first clan armigers were two men in the 1800s and the clan's crest badges are based upon one their crests. I don't think there is a chiefly coat of arms recorded. I think i read somewhere that the various Macfie arms are based upon those grave slabs, that they represent the heraldry of the clan. It seems like some of the arms on the myclan site are those of leading members of the clans and not necessarily the last chiefs. The confusing thing for me is that while the website is for the most part clear in stating the owner: "of that ilk" or "ARMS (of xxx)", in other cases the site just states "ARMS". So for some clans it is hard to tell if a particular coat belonged to a chief, or a leading member of the family.--Celtus (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a way to re-name things over on the Commons. I think the process is that people re-upload the file under a new name, and then place this tag -> {{badname}} [10] on the old file. I've done that a couple times over there.--Celtus (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brodie;

about the non-hereditary condition of the marquessate, I put some references in the discussion and I will try to check some more.

About the blazon, it is not rare in the Brazilian nobiliarchy to be granted arms to a noble based on his family blazon and, nonetheless, make it somewhat wrong. There are many and many cases already known. However, if this was the way the blazon was registered in the "Cartório de Nobiliarquia", the Imperial institution responsible for these matters, then there is nothing we may do. The most pratical way to check it is by the Archivo Nobiliarchico Brazileiro or by the site "Nobreza de A a Z", which is a digital version of the "Archivo" with additions made by specialists. No doubt the blazon of the Cochrane clan is different, but we cannot state that the marquessate blazon was not granted this way.

By this moment, this is what can I say. But I ensure you that I am very happy with all these questions, since they're very interesting. All the best. --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar Brodie. Having seen you talk at the Clan Convention and also seen you in the picture at ClanDuncan.co.uk you are obviously really involved in the clan socities. The only reason I didn't attend was because my clan didn't have a tent there. Their excuse was that they had had their own gathering as recently as 2007 so they did not plan anything for the gathering 2009. Anyway what I wanted to ask you was; Did you get any feedback on the clan articles here on wikipedia. What are people's thoughts and opinions on them ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually spoke to Mr Munro of Foulis. I hope my edits to the Clan Munro wiki page have not upset him, did he say he was anoyed or upset in anyway ?. You see some of the accounts of clan battles I have written on the wiki site differ to those on the Official Clan Munro site. There is good reason for this; The official Munro website tends to lean towards accounts written by an Alexander Mackenzie, a 19th century author who is, natrually, very biased against the Munros when it comes to battles between the Munros and Mackenzies. His accounts seem to have been made up with no reference or source and the Clan Munro association has confirmed to me that there is no historical evidence to back up his stories. Furthermore there are earlier sources for the same battles that have been published which provide accounts which are unbiased and seem much more likely, and I do not see why the Munro association has not considered these sources. Anyway, I am glad that the Munro chief attended the clan convention, its great to think that Scottish culture is going to be promoted more, especially among young people, I think in this day and age it is necessary. From my experience the Scots are very clever people. My grandfather was a Scot. By the way I don't just edit the Clan Muno article here on wiki. I have contributed to loads more. I go to the library and find books on the clans. Most recently I added info and references to the Clan Cochrane page. All the best.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the new chiefs arms to the Clan Munro page. I came across some interesting Brodie history you might be interested in: Christian Hamilton (later Munro), a descendant of King James II of Scotland often visited chief Brodie of Brodie at Brodie Castle. She was the second wife of the famous Sir George Munro, 1st of Newmore. Lady Munro of Newmore was a supporter of the Covenantors and was a friend of Brodie of Brodie. She is recorded as visiting Brodie Castle on 4th Nov 1676, 12th June 1677 and again on 7th Sept 1677, when she dinned at Brodie Castle. (Ref:"History of the Munros of Fowlis". By Alexander Mackenzie. P 193 - 194.). P.s keep up the good work!. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar Brodie. I do not mean to pester you and know you must be busy but would you be able to do a chief's coat of arms for the Clan Mackay article. They are one of my clans!. Thanks, QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you check out the Clan Mackay page you will see that I have used the arms I found on the page there in a clan info box in the top right of the page. I presume you made this image too, but which one should I use in the clan info box to best represent the chief ? Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Extraordinary rendering of a coat of arms done in the blink of an eye MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. My God, man, you work fast! In any case, it was a pleasure working with you on this (you did all the work), but I enjoyed adding my tiny bit. Thanks so much and enjoy your weekend. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to check something, not being that familiar with the Scottish badges. Will the the badge of Russell then be "a fountain proper, motto: Agitatione Purgatus as of that Ilk," as you mentioned? Thanks again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your messages, Czar Brodie. Yes, exactly, my point was that Paterson was saying that the original arms of Russell of That Ilk were those of Kingseat (Peebles) and Russell of Ashiestiel (Selkirk), just as you have it. Those of Aden and Montcoffer came much later. Unfortunately, Paterson buried his best stuff in a footnote to his piece, which is where all this information was, including the citation back to Balfour, Lyon King of Arms and the Harleian collection source. Additionally, to further confuse matters, the Paterson chapter carried at its beginning a copy of arms with tadpoles instead of the correct pewits, as you have them correctly in your versions. (I can't account for Paterson's failing on this score except perhaps he didn't create the arms nor see them in galley form before publication.) You have provided a cogent explanation for the confusion over the 'pewits' in your addendum to the Commons image. In any case, we are on the same page on this, and I concur with your thoughts. What's interesting is that the authentic arms of Russell of that Ilk were largely supplanted (obscured) by the arms of the powerful Russells of Bedford, but given the way the world works, I suppose that's not surprising. (And of course Burke simply cites the arms without any explanation, as is typical.) So glad that we've gotten to the bottom of this. By the way, the additional arms you posted to my page are most interesting and quite handsome. Many thanks for your time and patience. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) p.s. I have blanked the space for the Russell arms on the List of Scottish clans, as I had earlier incorrectly inserted those of Aden.[reply]

Incidentally, that is most interesting about the arms of Russell of Blackbraes, and the apparent attempt to address the confusion of the various Russell arms. I'm curious about your opinion on that. Do you feel these arms of Blackbraes are a legitimate combination of the various coat armour, or are they an attempt to 'mix-and-match' with hopes of obscuring the source of the original authentic arms? I assume that Blackbraes would have had to have been accepted by the Lord Lyon King of Arms? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those additional arms, Czar. I can see your point about the Blackbraes arms: there's really no way to know whether it was an honest error, an attempt to merge two sets of arms, or indeed a case of descent from the two branches, both Scottish and English. As for the 'greinplouuers,' I happen to agree with your thinking: that that largely settles the matter (athough you're right, it could have been a case of an earlier error simply being recopied, but I doubt that myself). I am most interested in the Hague Armorial you mentioned, having never heard of it. I can certainly see where that would be handy, and I'm sorry you lost your copy in your computer crash. I searched the 'net for it to no avail. I did, however, discover that the arms of Russell of that Ilk were the subject of a paper written by Prof. (Sir Thomas) Wolseley Haig entitled "Arms of Russell of that Ilk, Notes and Queries" of 1927. The only source I found is within the Oxford Journals, to which I'm not a subscriber.[11] A shame because I would love to see his take on the arms. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Czar. Just wanted to let you know that I'm going to make use of those coats-of-arms soon. I've been trying to tie up a few loose ends in the meantime, and got derailed into a couple of other projects. In any case, I'll be on it shortly. Thank you again for them. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Guys; Hope I get the procedure right, as this is my first post on Wiki! I have a scan of a pic of the headstone of James Russell, tenant in Dreva (Stobo parish), which is where the Kingseat Russells hailed from. James died in 1692, aged 67, survived by three sons & four daughters. The pic is not very clear, but it looks like three tadpoles (swimming downwards) & definitely not wee birdies. Powit is Scots for tadpole. Maybe Balfour mis-read it as Pewits & substituted Greinplouers? It is hard to tell if there is a bordure round the arms, or if the mason has embellished the shield. If it is a bordure, then it matches Kingseat arms which were matriculated in 1672. If not, then maybe James was the chief? A description & old pic can be found at http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_047/47_130_171.pdf -- they have the motto reversed, but my Peebles MI book has Agitatione Purgator. The MI cannot be the James R of Kingseat who d. by 1696, as he had different wife to James in Dreva. They were undoubtedly closely related, however. There is another Russell heraldic panel above the door of Roseburn House, Edinburgh (not yet seen), which is said to bear 'A chevron charged with 3 mullets between 3 powits', impaled with his wife's arms of 3 fishes. He was Mungo Russell of Roseburn, Scotland's first paper-maker & she was Catherine 'Fisher'! This shows a simple difference from the chiefly arms, as does Kingseat. Ashiesteel matriculated in 1784, but had owned the property since before 1719. There is a private graveyard in the woods near the house, which may have a stone depicting the arms; I'll try to get a friend to have a look & take pics. The first recorded laird of Ashiesteil was Willam R, who d. 1743. I think he was 3rd son of above James in Dreva, (b. 1671 Stobo)but cannae prove it as yet. The Russel Bts of Charleton Park were descended from Kingseat & matriculated 1832. Another Russell blazon (quartered with Ramsay) is "Argent, a chevron gules between 3 powets haurient, sable". Haurient is a term used to denote the position of fishes & means perpendicular, with the head upwards. Let me know if you want pic sent. Timetack (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reproduce the coat of arm show on the thumb? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Maclean coat of arms or is this specific to the current clean chief? thumb

A bit busy these days. May do a version some time in future, sorry to not be able to be more specific. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been away for a while but am trying to get back into things. A friend of mine who is an artist has created an image of the MacIntyre chiefs' coat of arms. He is willing to make it available on Wikipedia/Wikimedia relinquishing his copyright.
I have never done anything like this before. I have a Wikimedia account and am working my way through the articles, licenses, etc. I have one question for the moment. What category do you suggest I put it in initially. I realize you can later add categories so I just want to keep it simple for my first effort. Might I call on you for more help later, if needed? I realize you may be busy with other projects and won't have a problem if you decline. Thanks so much. --Tomaterols (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found the solution. I would not have been much help, my knowledge of copyright is limited. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2009 (

Hi, I'm looking or a piece of advice to give. I am preparing an article for publication in a magazine regarding a subject which involves the eminent family of Hay who lived at Linplum House many years ago and wish to use the image on Wikipedia for my article, what is the copyright regarding that image. Hope you can help. Kind regards, James--Jimmydenham (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

It is an odd helm that I have used, I know, and is actually that of a peer but placed affronte which is rather rare to see (though more common in modern times than in centuries past). I am not familiar with helms for chiefs, but thought that the esquire helm might be beneath a chief and settled with the helm of a noble instead. Do you have an example of a chief using the esquire helm? because all the chiefs that I know have also hold a place in the peerage. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have such trouble, they seem to have no consistency. One has a cap and either great helm or lord's helm and the other a titling helm. Do you believe the barred helm is of much consequence? I am not all too familiar with Scottish heraldic practices myself. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did have time today to change the helm to that of an esquire's. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas. The Clan Russell is on my to-do list immediately after the first of the year. I've been here only in drips and drabs. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Quick question. Is this coat of arms for real? The naked guy on the left just seems very out of place...Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar Brodie,

Sorry for the delay in replying.

I shall be perfectly happy submitting your work with the article and linked to yourself. I have looked at the Commons page but, to be honest, I don't really understand it.

The article on Baro in East Lothian, in which the image would appear, will join a queue of articles I am doing on small or lost villages in the county of East Lothian and, since that publication is quarterly, it will not appear for, up to, two years.

Thanks again.

James--Jimmydenham (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Clan Lamont, excellent. mjgm84 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! I was sure that I was right, and that can easily find the necessary links. But when I started to look for, it turned out that the colours of sword in the Macgregors arms were described differently in different times and armorials. As azure certainly is described in: The Clans, SEPTS and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands by Adam Frank, revised by Thomas Innes of Learney, 4th ed. Edinburgh & London 1952 and in Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, unfortunately I did not find complete editions of these books on the Internet. Should be in every good library in your area. As the electronic version, I found an old edition by John Burke: A General and heraldic dictionary of the Peerage and baronetage ..., (1832) - there is on the page 121 CoA of Baronets MacGregor of MacGregor, and some cadets lines - mostly sword is described as blue. But some other Armorials give a proper color, and the old armorial Armorial Dunvegan, (1600) so: Argent, a sword in bend point upwards Proper hilted and pommelled Gules

Sorry for mistakes in English, I write poorly in English and use the translator google:) With kind regards, Steifer (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, just looking at the family tree image on the Clan Brodie page and noticed something. It shows that Anne Brodie (b.1701), sister of Alexander XIX of Brodie married John Munro of Novar. However I have found two sources on the internet that say she married George Munro of Novar and not John. I checked Mackenzie's History of the Munros and it says that George Munro III of Novar (to early to be him) had two sons one called George and one called John so figured it must be one of these two which she married, although it does say nothing is known of them. Was hoping for some clarrification on which one ? Thanks, QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I do not currently have the info on the charts but I do remember I did notice something interesting here. The family tree had one version but other sources had a different version. I cant remember which version I put on the draft. I was first notified of a possible discrepancy in the family history tree located in the national library in edinburgh. Somebody had penciled in the correction on that tree. Given that I noted a few mistakes myself in the old tree, and according made corrections, it seemed to me probable that an error had occurred. The name of this old family tree is: The genealogy of the Brodie family, from Malcolm, Thane of Brodie, temp. Alexander III., A.D. 1249-85, to the year 1862, compiled from various documents and authorities, and is my main source, but as mentioned, with corrections, adjustment, and updates where the balance of evidence was convincing and appropriate. If I find my notes I'll get back to you on this one. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I was interested because I am actually looking for information on a George Munro of Novar who was an Ensign in Loudon's Highlanders regiment. The only info I can find on him is that he married Anne Brodie. All the best. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie, You are correct. On 15 June, 2010, Editor 142.46.209.194's removed your previous edit concerning the reasons the legend has been challenged and substituted his own wording. I wrote to him/her on 17 June, 2010 on his usertalk page suggesting that he replace your sentence because there was no constructive reason for removing it. Consequently, I believe that it was appropriate for you to add your text again, especially since you have now added references. However, I think where you had that material originally, i.e., after the quotation of the legend, was more appropriate than where you have it now. The present location interupts the flow of the text. I have therefore moved it to follow the quotation of the legend. Cordially,Inver471ness (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You were mentioned in one of Wyvren's recent edits on the Akins article. I've started a thread on Talk:Akins#Coat of arms? just for clarification, and your input would be rather crucial, I think. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small followup - there's an RSN thread open for the coat of arms, if you'd like to give your input. It's at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Akins coat of arms. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a afraid a concession cannot be shown to have been made. And btw I doubt your clan is any more "Pictish" than a number of others. What a silly fantasy. Male line of Pictish kings! Ha ha. And I'm the Count of Tyrone. The sources you cite in the Clan Brodie article are certainly "remarkable". Got any better ones? Better ones for Clan MacLeod too would be nice. Show me a concession. DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I see that you have conceded Guy MacLeod should at least be mentioned so I feel bad for tearing you down. Maybe you are a male line descendant of a Pictish king. Anything is possible. It's a shame about the records. DinDraithou (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar Brodie, Knowing your interests, I think that you would like the following new book which I have just finished reading. Incidentally, it does not touch on the Luncarty legend; that wasn’t my reason for recommending it to you. It’s by the well-known British historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and was published after his death in 2003.

Trevor-Roper, H. The Invention of Scotland. Myth and History, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2008. 282 pages.

It’s in three parts: 1. The Political Myth. This part is highly critical of Hector Boece and George Buchanan.

2. The Literary Myth. This part is interesting, but a bit long.

3. The Sartorial Myth. All about the myths of tartans and kilts. Very good. Enter the Sobieski Stuarts, who used to call themselves Hay.

CordiallyInver471ness (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Czar brodie I will change the surname Gardyne to the Clan Gardyne. and add the info their.

Thanks for your help

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jockodundee2020 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brodie. On Talk:Flora MacLeod of MacLeod an editor put a 'dubious' tag on the arms pictured in the article, and noted that they were displayed on a lozenge rather than an escutcheon. I removed the picture from the article just to be safe. I'm not sure how many female chiefs of the name there are, though I'm sure there must be a few. Do you know if their arms are displayed on lozenges? Is that the way we should picture them on Wikipedia?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I overstepped by striking out your comments in the Great Baby Jesus Theft debate [12]. You may not have noticed (or maybe you did) that in doing so I said "I've struck out portions of my reply (and Czar Brodie's too, for which I hope he will forgive me in view of the greater good)".... Anyway, again, sorry if I overstepped. (If you answer, you can answer here.) EEng (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I really enjoy your coats of arms artwork on Campbell heraldry & other clans as well. Ne Obliviscaris

Ne Obliviscaris (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. on getting the Macfies to GA. Ben MacDui 08:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoed. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar. I was hoping to tidy up the Clan Urquhart page. The image for the chief's arms are already there but the clan crest badge is missing. Are you able to do a crest for the Clan Urquhart ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, I understand you are busy. But if you get the time the Clan Keith article could benefit from a chief's coat of arms and crest. The Keiths were quite an important clan in the history of Scotland. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you upload the Barclay badge? I'm doing the clans in the wiki.pt, so if you could help me... (sorry for my english) Pedro Noronha e Costa (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are signing your posts at Wikinews here with your username, can you please log in? — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• yes that was I, registered and signed, sorry, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point (and agreed at first) but i think the countries in the tourney are notable, more so if they have games in Ukraine. In that vein, Russia qualified.(Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Hey Czar Brodie; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You did a very good thing there with the Davidson article. I both appreciate and respect that and hopefully it will stand and not be butchered again.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me somewhere, anywhere, that this crap is verified by any reasonable source:

David's father was Donald, the third son of Robert Comyn who in turn was a a grandson of John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, chief of the Clan Comyn

I've not found anything that shows this lineage and you could show me that there was a Donald Comyn that had a son named David or Dhai Dhu, I'd love to see it. Please, show me because I'm not finding anything that shows this claim even remotely exists and this is being put as the basis for a clan origin?? Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.225 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clan MacBean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I have to hold the fort on my own ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of retirement, but wont be that active.

Welcome back all the same! Ben MacDui 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back Czar.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded.—Odysseus1479 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brodie Idvies.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. XXN, 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Blank shield.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Earl of Dundonald Arms 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redudant to File:Earl of Dundonald Arms.svg

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]