en User talk:Urselius Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Urselius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

100 days

I am asking editors I know and trust on Napoleonics to join me in fixing this God awful mess of and article. I can sure use your help! Tirronan 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon articles?

Urselius, I had a quick look at your contributions, and I see you're interested in Penda too. Would you have any interest in working on some Anglo-Saxon articles? I've been going through some of the kings and trying to get them up to featured article quality, and it sounds like you have some expertise in this area. I was also thinking of focusing on one specific kingdom -- probably Mercia or Wessex -- and trying to get every king up to good quality, plus maybe the survey article on the kingdom too. If you'd like to take a look at the ones I've worked on so far, I've worked on Ceawlin of Wessex, Aelle of Sussex, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Asser, Aethelberht of Kent and Aethelbald of Mercia. Caedwalla of Wessex is a featured article candidate right now, and I'm hoping to get Ine of Wessex there next -- it needs a lot more work still. Anyway, just thought I'd ask -- let me know (here or on my talk page) if you're interested. If not, no problem. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo nomination for Good Article status

Hi there. I've nominated Battle of Waterloo for GA status. In my opinion it has the makings of a Featured Article, but I think GA would be a good start. Anyway, it's been reviewed on the talk page, and quite a long list of suggestions for fine-grained improvements has been left there. I'll try to implement a few of them over the next few days, if I have time, but I figured, since you're more of a regular contributor to the article, you might be interested in bringing it up to GA. -Kieran 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Komnenian army

Good work at Komnenian army; I am very pleased with the new material that you have added to the article. It is good to see the attention that is going into articles concerning the Byzantine Empire at the moment. Well done! Bigdaddy1204 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the information on armour and weapons would be a welcome addition also. Interesting website! Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 09:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! First off, kudos on great work on the article. I'll add what I can here and there when I've got the time to do so, but it is already a very concise article. Second, the very detailed section on equipment, and the (projected) section on tactics, should IMO go to the generic Byzantine army and Byzantine battle tactics articles (which need a thorough rewrite either way), as they reflect the "classic" Byzantine army of the 8th-12th centuries (Timothy Dawson's excellent Osprey book makes that pretty clear) and are not specific to the Komnenian period. I would only retain smaller sections on what is directly relevant and unique for the Komnenian army in relation to the earlier and later (Palaiologan) forces. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation into Byzantine army

Thanks for the heads up. I assume you wish me to assist. I would love too, but my assistance is hindered by my lack of time. I'm gonna need to read it and then add it later. I also have a good source, "Byzantium at War" by John Haldon, so I should be able to a few more things maybe. Perhaps this coming weekend.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Manuel Komnenos

Thank you for your edits in the article. But can you please cite the first paragraph of the section you added about Russia. The article is FA, and we should keep its high level of referencing. I'll copy-edit the text you added, and I'll add some wikilinks. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And what book of Obolensky is the one you cite? Please, provide full data utilizing Template:cite book or Template:cite journal in the article's references. It is crucial to accurately cite all our sources in FA article. Not properly sourced material is reverted. Thanks again!--Yannismarou 10:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) My mistake this!--Yannismarou 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera and Long's replacement

Hi there,

Saw your comment on Battle of Albuera's talk page about Long's replacement, and have answered there. Would appreciate opinions on how to proceed. Fortescue, for example, agrees that Long was replaced by plsn, but relies on d'Urban's letters for evidence, as do Oman, Glover and Weller to support the opposite. When I saw that Napier supported the "dismissed for incompetence" reason, that was enough for me, as I'm well aware of the bad blood and animosity between Napier and Beresford. The fact the Ian Fletcher agrees with the planned replacement version is interesting though, and unfortunately neither Gates nor Esdaille refer to the incident. Carre (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination

Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Nominations. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. Anyway, here's hoping... -Kieran (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine - I'm on the case :) Urselius (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quis Custodet Custodes? Waterloo

In the case of FAC, it is clearly the reviewers. The other battle is hardly comparable in this respect. From your comments, and your attempt, you don't unfortunately seem to have much idea what is required by the 3 (I think) reviewers who have made similar comments. Let's hope someone else can add it during the process. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine double battle

By all means, do it. Also, take the liberty of adding it in the campaignbox please, thanks. Tourskin (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andronikos Kontostephanos DYK

Hello Urselius! This is to let you know that I have nominated your article on Andronikos Kontostephanos for the DYK. As I'll be away from a PC (about time) for the next few days, maybe you would like keep an eye on the candidacy. Keep up the good work and cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Done. you and Cplakidas

On 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andronikos Kontostephanos, 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.

Brill! Victuallers (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andronikos Kontostephanos, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks to all involved. Urselius (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword / 1796 Cavalry sabre edits

Hi,

You recently attempted to rename this article by cutting the text out of the old one and pasting it into the new. This is discouraged; the page should be moved using the MediaWiki move function, which preserves the page history. I have requested that an admin remove the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword pages temporarily in order to allow for the 1796 Cavalry sabre article to be properly moved over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Intercissa

Please source in Late Roman Army that the production of Intercissa helmets was cheap. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Then please source this again. BTW your assertions are bordering to WP:OR and I will have to carefully assess them when you are finished. Does the term 'archaeological filter' mean anything to you? That is the point where your whole theory falls to pieces. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not presenting any theory on the article page, just referencing published texts. BTW I'm finished, I have no intention of adding more to the helmet section. The section had need of reference to balancing evidence to the previously existing assertion that such helmets were cheap, the existence of many examples with traces of silver sheathing should not be ignored by any account aiming at being, in any degree, encyclopaedic. Urselius (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a qualifier to your edit on helmets in Late Roman army:

Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver or silver-gilt sheathing.^[1]^[2] A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating, or mounted gemstones, denoted rank e.g. the Deurne helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer.^[3] Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105

Please consult with user:Biruitorul as he's been having some of the same problems with Mrg3105, and then consider talking to user:Roger Davies, as Mrg3105 is under a community-imposed set of page restrictions and can be blocked from editing certain pages if a consensus of the community agrees. Roger is aware of Mrg's history of disruptive editing. Buckshot06(prof) 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kontostephanos

I appreciate your intention, and the point you make is indeed too often overlooked. However, the administrative duties of the megas doux in particular were largely carried out by the "praitor of Hellas and Peloponnese", who actually resided in these areas, or by the other local authorities (bishops, as in Athens, or local lords). The megas doux had overall responsibility over these areas, as they furnished the fleet, but was not directly involved in their governance. I added as much to the relevant article. Cheers, and take care Constantine ✍ 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Myriokephalon

Its possible by the way, that one of the reasons why Kilij did not want to attack Manuel is that even if he had the strength, which is in doubt he and Manuel had been kind to each othr in the past. A 1162 or so ceremony had Manuel adopt the young Sultan as his son, to the outrage of the Greek Orthodox Church. Kilij may not only have needed a peaceful neighbor to defeat his Turkish rivals, but perhaps even a friend. I source this from Norman, who also suggests that Kilij may have wanted some sort of friendship restored. Of course, this is not what happened because of the continuation of the war. Gabr-el 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Toponyms of Asia Minor

Hi, Urselius. I agree with you that locations in Asia Minor are often better known in the English-speaking world by Classical names. The example that springs immediately to mind and probably the most egregiously misnamed article I have ever encountered is Pactolus, which when I saw it first was called Sart Çayı. So much for the countless allusions of Western literature. Scott Redford calls the battle "Alaşehir" because that is how Ibn Bibi refers to it. "Battle of Antioch on the Meander" is certainly better. But consider the example of Konya: scholars of the New Testament and the Crusades certainly know "Iconium" better but the modern city has a population of one and a half million and could only be called "Konya"

Thanks for your efforts in improving this misnamed article. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ian Mercer

Hi and thanks for your message. The information on Mercer's birthdate came from this [1]. Of course, actors have been known to state that they are younger than they actually are, but until something concrete and verifiable appears the date must remain unchanged. Jack1956 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I have updated the article per your new information. Thanks for your input. Jack1956 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine navy FAC

Hello Urselius! Since you are interested in Byzantine military history, I thought I'd invite you to have a look at the ongoing second FAC nomination of the Byzantine navy article. Any input would be welcome. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support in upgrading this article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: spearmen

Difficult to say. "Doryphoros" doesn't mean simply "spearman", it also has, since Classical times, had the connotations of a bodyguard (to the Persian Great King). If you could give me the translated relevant passage, I can check it though. Constantine ✍ 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. I made a quick check, and indeed, Choniates uses the term "doryphoros", but mostly in the context mentioned above (he writes, for instance, about "axe-bearing doryphoroi" when describing the Varangians). "Skoutatos" is not used at all.Constantine ✍ 11:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple of instances of κοντοφόρος (kontophoros), and once kontophorikon for "spear-equipped army". There are also a couple of occurrences of λογχηφόρος (lonchephoros) for "spearman". The even more archaic ξυστόν (xyston) is sometimes used for "spear", but not the corresponding composite for "spearman". It must be noted though that all these terms are descriptive rather than technical: Choniates used the terms kontophoros and lonchephoros to describe lance-wielding Western knights as much as infantry spearmen. Constantine ✍ 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Greek text in this instance describes the Hungarians as clad head to toe in armour (podēnekēs, i.e. "to the feet"). The terms used by Choniates for the horses' accoutrements are the same terms that have been used since Classical Antiquity: prometōpidion for frontlet, prosternidion for breastplate; he also mentions that they were girded with a maschalistēr [2]. This may of course just be Choniates' typical penchant for using archaic terms, but I am not aware of other terms being used in Greek for these items. There is no reference to any horse armour on the Byzantine side, which does not however mean that they did not have any. They may not have had the heavy armour and the felt horse-coverings of the 10th-century cataphracts, but certainly they would have also disposed of breastplates and the like. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to help! :) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Komnenian army name

Hello Urselius! On the naming of the Komnenian army, why not rename it to Byzantine army (Komnenian period) or something like that? Constantine ✍ 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. I certainly respect your arguments, it was merely a proposition to be more in line with general naming patterns in WP. Personally, I was quite happy with "Komnenian army". As for the main "Byzantine army" page, its overhaul is one of the things I want to do, but can't really ever find the time to, since it is a massive undertaking. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Penda of Mercia

I have nominated Penda of Mercia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

William Careless (Carlos)

Hello! I was just wondering if you could show the notability of the the subject in question because I searched Google and only got a book result for the name. If you do have references, please add them to the William_Careless_(Carlos) article. Happy Editing! --Syed Kazim ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Urselius. You have new messages at Syed Kazim's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it

I am very much looking forward to Sir James Cotter. It just baffles me the Norse ancestry is not (or was not?) mentioned in Burke's and is only mentioned briefly in a few other books. I even get the sense that Ó Murchadha doesn't go into it as much as he could, his entire account of your family being only four pages long. There is this "family manuscript" which it would be nice to see and one hopes the baronets have it in their possession. Who knows if it contains an actual pedigree. Of course I knew of the existence of Cotters and even have a nice book written by the scholar Paul MacCotter but your ancestry somehow escaped my notice, which is surprising. Usually when a family is of possible royal origin they go on and on and on about it forever. But I wonder if your rise to prominence in the 17th century made it all about something else. Plus it was in the political basket case that is Ireland.

In his appendix Ó Murchadha mentions the two sources which he made use of for the "Cotters of Bearforest", both being "short accounts" published in the Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, the first in 1908 by James Coleman and the second in 1983 by G. de P. Cotter. He does not give their titles.

I have then come across a reference to an important mention of it in O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees,[3] and you can find the whole book in the references in the Cotter Baronets article. O'Hart says that Gibson mentions it in his History of Cork but I have not been able to discover this passage and the right volume may or may not be available online.

Personally I am willing to give you some benefit of the doubt concerning Óttar of Dublin because your family has been of means throughout its history. For this reason I have brought you up with this expert here, User_talk:Brianann_MacAmhlaidh#Cotters, and also mentioned you at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. Brianann has already found a mention of a Cotter, Murdo MacCotter, fighting abroad in the 1400s, possibly under the MacLeods and later the MacLeans. So there is more out there. DinDraithou (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have come across some doubt as to the origins of the Coppingers, and apparently MacLysaght believed them to be of English derivation, not "Danish". Ó Murchadha, however, includes them in his short list of families of Norse extraction but finds few enough remaining today, and does not cover them. I think your observation is another suggestion of Norse extraction.

The Cotters do not appear to have been mentioned by Duald Mac Firbis in his tract "On the Fomorians and the Norsemen" for which see

Bugge, Alexander (ed. and tr.) and Duald Mac Firbis, On the Fomorians and the Norsemen. Christiania: J. Chr. Gundersens Bogtrykkeri. 1905b.

But he does mention "Oitir the earl" at the end of page 8 in Bugge's translation. Bugge comments about this person on 21 and 27, saying on the latter that he is mentioned in the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib, for which see

Todd, James Henthorn (ed. & tr.). Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh: The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill. London: Longmans. 1867.

So going as directed to chapter XXXV (p. 38 ff) we find Earl Oitir Dubh, spectacularly in Waterford and Munster, and Todd's note beginning on 39 leads us to chapter XXVIII (30-31), where we find probably the same Earl Otter apparently involved in some settlement in Cork. The note on 30 says he is mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle and was slain in 910.

Since this person was famous he is possibly the common source for the Cotters of Cork, "Ottir Mac Ottir" of Dublin, and Murdo MacCotter of the Hebrides. It looks to me like a smaller dynasty operating alongside the Uí Ímair. I suspect our Earl might be the famous Ohthere of Hålogaland, a Norwegian adventurer. In any case Bugge refers us to pages 13 ff, 16ff, and 161 in volume III of the following

Steenstrup, Johannes, Normannerne, Volumes 3 and 4. Copenhagen: Forlagt af Rudolf Klein. 1882.

I can understand a little but my Scandinavian is poor. User:Finnrind is an expert Norwegian friend here but he is currently absent. But I think we are in good shape still. And User:Fergananim, if he can be bothered right now, has access to MacFirbis' massive compilation of genealogies, where the Cotters may or may not have a pedigree. Even an erroneous one might contain valuable information. DinDraithou (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottir Iarla

It would appear Ottir Iarla is going to need an article. As far as I can gather he was a principal deputy of Ragnall ua Ímair, and probably was the Ruler of Waterford in Ragnall's place for a number of years. Ottir died in battle against Constantine II of Scotland in 916 or 918. We can't outright say it, but I am (99%) certain he is your ancestor. He was in Munster for quite some time.

It will require more research to determine if he is identical with Ohthere of Hålogaland, but this person also visited Ireland, although a few decades before. DinDraithou (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Now Ottir Iarla has an article. DinDraithou (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Óttar appears to have been a dynastic name in the Irish Sea family. A case has been made by an academic, and we should soon have a lot more to add to Cotter family. For this new development see User talk:Brianann MacAmhlaidh#Found him. Ignore my venting. I do this periodically. It makes me feel important. DinDraithou (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the source now and would like to email it to you. How do I do that? You will find on p. 143 that there was in fact a Thorfin in the dynasty, and there may be enough out there on him for an eventual article, as it would appear he was an ally (and relation by marriage?) of the early Clann Somhairle, thus distantly associating the Cotters with the modern Clan Donald and Clan MacDougall, and probably even the O'Donovans in some torturous fashion since "we" were hooking up with the Waterford dynasty. We were probably once political cousins. Creating an Ottar dynasty article is now possible and there is too much material to fit in Cotter family now. It was bound to happen eventually but your sept now (re)joins the club of families with really complicated genealogies, since both Norwegians and Scots are involved. I don't know how close you yourself are related to the current Baronets of Rockforest but it doesn't really matter to me. (I'm not even really an O'Donovan according the Irish.) Once you get this article you should find a way to send it to Sir Patrick, or he might want to buy the book. Probably he already knows much about it as there seems to be a fair amount of material out there on the Ottar dynasty, but here it's in a nice little article by a proper scholar. Also User:Finnrind now has the passage from Steenstrup and will investigate about Ottir Iarla when he is able. DinDraithou (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sent. And thank User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh! DinDraithou (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. I have sent you something new and important, that I almost forgot about. DinDraithou (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. You have four new ones and may feel daunted by their contents. But don't worry. I did this to Finnrind once and he survived. Everyone needs access to the library. DinDraithou (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow![4] Also available at JSTOR.[5] DinDraithou (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottir Dub

Good find. But in this case I have the suspicion he might have been added because of his prominent presence earlier in the story. But it is possible there was another, especially in this family. Then an alternative might be that this Ottir Dub has lent his epithet in that one passage to the earlier Ottir Iarla. So they could be two different people. Surely the same family anyway and worth mentioning in the article for the dynasty. The annals may or may not mention this one and we're not sure if a number of different people were at the battle or not. The role of the Munster and some other Norse and Norse-Gaels is somewhat unclear. He could have been of the "Mann branch", if that was separate then. Probably not. DinDraithou (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish nobility

I have now listed you along with the Desmond FitzGeralds under a new category Irish nobility#Norse and Norman and doubt anyone will remove you. Your family belongs there. DinDraithou (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Baronetcy

I have almost renamed the page a couple of times. What you have to (or may already?) realize is that a little title like that is trivial and actually makes a family look inconsequential. Around the descendants of petty kings anything below a count is trash. If you are actually the descendants of an Old Norse great earl (small king) then you need to figure out a way to lose or hide that trivial "title" and really join the aristocracy again. As I say elsewhere this kind of knowledge is not mine and could come from anyone. A baronet is nothing. Instead of forcing two articles it should be allowed a tiny little section in one, if that. Not important. DinDraithou (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Living on the edge

Hi Urselius, thanks for fixing the reference to Downhams article "Living on the edge" in Óttar of Dublin. If you have possession of the whole festschrift "West over the Sea" I would be grateful if you could add the correct page number to the in-line citations I added - I only have a printout that Dr Downham kindly sent me a while ago, and the page numbering isnot the same there as in the printed edition. The passage I have referred to was on page 4 out of 13 of the printout. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Therulfe MacThorfin

Follow the link and search inside for Therulfe MacThorfin.[6] Then try them separately. The family manuscript, approved/commissioned by the 4th Baronet, appears to be extensively referenced, or actually edited, in the article, and there also was or may have been an earlier manuscript which is now unfortunately lost. Search for C. P. Cotter. I have tracked down the title and it is: G. de P. Cotter (ed.), "The Cotter family of Rockforest, Co. Cork", in JCHAS 43/XLIII (1938): 21-31. Ó Murchadha made a tiny error and gave the year as 1983.

There is also a "Pedigree of Cotter Family of Cork" somewhere.[7] IGRS (Library)?[8] Must be them. Finally a poem by Seamas Mac Coitir has been edited by Pádraig A. Breatnach under the title "Togha na héigse 1700-1800" in Éigse 27,[9][10][11] and from the preview (3rd link, simply search for Cotter) it would appear his claimed ancestor known from 1142 is at least mentioned by Breatnach. But coverage of Mac Coitir, judging from the page numbers, looks like it is spread out at least across volumes Éigse 26 and 27, or maybe the pages are wrong at the website. I would check 28 too. DinDraithou (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I piled up all these searching.[12] [13] JCHAS XIV, 1908 [14] [15] [16] [17] Misguided Cotters in Inchigeela with the O'Learys. DinDraithou (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Ottir mac Therulfe was not the last namesake of the notorious Ottir Iarla! Do you plan on doing those articles for the notable baronets? You've seen I created the category. I would like to see at least one of the Cotter poets added. And maybe we will eventually have enough for Ottar of Dublin's grandfather, and possibly for Thorfin and/or Therulfe. Let me know when you get a hold of the newer article. I live in the United States, you see, and can't get everything. Because it is probably no longer in copyright, being published two years prior to 1940, it could probably be put up on a web page for the benefit of all to study. DinDraithou (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking

Looking for something, I have sent you a shamelessly hopeful email. DinDraithou (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Acquired. Check your email. DinDraithou (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not too bad, and worth it. Happy to share. DinDraithou (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)