User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology to you, and possibly Urgent information

It just in the last 15 minutes dawned on me that i had no idea whether you know this:

your name is explicitly mentioned on my talk page in a sentence (the last of the contrib) that also includes the phrase "injunctive remedy".

I'm heartily sorry to have ignored that ignorance on my part, and my responsibility in light of it, for 36 hours. My efforts to treat the matter calmly are not entirely selfish, and they may have interfered with the attention i should have given to your interests, but that is no excuse and may even amount to a further occasion of grievance. Please accept my apology for this neglect by me.
(I will be adding to the section in question in abt the next hour. I'll also be glad to notify you of further developments, if you so ask.)
--Jerzy•t 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution) RHETORICAL INTERACTION ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS TO:  User:Cuchullain FYI:  Your username is mentioned in the preliminary overview: User:Proofreader77/American warning#001 (sonnetized) Looking forward to a convivial examination and resolution within the context of policy re disambiguation cleaning (dab-cleaner responsibilities—especially administrators). Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(clarification - reason for notification at this time: as promised on User_talk:Jerzy)

“

• Next: Formal phase of dispute resolution (note: not a content dispute)

• Proofreader77 to provide overview of his perspective to concerned parties by day 7.

”

(Quotation is an excerpt from this diff: Revision as of 12:29, 10 March 2009)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(notice of messages addressing your response on User_talk:Proofreader77)

• User_talk:Proofreader77#.28analysis.29
• User_talk:Proofreader77#.28a_sonnet_on_the_occasion_of_an_un-convivial_response_..._to_a_sonnet.29

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• (next step: construct time-line record/map re: American/Talk:American 2/25-3/18 2009)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Casual note:) May 1 mapping postponed to broaden scope. Estimate ~Sept. 1. (Excuse late notice, hoped to have an opportunity to complete this, but plate didn't get cleared. Feel free to clear talk page, unless you like the cute animation. Sorry, just attempting conviviality. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(notice of messages addressing your response on Talk:American)

• analysis re Cuchullain's response/justification for again moving American(word) link from top

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Radiant Brow

Thanks for your extremely prompt and convincing support at Talk:Taliesin. Hard to believe this is happening. With people like this around we're in danger of ending up with Shakespeare (the dude that wrote them plays)! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Enaid. This change was so major that I weighed in as soon as I could. It's not hard to believe, though, this is just a case of one user who is very interested and knowledgeable in one field, and doesn't see past that, despite all the other editors who disagree with him. It looks like everything is sorting itself out at any rate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Foundation Day of Great Britain and other fantasies

Hi Cuchullain, hope you are in good feckle and able to help out in your capacity as an administrator. If you have the time could you please take a look at the section 'Foundation Day of Great Britain' on my talk page and this contributions record? Scroll down the latter and you'll see wholly inappropriate redirects such as Welsh Day, English Day etc, all of which are typical of the contributor's modus operandii on wikipedia. He won't listen, just keeps reverting. In my opinion this seriously undermines wikipedia's credibilty and has to stop (maybe I'm not neutral regarding the GB/UK-related stuff, but it extends to other areas as well). What is truly unforgiveable is that these redirects are then used within articles in a highly misleading way to reflect the contributor's personal agenda and POV. I'm sure you've got plenty to do but I don't know where else to turn without resorting to the bureaucratic hassle of dispute resolution (but this problem falls under several headings, so where would I start?).

Meanwhile I'm still chewing over the possible proposal for admin status. Really appreciate your offer of support, by the way. Hmmm... at least I'd be able to delete idiotic redirects such as United Kingdom Day (=Culture of the United Kingdom)!

Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Enaid. I'll leave him a note asking him to stop until/unless he can demonstrate that these are real holidays, and see into deleting them when I have the time. Hopefully he will respond to a nicely asked request and it won't have to come to more serious action. In the meantime, if you are so inclined just pop a prod or speedy delete tag on the egregious offenders.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cúchullain. You wouldn't happen to know which speedy delete tag is appropriate for a redirect, would you? Or would the general one do? Don't know if I can be bothered working through them all like that, mind. Talk about a chore! The edits seem to have stopped but maybe it's just the Easter break... Enaidmawr (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper tag would be {{db-redirmisnomer}}, since it's an implausible misnomer for the articles he's sending it to. I deleted a few of them, but it's hard to catch them all, especially since there's a chance one or two of them are legit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I started tagging the remainder and regretted it. Came to about 40 redirects (see my contributions list). I may have been too lenient with some that remain, but at least they were "innocent" rather than POV-fuelled or just plain CraZy. And there goes another hour of my time when I should be in bed reading (LeSage, Gil Blas, a lovely 3/4 leather edition, Paris 1865...). Enaidmawr (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PS At least one's gone already ('Welsh Day'), so hopefully that contributions record may be void of most of them by tomorrow. Let's hope so! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Manisola

Hi Cuchullain, I was checking the Manisola article and I found that almost the entire article was removed. Now I'm not going to argue about the reliability of the sources which you question but it seems unfair to just wipe out so much info from the article. Regardless of the nature of the sources there will always be some useful info that could be connected to some facts. So please if you could discuss this matter in the article's talk page, I would appreciate it. Thanks Alain08 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have responded at that talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Road

Why are you systematically erasing the link to Juan Asensio's review of The Road ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.238.205 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a non-notable blog review. Please see our external link policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong : in France, Stalker is a notable blog (of literature and criticism) and let me remind you that the text about The Road is translated in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.238.205 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but we can't have a list of every blogger who has written something about this, or any, book. From the external links guideline, Wikipedia should not include links to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Your link adds nothing new.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for help w/ the Scifi debates. How's that? I'm tired of fighting these nitwits. Josh a brewer (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the same old same old; certain users are trying to classify the novel as scifi because they really, really want it to be. And Orangemike is egging them on despite a total lack of sources backing up the claim. It looks like the dispute has died down for now, but that page require watching because this comes up periodically, any time a new scifi fan comes by and is apalled to find that categorization missing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep watching. I can't believe that person tried to use a French blog!?! Geez. Josh a brewer (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

From Ched

Hey Cuchullain, I don't want to canvass, but if you're interested I don't want you to be unaware either. I noticed that you've on occasion responded to WP:RIP items, so I thought I'd let you know about the discussion here:

• Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians

hope that's ok, if you're already aware from one of the postings, just delete the message (and trout me if required) ;) — Ched :  ?  00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumi

Hi! I notice that you have reverted my edits on a.m. article without giving any reason on the summary or talk page. Would you pleas eplease explain the reason of your action. CeeGee (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It must have been a timing error. What I meant to revert was this edit you had made a few minutes before; you got to it about a minute or two before I did. My apologies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-article songs on dab pages

I've noticed that you are in the habit of removing songs without articles when you clean up disambiguation pages, as in this edit to the dab page Desire. I'd like to persuade you not to do that. Let me say, though, that I understand the impulse: Long lists of songs do seem like clutter, and, further, I think that dab pages are a poor way to handle song indexing. I think that eventually (probably a long way down the road) WikiProject Songs (which I am not a participant in) will have to build a Wikipedia Song Index to handle this task.

But in the meantime, dab pages are what we have, and the listing of non-article songs is allowable under MOS:DAB—which includes one such entry as an example (see the Exceptions section)—and is widely accepted and practiced. A big problem with removing them is that people will put them back...predictably and relentlessly (one is already back on Desire). And then these songs become clutter, and a maintenance problem, because many editors will add them any which way, in any order. I've found that listing the songs in a concise, orderly fashion reduces clutter and maintenance by giving future editors a model to follow; they don't always, but it does help. Anyway, that's my case, but as I said, I understand your point of view, too. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, ShelfSkewed. I'm not specifically against songs being on dab pages, I tend to remove any entry that does not have a Wikipedia entry and are not likely to ever have one. It looks like I've been a bit too stringent with my removals, as the MOS currently stands; I did not see the Siouxsie song on the MOS page. I still think it's a terrible idea to have songs with no articles listed on disambiguation pages, even if the album has an article. The problem is that I've never seen one of album articles ever actually discuss the songs that appear on the dab page beyond perhaps the track listing. But, you've convinced me, I will discuss the matter at the MOS page before I remove any more. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you'll take it under consideration; I really do think it's a burden dab pages will have to bear until a better solution comes along. I don't know jack about programming or writing templates, but I wonder if someone could create a track-listing template, like a category template, so that every song in every album article would automatically be added to a searchable database? Someday, maybe. Regards.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Union

What else does "the Union" mean besides the United States in the sentence "Florida was admitted to the Union in 1845"? Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, it was already a territory of the US, though not a "state of the Union" (I'm afraid my edit summary at Alaska Territory is even more confusing.) At any rate the colloquial term "Union" is not the best place to pipe the link United States, since the easily-identified "United States" already appears in the lede. My other issues were only with the linking of dates and of linking to the redirect State of Florida.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The link was created because non-American readers may not be familiar with the term "Union". Please don't fiddle with things you don't understand. --Buaidh (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Things I don't understand? I've given explanations for my edits, including links to guidelines. This is something you have consistently failed, or refused, to do. Perhaps communication and collaboration are things that you don't understand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sassenach! --Buaidh (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For your information

Please be informed that I have posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuous_block as to the prolonged blocking of Aisha. Please do not see this as a personal thing. All I am interested in is unblocking this article. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Per advice there I've moved the notice to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Aisha_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How is the article doing? Debresser (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Same old same old. As you can see from the recent edit history Gnosisquest is trying new and improved ways to edit war his material into the article, and there have been some back-and-forth reversions from various parties. On the up side I created a new section on Aisha's age which I hope will mollify some of the evangelists and critics. Please keep an eye on it, as one of the supporters of unprotecting the page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If it doesn't stop, some action will have to be taken against the editor not conforming to Wikipedia procedures and consensus, as was mentioned in various comments in the discussion mentioned above. I'll write him a friendly warning. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For what I wrote Gnosisquest, see his talk page. But you also seem to have a problem with owning this article. See e.g. this diff. The words "historians", added by Gnosisquest two edits earlier, seemed well in place to me, and since when do tags have to be announced on the talk page? Debresser (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. I appreciate your desire to see this handled in the most productive way. I do think that WP:OWN is a bit of a strong accusation for what's happening here. In my defense, I think "historians" would have been okay. However, "Early Muslims historians" (sic) is not. Gnosis has shown a consistant disregard for proper editing, I don't see that challenging him constitutes a claim of ownership over the article. Similarly, on the tags, please see WP:NPOVD: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." Itaqallah's edit summary making the hand-waving statement that the wording "seems a bit slanted" doesn't name any specific problems that can be fixed, and so it's not helpful in improving the article. --Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference to wp:own was not an accusation. I've been told that I try to "own" an article (which I created) once, and felt insulted. It was meant to make sure you pay attention to possible undercurrents in your edits.

Are we talking about the same tag? I meant the {{Lopsided}} tag. The quote from NPOV refers to NPOV-related tags only.

I agree Gnosisquest makes bad edits. I know more such users. I usually sigh deeply and fix whatever I can. That creates a sea of goodwill. If even after the reworking the text is out of place, as various of Gnosisquest's recent additions have been, somebody will surely remove them. Discussing on the talk page is also an option. Nothing will be lost if a "wrong" text ligers on one or two more days. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You are right, of course. I've been watching this page for a long time - through some pretty unconstructive and underhanded edits (like this masterpiece of SYNTH or this anti-Muslim tag-team). As such it's sometimes hard to take a step back and put some perspective on it.

2. The "lopsided" tag is a POV tag. Regardless the same concept of actually discussing what the problem is is reiterated across Wikipedia, such as at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and Template:NPOV. The advice is good: how can others be expected to fix a problem if you don't even say what the problem is?

3. Again, you are totally right. No article was ever served by cantankerous editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrine Brown

I understand that there has been a lot of vandalism about this event. The bottom line here is that this happened. it is a fact. I am not trying to post a bunch of videos, I am sharing something that happened with the users of Wikipedia, and have properly documented it. It is objective. By removing this objective piece of public domain, you are indeed the one being subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James corn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Corrine Brown. Please do not re-insert the material without discussing there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vortigern

I haven't taken any offense to anything you have done. In fact I find interactions like this with more experienced editors makes my own contributions and help for new users more constructive. I tend to have a very blunt way of dealing with issues though, it is how I write, and sometimes I come across as a little too strong. I definitely will encounter you again, it seems we cross paths often in King Arthur and other Medieval Britain shtuff. SADADS (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey's original reappears...

Hi, Cuchullain, just wondering if you'd seen the article Chronicle of the Britons? It has just been substantially revised. I can only describe the current text as sheer lunacy, even compared to the former draft. Reasoned arguments and explanations put forward on the talk page by myself and Nicknack009 have been ignored entirely.

Quote:

"It appears that the original "very ancient book written in the British language" was a document known to us as the Tysilio Chronicle. This original Chronicle is said to have been compiled by Saint Tysilio; an exiled British monk in the mid 7th Century. Tysilio's work was a collection of ancient material including what appear to be Druidic traditions, stories, lessons and legends that relate to events and personalities before and shortly after the Roman Conquest of Britain written by any number of now unknown Romano-British writers. Tysilio's chronicle was maintained after his death in c.640 by the Abbey of Saint-Suliac in Britanny and it appears they continued to add events to it after his demise; for example they have included the death of Cadwaladr Fendigaid in 688AD.

Walter of Oxford claims to have copied the 7th Century original from Old Welsh into Latin himself and it is this version which is probably referred to as The Good Book of Oxford by other contemporary authors such as Geoffrey Gaimar. If Walter gave the original "very ancient book written in the British language" to Geoffrey of Monmouth (who then kept it) then it makes sense if Walter, during his old age, translated The Good Book of Oxford that he had written from Latin into the version of Welsh contemporary to his time (called "Middle Welsh"). A copy of this document is what survives today. Geoffrey of Monmouth published his Historia Regum Britanniae in 1136 during the lifetime of Walter of Oxford. Walter was familiar with the original material used by Geoffrey and raised no concerns at the time regarding the accuracy or not of Geoffrey's work. The 7th Century Tysolio Chronicle was probably deposited in Monmouth by Geoffrey and is almost certainly now lost. Perhaps it was destroyed during the campaigns of Edward I when many Abbeys in Wales were plundered, perhaps it lasted as late as the uprising of Owain Glyndwr. Maybe it survived as long as the turbulent reign of Henry VIII - nevertheless, it cannot now be found."

I've just about given up on this and similar stuff and am thinking of retiring to somwhere less stressful, like the Swat valley perhaps. (King of the Britons comes to mind, but that is perfectly sane in comparison to this). Do you fancy taking a deep breath and having a look? Cofion gorau, as always, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

God, what people can come up with when they don't take care about the kinds of sources they use. I'll try to get on it and see what I can do (it seems to me that it's pointless to have an article on this and not on Brut y Brenhinedd). For now it's worth at least a "disputed" tag.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you a magician in your spare time, Cuchullain? Many thanks to you and fellow-editors for completely transforming the article which is now sound and well-referenced. Superb work. I see from the talk page that it wasn't accomplished without some resistance; there's just no convincing some people, unfortunately. Diolch o'r galon, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on Safiyya bint Huyayy

Thanx for your neutral view. I did'nt dare to remove the section because if it would have ben me(i.e. a muslim) it may have created a havoc. People on wikipedia tend to react like that while I try to maintain rationale and neutral approach.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Romano-British

Much better - thanks, great improvement over original --Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the article needs some serious work, but I figured that at least "Britons" ought to be mentioned in the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there no end to it?

Greetings, Cuchullain. I'm not expecting you or anybody else to rewrite it, as you did with the previous one, but what on earth are we supposed to do with this latest little gem? Fiction uncritically presented as historical fact. "Ye Gods!" etc. I've slapped an accuracy tab on it for now but can see no practical solution other than delete. Would you agree? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote it based on the one or two things it is possible to legitimately say about "Carnoban". It probably still should be deleted, or merged somewhere (but where?) It seems more and more of my and others time is being taken up in correcting misinformation introduced by that editor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure it was worth editing and didn't want you to spend your valuable time doing so, but thanks. Problem with keeping it is that it could set a precedent. As far as I know there is only that single reference by Iolo (and other refs deriving from it, possibly, e.g. John Rhys), so does it merit an article? Can't think where to merge it to, unless we have a 'List of people and places apparently invented by Iolo Morganwg'?! As you say though, this is getting tedious. I have precious little time here anyway because of my commitments on cy:, but between this and other nonsense/POV-pushing I find most of my time here being wasted (see Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board for another example, also from said editor). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could just redirect it to Iolo Morganwg. Is there a case for keeping it because the concept may be of interest? Deb (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction was to bin it. As I said above, this might set a precedent. Does a single mention in a forged triad merit an article (which might as well just say 'Carnoban is a fictitous sub-Roman place invented by Iolo Morganwg')? The point is there must be hundreds of such 'oneliners' in Iolo's work. Unless they have some other claim to fame I don't see any good reason for having an article about them. As an alternative to deletion perhaps a redirect would be best, as Deb suggests? The concept could be dealt with in a section of the Iolo Morganwg article concentrating on his antiquarian forgeries, perhaps? Some of those forgeries have considerable literary merit, like his "medieval" tales and poetry, but surely we're not going to start having articles on characters and places featured in those forgeries unless they have found a notable place in subsequent literature or have become well-known? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just redirect it to Iolo's page per Deb's suggestion. Once we have an article on Iolo's forgeries (there will be such a day, I'm sure) it can be incorporated there (and redirected).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that you in the Dublin GPO?

I stuck my oar in the above conversation because I came to your talk page to find out if that's you in the window of the Dublin GPO (metaphorically speaking, I mean). Deb (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that would explain the recent controversy about the addition of a laptop and a pile of reference works.... Enaidmawr (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! To answer your question, Deb, yes, that's me in the spotlight. I'm not actually dying, just really hung over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does it have a special significance for you, or did you just like the name? Deb (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The handle just reflects my interest in Irish and Celtic literature and history, I suppose. When I first started editing Wikipedia I was surprised that it wasn't taken (under this spelling, anyway.) The statue I just like. I used to have a picture of it on my user page, but it's long since been deleted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only just been to Dublin for the first time, hence my interest. I was very moved by the statue and the inscription. Deb (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Celtic Christianity

I do not know whether you've seen this article yet or not. What chance is there that this can be turned into something decent? Or, should it simply be sent to AfD almost immediately? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Johnbod redirected it back to Celtic Christianity, which it was a fork from. That's the move I would have made. There's nothing there that shouldn't just be at the main page. I'll keep an eye on it in case anything changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper use of power

Please do not resort to personal attacks or threats to make a person see your point of view.Comments on the content and not on the contributor would be appreciated. Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Remember with great power comes greater responsibility.Happy editing!!! (and no offence meant) --Gnosisquest (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't used my admin powers, least of all to gain some advantage in the dispute. You are grasping at straws.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Shorstein

I must disagree with the changes you made to the Brenton Butler section of Harry Shorstein. As the section reads now, there is nothing notable. You stated that you were "Toning down tangentially-related Brenton Butler material", when in fact, you removed the points that were notable. The fact that "Butler was acquitted by the jury in less than an hour." and "The jury also issued a statement that was critical of the arrest and prosecution" are significant. The text you added, "the State Attorney's office and JSO took the unusual step of apologizing to him" appears to be an attempt to gloss over the fact that "Shorstein and Sheriff Nat Glover personally apologized to Brenton Butler and his family". Mgreason (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to your concerns at the article talk page shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not worthy!

Hi Cuchullain, I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to co-edit Wikipedia with an ancient Irish hero such as yourself. I reread your adventure just the other day, in a brand-new translation (can't find the info right now...), and I thought it was a blast. Keep on protecting the cattle! Drmies (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of North Florida

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article North Florida, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Delete as ridiculous re-direct - North Florida should NOT redirect to "First Coast", which refers to a scant few counties in a tiny region of northeastern Florida. "North Florida" refers to the entire northern part of the state, which is identified by its geography as much as by its relative ruralness and cultural conservative Christian old-fashioned Southerness, as opposed to mid-Florida and South Florida, which are FAR different. The small handful of "First Coast" counties doesn't even comprise 25% of North Florida. This is ridiculous. The article doesn't even use the phrase "North Florida", or deal with any of the characteristics of the region. In short, the "First Coast" article has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH North Florida, except by virtue of its location. So redirecting "North Florida" there is as stupid and incorrect as redirecting it to a specific town or county in North Florida and saying "well, this town/county is LOCATED in North Florida, so that's good enough for now, even though the article makes NO MENTION of the geographical and cultural and political attributes which differentiate North Florida from the rest of the state". This re-direct should be DELETED IMMEDIATELY as being patently ipso facto absurd. And the resulting redlinks will serve their purpose of alerting and inspiring someone with the knowledge and time and will to write an appropriate article about the topic. Thank you.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting to merge Day of the Dead (disambiguation) and Dia De Los Muertos (disambiguation)

Hi -- another editor has asked on my talk page if it is possible and reasonable to merge these two. I can't see a good reason to have two such similar dab pages. Could you have a think and respond on my talk page? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed you comment previously. I think I've solved the problem. Since there was only one remaining article on Dia De Los Muertos (disambiguation) (the other was deleted), there is no need for a separate disambig page. If in the future other articles of that title are created, I would suggest that the dab page be recreated, since they are actually in different languages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

North Florida listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Florida. Since you had some involvement with the North Florida redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) --NE2 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Working in tandem?

Hey! Stop copying me! From my watchlist:

(diff) (hist) . . Madoc‎; 18:18 . . (-211) . . Cuchullain (talk | contribs)

(diff) (hist) . . m Zorats Karer‎; 18:18 . . (-211) . . Enaidmawr (talk | contribs)

Bizarre, but then this is the Wikipedia...  :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is freaky. Not as freaky other things that happen on our fair Wikipedia... I just came back across Talk:Taliesin, and read over the discussion from the guy who wanted Taliesin moved to Taliesin (poet) for the emminently sensible reason that something else was later named after him. Never a dull moment around here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Too true! You should have seen what the article on Zorats Karer looked like before I got fed up of waiting for someone from WP:ARCHAEO to take a look at it! Be warned: one of the websites sourced for the nonsense seems to believe that Britain was settled by.... the Armenians (see Talk:Zorats Karer for a joke which may well have been a prophecy - freaky again, or what!?). Cofion cynnes, as always, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Text removal at Stonehenge

Sincere apologies for the text removal. It was not my intention. Sometimes when looking at the "Diff", text additions are not so apparent, as in this case.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It was my mistake not noticing the image was already included in a better place in the article. I moved the text to that section as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, noted. All is well.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Elfed and Elmet

I'm puzzled. Why did you add Elmet to the Elfed disambiguation page? After all, Elmet has its own disambiguation page at Elmet (disambiguation). You probably have a good reason – but if it puzzles me, chances are that other people will be puzzled too. Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Elfed is an alternate name for Elmet (from the Welsh); readers may look for it under that. See here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Enaidmawr's already dealt with it. I hope this settles the confusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hebrides (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? Excuse me??

How does adding G-2 to Template:International_power constitute vandalism? The G-2 is an obvious reference to the emerging political relations between the USA and China, commonly referred to as the group of two, as G-2 clearly states. I was simply being bold, and you have the effrontery to revert my contributions out-of-hand, and accuse me of being a vandal? If I was a vandal, I'd currently be editing WP:BB to say something like "Don't bother, because some fascist wiki-nazi will start behaving like a petulant child who doesn't want to share a toy." But I'm not: I'm here leaving you this message that I will indeed refrain from editing, not because you demand it, or because I admit to being a vandal, but because I am ultimately sickened with being rudely slapped down for trying to contribute to what is supposed to be a publicly accessable and editable resource. Have fun playing with your toy, sonny, and don't bother responding to me: I'm through dealing with idiots of your ilk. I recommend you cultivate some manners before you try to pull something like this in real life, and get a well-deserved fist in the teeth. 206.45.135.233 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A user has been repeatedly making that same edit of adding the fictitious G-2 to that template, despite many requests that he or she stop. It has come to the point of being disruptive. If you are not this user, and were making a genuine, independent good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, then I sincerely apologize and retract the insinuation that your edit may constitute vandalism. If that's not the case, however, then please heed the warning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion whatsoever at Template_talk:International_power about adding G2 to the template or not, nor any repeated requests to refrain from making said edit. In addition, I fail to understand your reference to the G2 being "fictitious", when U.S.–China_Strategic_and_Economic_Dialogue and G2 use the term, and Group of Two redirects to Sino-American relations. Seems pretty real to other wikipedians, and to me, too. Regardless, I'm through being bullied here: Question my contributions, okay; but don't go throwing epithets and unfounded accusations around. Almost every edit I have ever made here, other than spelling corrections, has been reverted within the hour with no discussion by some control freak who regards this wiki as thier personal property. Be Bold? Yeah, right. Why bother? 206.45.135.233 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: And then, you people wonder why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation?? 206.45.135.233 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I hope you change your mind about Wikipedia. I know how frustrating this can be, especially with controversial material (you can check the template's recent edit history to see how contentious this has been).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history. . . after the fact, since there is, as I stated, no mention of this issue on the discussion page, leaving me completely unaware that there was any dispute over this issue.

• Point one: I should not have to check the history: An issue this contentious should have had some mention on the discussion page, which is there for that very purpose. Thank you for not marking the minefield.
• Point two: If the concept of the G2 is notable enough in common parlance to be mentioned in the places I cited above, it should be notable enough to include in the template. Inconsistency, thy name is Wikipedia.
• Point three: My objection is to your automatic assumption of bad faith on my part. How nice to see the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" upheld in the usual slapdash, hypocritical fashion. Did you even check my previous contributions to see if I was a habitual vandal? Obviously not, or you would have seen that most of my edits are minor spelling, grammar or typo corrections. Granted, my sense of humour leads me towards whimsy sometimes, (in my opinion a little good humour can enhance an article by making it more enjoyable for the reader, an opinion not shared by the self-appointed wiktators here, who seem to loathe the very concept of academic enjoyment,) but I have never, repeatedly or otherwise, vandalized an article outright. But, I guess that record doesn't count, since anyone, including admins who should know better, can just dump all over me without even checking. I see little reason for changing my mind when contributing is just a waste of my time and effort, reverted without discussion, recourse, or reason.

206.45.135.233 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I already apologized if this is a case of mistaken identity. One of the worst things about anonymous disruption is that sometimes good editors get caught up in mess. Such confusion would be eliminated if you register an account, but I am truly sorry if this puts you off the project.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I have an account. Why bother logging in when my contributions are treated with equal contempt either way? Same excrement, different pile. Ok, I understand what happened, and accept your apology, but this sort of thing will persist in alienating sincere contributors (such as myself, and several others I know to be fed up) until such time as the administration adopts more consistent and less draconian methods of managing the wiki. I understand that there are plenty of immature morons who think the height of hilarity is to blank pages, replace them with obscenity, or disrupt the wiki in myriad ways; and I agree that such nonsense should be reverted or deleted immediately with prejudice, and the perpetrators banned. But collateral damage such as this instance are driving away people in droves; the media reports of such heavy-handedness on Wikipedia are second only to those concerned with its veracity. So, in an effort to improve accuracy, are the admins (and users) being excessively zealous in thier treatment of contributors? No apologies are necessary, but the admins should probably have a serious discussion regarding this. Tooltroll (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur stone

I see the problem with taking that TalkPage information elsewhere. As long as the archaeologists say "securely dated contexts" and the consensus is not disrupted the encyclopeda shd show it that way. The Late Latin text is hard to understand but Latin changes through the centuries so avus is hard to translate here. (It is so long ago that I read Latin texts of any kind.) The whole Arthurian area is very hard to deal with neutrally.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't just direct our readers to an anonymous posting on a Wikipedia talk page as if it were a reliable source of information. We have several policies speaking specifically against this, including Verifiability and No original research. I don't think the Arthurian legend is any harder to deal with than any other area, one just has to make sure to use good sources and attribute their claims correctly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a good policy but many policies contradict other parts of the policy structure, like #Be Bold# and then an Administrator mishandles what happens next (N.B.this is about other recent events). Then you have to find out how to lodge an objection or give up. I have been active in WP:Cornwall but haven't strayed too far in the Celtic realms apart from Devon. There has been a new version of Dumnonia which I think is a step forward from the three overlapping articles before that. Even experts can get things wrong and find things they want to find but the probability is over 90% for the consensus. (Even using "Arthur stone" as the name of the article has been disputed.) I am going to do very little this week / next week.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Niall/British Royals

I've got a source for the British Royal family, if it's credible (think so): http://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/RoyalFamilyEngland.php I've also reworded the mention of it because I'm not sure if the Royals themselves make this claim. Arxack (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I'm having a hard time understanding what this guy is going on about... it sounds like he has a very particular idea of what the article should discuss, and he doesn't want to back it up with sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not an expert and I want to avoid wikidrama, I'm gonna bow out of this. But if he does something nutty and you need some support, just leave a note on my talk page. Irish pride, Arxack (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction in the Holy Grail article

I can appreciate your reasoning for changing back what I had moved out of the "non-fiction" section of the Holy Grail article. My reason for trying the move that I made was that the ostensibly non-fiction material is then used as a jumping-off point to go back into the recent fiction of Dan Brown, which is then the largest paragraph in the non-fiction section. That just seemed messy to me. Given that the previous section was labeled "Modern retellings" rather than "Fiction" as such, I thought that perhaps that category was broad enough to include something of the debated nature of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NovakFreek (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Wales

I know what the guidance on bolding says, but to me it just seems wrong - it makes the article appear unfinished, or vandalised, if the title is not emboldened when it appears verbatim in the first sentence. Why does such apparently counter-intuitive guidance exist? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it came about, and I'm not sure I'm that much a fan of it either. However, I'm even less a fan of linking within bolding - I think that makes otherwise perfectly fine articles like 2009 Iranian election protests look unprofessional. Not bolding descriptive titles does free us from having to bend over backwards with the phrasing and linking (ie, the article doesn't have to say something like "the history of Wales is the recorded history of the country of Wales"). At any rate if this wants to be a featured article some day it ought to follow the style guides. I suppose we could ask for others' opinions over at MOS:BOLD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Old North

The map is correct, there was a Kingdom of the Pennines. The most famous king of it was Pabo Post Prydain.[1] Most sources also say that Bernicia began as a Brythonic kingdom before it was taken over.[2] - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither that website nor that book are reliable sources. I'll respond more fully at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are books, the first one is Webster's Dictionary which has quite a good reputation for reliability. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Let's take the discussion back to the article page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Could you start the discussion on there, because I'm not sure whats wrong with it? Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Can you go back to the New Mexico Campaign talk page? I had some technical difficulties and wasnt able to post my reply before you posted your most recent reply. So please read and understand my point, thanks.--Aj4444 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nemeton

Nemetons are being used right now. I have photos if you'd like. The people using them are quite serious about their use, which is part of Celtic Spirituality and Neo-Druidic practice. These traditions are well documented, and their adherents are notable enough to have wikipedia articles, including Ar nDraiocht Fein, Asatru, the Troth, The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, and others. The term is also becoming popular to describe internet groups dedicated to Celtic Spirituality and those following such paths. I don't see any reason not to mention them in an article about Nemetons, and certainly not to claim no one has used them in centuries. These are real people, and the mere literary mentions that have been assembled in this article give no reason to believe that as many people have used each of the "historical" ones than have used, say, the Brushwood Nemeton, which has hosted hundreds of rituals and classes over the last twelve years. Rosencomet (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is better placed at Talk:Nemeton, where others can weigh in. I'll respond there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Caps

Thanks, I was wondering about that one. Cavila (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. 'Tis my understanding of MOS:CAPS anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gasparilla

I noticed that you switched around the redirects between Jose Gaspar and Gasparilla Pirate Festival. I completely disagree with making the article about a fictional pirate the main target of Gasparilla. "Gasparilla" is the commonly referred to name of the event, which is MUCH more well known (both locally and otherwise, as the festival draws lots of visitors) than its make-believe namesake. I was going to go ahead and switch everything back but thought I should ask about your reasoning first. Thanks... Zeng8r (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The fictional pirate was originally at "Gasparilla", until someone moved the article. I redirected Gasparilla to the character, as it seemed to me that people are most likely to search for that material under that term. Looking at the page history it seems this has been much more contentious than I remembered, but it has been redirected to that target for most of the last four years or so. I believe(d) that this was the best target, since it was the original use, with the festival deriving its name from that, but also because that appeared to be the clear primary use in all the reliable sources I was consulted in writing the article. To date there are scant few sources in the festival article to determine otherwise (one of them is the Ans article I added, which discusses the whole legend from an anthropological perspective). It could be argued based on raw google hits or page view stats that more people are looking for the festival, but to me that only seems to indicate that the festival itself is better known than the character, not that the specific word "Gasparilla" is better placed redirecting to one or the other. And by that token, it seems that the geographical use (Gasparilla Island and the surrounds) is comparably popular [3]. Perhaps the best move would be to use it for the disambig page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did a google search for "Gasparilla". The first item returned was the official site for the Gasparilla Pirate Fest. In fact, only one item on the first page of search results did not directly involve the parade and surrounding events. (It was for a marina down in Boca Grande.) The trend continues through several pages of search results, a strong majority of which refer to the festival.

The first search result that discussed "the pirate Gasparilla" was on the 4th page. I went all the way out to the 10th page of results and didn't see another site concerning Jose Gaspar.

That's typical of the use of the term on the west coast of Florida, where both the pirate legend and the pirate festival originate. The Gasparilla Pirate fest is by far the most common meaning of the term "Gasparilla", and it isn't even close. Zeng8r (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the use in reliable sources? Commercial sites offering hotel accomodations for the festival, real estate on the island, etc. shouldn't count here (which is why I tried Google Scholar rather than Google.) At any rate, on the first two pages of my search today I count only seven sites directly related to the festival, eight related to Gasparilla Island, and the rest to related but distinct uses such as the Gasparilla International Film Festival, the Gasparilla Distance Classic race, and the Gasparilla Classic cheerleading competition. Admittedly none were specifically for the pirate except where he's discussed along with the festival based on him. Other searches tend to favor the island even more: the first two pages of Google Books gave me 1 hit for the festival, 2-3 for the pirate, a couple for what may be unrelated uses, and the rest for the island. Google Scholar returns almost all articles on the island. I suppose my original stance favoring the pirate was based on the original use of the term and a desire not to see the story, which developed in the southwest, utterly co-opted by the festival in Tampa, but this does not seem like a tenable stance. However, it doesn't look like the festival is the best redirect either. I think making it a disambig may be best.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya'll! Since I am watching your Talk page for some very good reason I do not presently recall, and since I've lived in Tampa for most of my life (I walked both ways in the parades when I was little.), I thought I'd enter my own humble opinion. Both articles in question link to each other in their ledes, so perhaps redirecting the "Gasparilla" to the existing dab would be a possibility? Also, neither article is very long, so a merger of the pirate with the festival might be a good way to go?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merging the fictional pirate article into the festival article sounds ok. "Gasparilla" should redirect to that combined entry with a blurb at the top linking to Gasparilla Island in case that's what the user was searching for. imo. Zeng8r (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the time being I have made Gasparilla the disambig page per the above discussion. If someone affects the merge we can move it again if need be.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Highly Illogical

That decision to delete non-canon was totally illogical, for that article was really needed. We might as well merge fire and ice into the one article. Maybe someone should merge both the Muslim and White Supremacist articles too! Wikipedia has the most unreasonable, internet bullies I have ever encountered.(LonerXL (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

I am sorry you are offended, please don't be discouraged! Wikipedia articles are expected to be verifiable by reliable sources; editors' original research is not allowed. I don't think the page should have been reverted after you had indicated you were working on it, but the material you had added to that point was either uncited or cited to self-published sources like personal web sites. If you think the material bears mentioning, by all means add it to canon (fiction), which already discusses material that is considered "canon" and "non-canon". If you have other questions, don't hesitate to ask.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You responded in a highly classy manner. So I rather peacefully leave things as they are, accept it as a loss, and just move on.(LonerXL (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC))