User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thunder

I notice you did some major rephrasing to my article on The Sowers of the Thunder. While I lay no claim to uneditable text (or I'd be blogging, not writing here), I fail to understand how your changes improve my copy... in some cases, I even find my previous version better... Could we talk this out, and see what is best for the article? --Svartalf 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do anything major to the article, I mostly moved/added links and categories. In the one sentence I altered, I just explained what Outremer is, replaced an unclear pronoun with a name, and shortened the bit about the Crusader, which had some odd phrasing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I gues the "odd" phrasing was voluntary.... I find it captures the essence of the matter better than plainer stuff... still mulling a return edit, but I fear it might not be properly appreciated. It seems my appreciation for old fashioned phrasing is not universally appreciated. --Svartalf 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales at UF -- next week

Hi Cuchullain/Archive 2! I noticed on your userpage that you go to UNF. I wanted to let you know about an event going on at UF next week: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, is coming to speak!

The speech is on Wednesday, April 12 at 7 pm at Emerson Alumni Hall (1938 W. University Ave.). The speech is free and open to the public.

Jimbo's keynote will be on the role of free culture in universities. The keynote will be followed by a discussion panel of UF students and faculty. It's sponsored by Florida Free Culture, ACCENT, and the Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.

Maybe you can catch a ride over to Gainesville and make it to speech next week.

For more information, visit this page or email me. Hope to see you here!

(P.S. Because not everyone checks their userpage regularly, I'll also email you this note if your account is set up to allow e-mails from other users.) --Tetraminoe 05:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Check it out

Hi Bill, Doug here. Was just browsing and noticed that Plotinus is a page protected from vandalism!!! Presumably by modern Gnostic and Neoplatonists... Anyway, thought I'd say hi in your own milieu. TheLateDentarthurdent 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to recall there's some dude with very strong opinions about Neoplatonism, Gnosticism and Plotinus. I don't know what his opinions are exactly, because his explanations on the talk page are really, really long. What did you think of my new University of North Florida userbox?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeanie

You indicated you had moved the anime info to its own page, but I can't find this new page. It's not on your contributions list. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I searched for quite a while and never found anything, so I just created it. Next time, please create the page if you're going to unilaterally remove valid information like that. Thanks! (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Owains of Strathclyde !

Woops ! There are several Owains. I made Owain of Strathclyde a dab page. We're missing Owain the Bald (Eugenius Calvus) of the C11th, otherwise we're ok. He'd be Eógan II of Strathclyde by analogy. Sorry for any confusion. Somehow I missed your question earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, I started dabbing to the appropriate Owains on pages that linked to Owain of Strathclyde.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Carib

Carib or Caribe signifies "brave and daring", from Tupi caryba, or superior man.

Where are they from?… from Arabia, maybe?--Blakwolf 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant, do you have a source for that info? You seem to believe the word is not of Arabic origin.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Reconstruction

Thought you would enjoy this [1] Doug (who can't find the tilde on this Italian keyboard so can't sign this properly)

Encyclopedist

Check out this section for the tail end of the events that lead up to Encyclopedist's actions today. I read today's actions as him burning the final bridges linking him to the project. And if that's how he wants it, so be it. - TexasAndroid 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh. That's too bad. But I guess it's what he wants.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill.......Dude.

Check this out. I, I, I'm speechless. Hehehe. Can't...ah, yeah, just look at it.

TheLateDentarthurdent

Merci beaucoup

Hi! Thanks for awarding me my first Barny :) Stoa 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tristan and Iseult

I don't agree with the removal of the diambiguation. It's standard to have that at the top even if the links are in the page. It helps with people whoo have come to that page but are looking for another meaning. They should not have to search through the page to find the link they need. As an example look at the Quebec article. It has a disambiguation to Quebec City, yet at the end of the first paragraph there is also a link to Quebec City. In the Tristan and Iseult page the opera link is about half way down the page and the movie below that, neither of which is easy to find. We should be making it easier not more difficult for people to find what they are looking for. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that everything on Tristan and Iseult is about some version of the same legend, and many of the versions are called "Tristan and Isolde" or something similar. If we disambiguated to everything called that in the header, it would be way too long. If you really want the header there, at least create a disambig page for all the different versions, and just link to that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've cleaned up the redirects and fixed all the links to go to the correct articles. Most of them led to Tristan and Iseult but should have gone to Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. If someone knows the correct name, Tristan and Iseul,t they will end up at Tristan and Iseult as Tristan & Iseult and Tristan & Yseult redirect there. Tristan and Isolde is now a disambiguation with Tristan & Isolde as a redirect to it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I altered your disambig page somewhat and moved it to the more generic "Tristan and Iseult (disambiguation) so we can link to everything with some variation of the title, but thanks for doing that. I'll be back to fill out the list later.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Brut y Tywysogion

I don't know where you get the idea that this translates as 'Brutus of Troy' or the like. Did you read it somewhere? If so, I'm afraid it's rubbish. The literal translation of Brut y Tywysogion is 'The Chronicle of Princes'. Brutus of Troy would be 'Brutus o Gaerdroea'. Anyway, I've made the necessary change to the page. Garik 16:15, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I think I got that from reading about Layamon's Brut, which is named for the character Brutus the Trojan. I fully admit that I could be mistaken, as I don't know a word of Welsh (okay, I know "y" means "the"), so thank you for correcting the information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Careless Love

As the MoS specificall rules out piping in most cases for dab pages (and as your piping simnply repeated the link title), I don't understand your edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It says here to use piping "to italicize or quote the title portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film) or "School" (song)." The album should be italicized, the song should be in quotes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder when that was changed. Fair enough — my apologies; I've reverted myself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Lopez

Thansk for letting me know. I hope it is now fixed. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 12 June 2006 (GMT).

It's been marked for copyvio again, but at least this time the editor explained what parts exactly are problematic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history it seems the material in question was actually added by EliZZZa, who runs the site it originally came from. I doubt this new site has the copyright to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was on the "new site" for several years. However it would have been a small excerpt, quite quotable with attribution. It was so appallingly written it wasn't nice even as an example. Interestingly the user involved only made about 5 edits before putting in a copyvio tag, and mostly seems to be a newbie who is into finding bits of WP that have been copied. Good, but he hasn't read the proesses. Rich Farmbrough 16:34 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Grito de Lares

I believe that I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before. At first I misunderstood your proposal but, I have always believed that the article's title should have been as the historical event is commonly known, which is "El Grito de Lares". It is great that you brought the subject up and I believe that a five-day consensus period should be enough. Are you an admin? If not, you can notify me after the consensus and I will delete the "redirect" "Grito de Lares" page and then move the "Grito de Lares (Lares Cry)" page there. I also noticed your interest in Irish related issues. It would be great if you could find any addition information which can be added to the Irish immigration to Puerto Rico article. Please get in touch with me in my "talk page" and let know what you think. Tony the Marine 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Tony, good to hear from you. I'm not an admin so I'll be sure to let you know when the consensus period is up. I'd love to help with the Irish immigration to Puerto Rico article if I can, I was also thinking it might be useful to start an all encompassing Immigration to Puerto Rico page like we have for the US, Mexico, etc. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• The encompassing "Immigration to Puerto Rico page" idea is great. I will work on it soon. Since I've written most of the articles in the "Puerto Rican immigration series", I will use them as a referrence to work with. If I can ever be of any help, please to not hesitate to ask. Tony the Marine 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Heptameron

I am a raw beginner at this game so excuse me if I am mistaken but I believe you added the line:

For the medieval grimoire, see

to the article on the Heptameron. THe line is just as I quote it and it seems a link is missing. Can you supply it please? DickSummerfield 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that went unnoticed for so long. I've fixed it now, thanks for pointing it out. --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

White Horse Stone

Hi, I have attempted a clean up of the White Horse Stone page, maybe you could come take a look. --Hengest 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact/1421 hypothesis

Ooops. Thanks for spotting and reverting my redundant link.--A. B. 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(Vice-)President

Hi, just curious: can you inform me why it is a good idea to remove the wikilinktags around these terms, in Oklahoma City bombing ? Thx, — Xiutwel (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's usually better not to link to things not directly related to the article (see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context). None of them went where they were supposed to; President and vice president just go to the articles about the generic use of the term, rather than President of the United States, etc. Cheney did not go to Dick Cheney, and he had already been linked to previously in the article anyway. Hope that helps!--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

thx. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cador

Good Edits! Loved the way you made the Cador article look so much more professional! --FelsenVonEngland 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for adding those images.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

cat:Indian-White

Can you provide a link to the deletion debate? Thanks. Guettarda 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I hadn't looked at the talk page. Guettarda 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 13:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uther Pendragon

Hey Stoa, I saw you've edited Uther Pendragon, and I know you're pretty knowledgeable about Arthurian matters, so could you take a look at at the recent additions to the page? A new editor is insisting we include his theories that seem pretty far fetched to me. They're not OR, but they're taken from books by authors I know to be fairly, uh, dramatic with their conclusions about British history. If you can see a way to resolve this, please do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply but I see the page seems to be returned to good order now. I understand what you mean about the B&W reference point for most of the user's information and also don't agree with most of their research and conclusions on the subject. I will try to keep an eye on that page and other related additions. --Stoa 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see you back, by the way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to move my thanks here too! --Stoa 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thanks for expanding the Nicoleño article I made a stub for. We probably have the best Nicoleño article in the world now :) Ashibaka tock 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dude! That means a lot.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

According to Wikipedia policy I took out poorly source information, but you just restored it. Can you give references? --HResearcher 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Barbara Schwartz, I just saw you had deleted the whole intro. If you want some parts taken out, do it, but you need to rephrase the intro so it still explains who the individual is and why she is notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I removed uncited or poorly cited information according to BPL, but someone named Tilman is insisting that I am in the wrong. Can you take a look at the talk page. I'm moving on to other articles, but I'll come back to it later after i read the article Tilman is talking about. Also he says I can't remove information from usenet sources. Isn't that against policy?? --HResearcher 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

moved from User:HResearcher's talk page Chuchullain, someone blocked me for following the advice of the BLP template. Can you please get someone to unblock me. --HResearcher 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lamech

I see that you redirected the Lamech article into Lamech, descendant of Cain in July 2006. It is merely a POV that the two are the same person. In fact, there are no referenced sources that would suggest that POV. I would petition you to revert the two characters again to their former clearly separate entities or ensure that the article remains NPOV. Consider many sources such as these, which clearly identify the two characters as being two different persons: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/lamech.html http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040425.htm Biasing towards the POV that the two are the same person is actually a real hurdle to other articles that might elaborate on the Masoteric text and the body of scholarship that represents two separate genealogies and two separate persons. Thank you. --Ep9206 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did that so that whether they are the same individual or different, they can be discussed on one page. I think "Lamech" is the best title for the article, and have requested an admin move it. It seems like you are more concerned with the wording at the intro implying they are the same individual; I was not responsible for that, but I'll reword it so it makes it clearer what the distinctions are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is moved to Lamech now, and I have rephrased the intro. I hope you find it less objectionable now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lamech move

Done - have merged page histories. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man. --Cúchullain ^t/c 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. Somehow, a lot of the original article is still missing. That includes reference to even a third Lamech, in Mormon tradition. Perhaps it's time to fish out some of the old article that disappeared in early July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ep9206 (talk • contribs)

I didn't see that anything was missing; the Mormon stuff is still there at the end. But the page histories are now merged, so you can check and make sure. --Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go bickering about this, but...

wp:nn clearly says that notability is not a real policy, only guidelines, and is arguably inherently non npov. Is it possible that you're just promulgating a deletionist pov instead of making a real contribution. What is the practical value of removing data, however "irrelevant" you find it to be? But I'm not going to bicker about this, I have bigger fish to fry. Thanatosimii 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend, but this is an encyclopedia,not an indescriminate collection of information. Trivia in articles are becoming a problem, taking up way more space than their importance should allow. --Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. That's a popular but very incorrect interpretation of that policy. Wikipedia is a very discriminite collection of information, and as per the statements made in the last fundraiser, attempting to become "the sum of all human knowledge." Your opinion of what is and what is not relevant is irrelevant. If you've got a catagory for references in modern fiction to a person, all references should be there.
This is the very problem with notability in its entierty. It isn't a legitimate policy, but deletionists use it to destroy valid content. Anything that is verefiable, if it is put where it catagorally belongs, is valid content.Thanatosimii 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly I disagree that every single trivial reference belongs in every article just because it's verifiable. At any rate, I'm sure there are more important things for us to be doing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted. 'Til we meet again. Thanatosimii 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Hahn image

Please review the fair use tag attached to the image and the more extensive discussions at WP:FU and related pages. A passing reference to a magazine appearance is not sufficient under WP's fair use policy, even if its legaly fair use. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU is a guideline, not an official policy. I think the inclusion of the image is acceptible in this situation, as it's discussed in the article, and on the image's page. I see you disagree, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because the image is used as the main illustration for the article & because it's not her famous Playboy appearance but a later one. It was national news the first time she was in it. After that did anybody care? Was the appearance notable? The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)