User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Slight change in the White Album move discussion

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

dishonest uses of RM/consensus

Please see:

• here - how is he able to move over redirect? I know I can't (for some reason it worked on Shalalth for me but on nothing else).
• I removed the false-claim db notice - your RM closure said nothing about deleting this; he wanted to hijack it to direct it to language, as per usual
• re this, as usual he knows nothing about the facts on the ground; the Northern Tutchone adn Southern Tutchone are distinguishable self-identifications in use in Yukon

CBW had moved those last night: here's what's happened since then:

• (diff | hist) . . Tutchone people‎; 01:56 . . (+317)‎ . . ‎Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ (merge (should probably have merged the other way. oh well.))
• (Move log); 01:52 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Southern Tutchone to Talk:Tutchone people ‎(not an ethnic distinction)
• (Move log); 01:52 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Southern Tutchone to Tutchone people ‎(not an ethnic distinction)
• (Move log); 01:46 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Tutchone to Talk:Tutchone language over redirect ‎(rv. violation of cited guideline)
• (Move log); 01:46 . . Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved page Tutchone to Tutchone language over redirect ‎(rv. violation of cited guideline)

The cited guideline that *I'm* aware of says "the people are the primary topic [over language]". Maybe he means NCL?

Per that guideline, he made a false claim, also used in an attempted rewording of NCET, that:

• "Except in Canada,For Canadian First Nations, the convention is to use the root name for the people, with a hat note for the language" with the second sentence hidden in a ref/note. Note my change of last night, which JHunterJ copyedited, then was editorialized by K referring to a convention that is unspecified but no guideline says any such thing. I reverted that just now.
  • note also that he took out Southern Tutchone because he was about to play redirect games with it.

He also vandalized NCET according to a similar false claim:

• "looks like recent consensus has made Canada an exception", which that recent consensus that your observed on various RMs you closed said nothing about. He also restored "preferred" and "unambiguous" re "FOO people" which is not in any guideline whatsoever (other than NCL, where if it's back again, should be taken out).
• I reverted that last night, saying "rv [I mistyped "RM"] after RM NOT in Canada have shown it's not just an exception in Canada; what the consensus observed by Cuchulain was that "people" is not mandatory nor even "preferred: removing that again per widespread consensus established at countless RMs" and took out his insertion of "Canada is an exception: There the root names is used without disambiguation for the people. For example, Southern Tutchone, with a hat note for the language.".

There will be more such dishonest claims about consensus, I am sure. His misrepresentations go way back and this behaviour is typical; the talk of banning me for seven days will just let him go at it; in my opinion, he needs a topic ban because of his misconduct in abusing obvious consensus by false claims about what that consensus "says", or just making stuff up as he has here. Similarly, in RMs and other discussions, he claims that what has been said is different than what the person or guideline was saying. Yet I'm the one being targeted as "disruptive".Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from just now; as he has done in RMs and on the NCET talkpage, he throws what I said back at me, claiming it means something else.

Is there no end to this dishonest wordgaming?Skookum1 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently not, and not just from him.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back following a One Spark-related delay. I'll respond to a few of these things specifically. On the Tutchone articles, moving over a redirect is possible if the redirect's only history was pointing at the page being moved. I'm not sure what happened here as the edit history has gotten very convoluted. There doesn't seem to have been any consensus for the change and it appears Kwami has made a mess of the articles. I did find this which uses the terms "Southern Tutchone" and "Northern Tutchone" for the people as well as the languages. I'll take a look at it and see what I can do.

As for the guidelines, I don't have a strong opinion on that. However, having closed several related discussions, I believe there's an emerging consensus that peoples should be regarded as the primary topic compared to the language, and generally should be at the base name barring another good reason to disambiguate it. This has become very clear in the articles that have gone through the recent RMs, so I suppose it's true this can be take as the consensus for Canadian Indian articles. However, I'd tend to doubt Canadian articles are really an "exception" to the general practice. Other high profile articles I've found from the US include Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw, Potawatomi, Sioux, and Ojibwe. Additionally, Muscogee was a long-standing redirect to Muscogee people (I've now moved it as over-disambiguation), while articles like Apache and Seminole have been at the base names as there's no competing language article.

On another note, however, your comments here reflect your recent pattern of unacceptably rude behavior. Accusing other people of being "dishonest", making "false claims", and "vandalism" when you know full well it's not vandalism is is beyond the pale, as we've discussed. I hope we won't see any more of this when you return from your block.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Missouri French, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk tale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "Nestorian"

Hi, according to consensus among modern church historians, the usage of the term "Nestorian" to describe the Church of the East should be avoided, instead the historical church should be discouraged. Preferable terms are the Church of the East and East Syrian. See for example Brock, Wilmshurst, Baum & Winkler, Baumer, Coakley, etc. In fact Wilmshurst, also one of the most prolific contributors to this topic in Wikipedia, regularly uses such terms in his articles.--Kathovo talk 08:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Kathovo. While some members of the church have long disliked the term "Nestorian" and many modern books avoid it, there are plenty of others that do use it in some contexts, including, I believe, Wilmshurst's latest book. Wilmshurst, aka Djwilms, uses it regularly here on Wikipedia; you may find his comments on the subject informative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did have Wilmshurst in mind mind when I commented on the subject. The Term "Nestorian" may be accurate in certain historical contexts but statements such as "Nestorianism reached India at a very early date, becoming the religion of the Saint Thomas Christians" that were introduced with this edit are very problematic to say the least.--Kathovo talk 09:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Kathovo: yes, I understand that you were thinking of Djwilms, what I'm saying is that he himself uses "Nestorian" to describe the Church of the East in his most recent book The Martyred Church and on Wikipedia. For instance, he quotes parts of his book here. Perhaps he can explain it better than I can, but I don't see a particular reason to go out of our way to avoid "Nestorian" as an adjective for the Church of the East when some of the best sources do use it.

As for my edit, it didn't introduce anything, it restored the previous wording. In addition to unnecessary "East Syrian" changes, intervening edits also claimed that the St. Thomas Christian community was in point of fact established by St. Thomas. This just isn't something Wikipedia should be saying. However, the section does need more work; what I will do is update the section with better sources and wording than what's there at present.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)

I think you made a slight error and forgot to close the <s> after WilliamThweatt. It looked as if everything had be struck out from his name on down. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. It was late ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

re

you just watch, it'll still be opposed and/or wheedled....I've had too long experience with "this" to think that concession of any kind will ever happen. I'll refrain from further comment there, hopefully, until I post my almost-finished summary of the old/original/re-emergent consensus, which was not IPNA only btw, but from various WPs and topic areas, and was intended to sort a lot of this out back in the early days when chaos lay across the land, so to speak....Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. If the consensus is as clear as what I've seen, changes will be coming regardless of Kwami's reverting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

do you understand my frustration now?

Well, I sum it up here, not that I haven't already on the NCL talkpage......you may not like my writing style, but I think now you are getting an idea of the mounting exasperation I've had in dealing with this editor for, oh, well over two years now (starting here and maybe before....to think I got called to the carpet for my "attitude" and "tone" which grew in response to this ongoing campaign of obfuscation and obstruction. Calling me "disruptive" when I'm the one trying to observe/apply policies and "what the sources say". Seems to me I'm not the one who needs an RfC/U.Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is frustrating, and other editors are engaging in disruptive behavior. However, your discussion style is your own issue, for you to control.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying, but so much nonsense and counter-logical b.s. is being made it's hard to keep my tongue in check; I'm doing my best. No secret per his provocations of me on CBW's talkpage that he's trying to bait me and get my sent to ANI again to get me out of the way; he doesn't like people who call him on his [expletive]. Right now he's engaged in an edit war to delete a particular post of mine that he calls "spamming".....deleting another editor's posts is a BIG no-no huh? Yet he's WARNING me (his caps) that he will send me to ANI if I revert his deletions of my own post. Is there no end to these escapades (for lack of a better euphemism).Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't re-revert it without a 3RR which, of course, is what he's trying to get to happen in order to launch an ANI. All too familiar, way too familiar. Those last ANIs were largely because of my responses to ongoing inanity and illogic and obstructionism; it's not me who should be sent to ANI or RfC/U here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"move per ANI" makes it sound like consensus at the ANI had ordered it; instead of just Moxy suggesting it. More misrepresentation and conflation......the scapegoating Skookum1 thing is getting old.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As suggested, seems I'll have to spend a few days compiling diffs from the last few years, and especially in recent months, to take the disruptive conduct at NCL, now including this baseless ANEW, to WP:AE. I'd really rather keep on just creating articles (and finishing up that list and "old consensus" summary I keep on mentioning). I'm tired of being harassed for no good reason at all, but for the bad reason I'm in someone's way, which IMO is really what the first of this year's ANIs was all about, though the editor who launched it didn't "get that"; given what is so visible at NCL now, maybe she does. I think you do, too. Again, I'd rather work on articles and not have to worry about someone's campaign to prevent changes to a much-abused guideline, but finding myself dragged into a procedural arena again over these matters is getting boring......and now calling on more time-demands away from actual work on the encyclopedia.Skookum1 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?

So people are not allowed to have another opinion than you? Bandy boy (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: they certainly are, but they're not allowed to edit war or abuse multiple accounts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring and I 'm not abusing multiple accounts. You are just doing this out of spite, it seems, since you can't accept that someone might have another opinion. Bandy boy (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: yes, you are edit warring, and it's abundantly clear that you are 891 mm.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are rude because you don't like that people are having another opinion than you. That's just sad. You just can't understand that I may have the same opinion as someone else, can you? I think you should think things through again and try to act civilised – discuss the matter in stead of just using force and try to have your opponent blocked. Are you seriously proud of yourself? Bandy boy (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: At this point, your best bet is to own up to your sockpuppetry, reveal any unidentified accounts, and promise never to disrupt Wikipedia through sockpuppetry and edit warring again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, "own up to"? I do not edit war, you are the one who started it at Riksdag and you know it and then you gathered your followers to provoke this all. I have no idea who User:Knot at All or User:891 mm are and I have already told you User:Bandy guy is my roommate and User:Sprucetwig is my landlord. I don't know if any other of Sprucetwig's tenants use the same Internet connection, but I think they do. It seems you will continue persecute me until I leave the article about Riksdag alone so you will be able to remove my edits there – despite the fact that they are verified by sources or (regarding the word "exonym") follows directly of the result of the move request which you yourself has advocated. Then you will probably go on and revert all my other edits in all other articles and see to it that the articles I have created will be deleted from Wikipedia. Then you will want to see me leave Wikipedia and you will stand there waving with an evil grin on your face. Anyway: "owning up to", what does that mean? Bandy boy (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: You're really not fooling anyone, and digging your heels in is just going to make things harder for you. "Owning up" means admitting that you've been using multiple accounts and revealing what they are, which is the only thing that's going to keep you from getting blocked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who I should fool. I don't want to fool anyone. I have on occasion used other accounts, but I have never abused them, i.e. letting them vote for the same thing in a discussion or something like that. None of the accounts you are accusing me of using are mine. IP numbers are not user accounts. Bandy guy and Sprucetwig are people living in the same building as I live in, using the same Internet account – but you just don't want to believe that. Bandy boy (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: So you're now admitting you've used other accounts in the past. What are they?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should I tell you that? Bandy boy (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: It's going to come out in the sockpuppet investigation one way or another. Again, your best hope is coming clean and committing to not doing it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should I confess anything to you? You will just use it against me. You don't believe what I am telling you so far anyway. Bandy boy (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bandy boy: The reason you should come clean is that you'll be blocked otherwise. It's as simple as that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So you will block me unless I confess to something I haven't done? Is that how things are done at Wikipedia? Who are you to decide? BTW, I have read some of the older of these sock puppet investigations, and people are blocked even if they explain themselves and some are blocked without clear evidence (they just "seem" to edit along the same "patterns"), so I just don't believe you. Bandy boy (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus that was never formalized

Phaedriel had to leave, others drifted away; this is a work-in-progress, plan is as time permits to mine through my own user contributions from that era, and pages I know or think discussions might have been, and try to link them as appropriate; the listing of pertinent passages of UCN and more is highly relevant to our current "situation", though. And this was a pre-emptive strike to prevent a needless and very OR title re this little bit of what-not. Other than that been having fun building geography articles; check out, among many others, the stories on Bishop River, Mount Tiedemann, Minstrel Island, Waddington Harbour and Gwayasdums....among others. The things I can get done when......well, you know.Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

Thank you for undoing the edit made by User: Kwamikagami to the Cumbric language. He is a rogue editor who is involved in serious POV pushing and edit warring; currently he is assaulting all of the main Celtic language articles, including Lepontic language; Gaulish language;‎ Continental Celtic languages; Galatian language;‎ Common Brittonic‎; Insular Celtic languages. I have been trying to undo the damage and he has been threatening me with administrative action. I am not the only one objecting to his edits, yet he continues to ignore the community. I hope that you will consider stepping in further, because I am not adept at Wikipedia bureaucracy and something has to be done.Cagwinn (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it. In several cases it looks like there's been no attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. On Common Brittonic I see some attempt to discuss the matter, but you're only making it worse by being so brusk. This has been a recurring problem with you for years; chill dude, this can't be good for your blood pressure. I will leave a comment over there and see what I can do about the others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cagwinn has been warned about his behavior by two other editors. The tags are there as a reminder. It seemed unproductive to repeat the discussion at every article affected by the dispute. There are two main problems: Insular Celtic is one of two current competing hypotheses, the other being P-Celtic. In several of our articles we discuss both, and most of our refs discuss both. Angr said on another article that he would support putting both in the box, following our sources and our own articles, but any attempt to do so is reverted as "vandalism". The other problem is Continental Celtic, which Cagwinn insists is a language family despite the universal opinion of our references, and statements in our own articles, that it's geographic and polyphyletic. Any attempt to clarify that it's a geographic group is reverted as "vandalism". After others pointed out that he was wrong, and he stopped arguing, I made some modest improvements to the articles, including updating sources and correcting paragraphs disputing a supposed opinion of an author who doesn't hold that opinion (Eska, that Lepontic is a dialect of Gaulish), but he reverted them all. It's really quite ridiculous: He claims to be some kind of expert on ancient Celtic languages, but if his recent edits are any indication, he is completely ignorant of them.

I suspect that Cagwinn's motivation is a poorly supported POV regarding Tartessian, one which Angr characterized as "fringy". Cagwinn has been arguing about it for months if not years, and I suspect that because I oppose him, he's taken to blindly reverting any edits I make of Celtic languages. That's the only way I can make sense of it, because many of his edits are on the face of it idiotic. Adams (2013) reported that Hamp drew up a tree of Celtic languages that included Tartessian. Now, Hamp has not published the tree, nor any evidence or even a rational for concluding that Tartessian was Celtic. Cagwinn lost his argument at the Tartessian article, so it would seem he's been compensating by inserting this ref into as many articles as possible. I've been deleting it where it's out of place or off-topic, and Cagwinn is quite upset with me for this. Funny thing is, Adams reports that Hamp excludes Pictish from being Celtic or even Indo-European, yet there is no similar effort to accord Hamp the same "respect" (in Cagwinn's words) on this matter. Nor is there any mention anywhere of Hamp's claim, in the same tree, that Indo-Hittite is part of a Burusho-Hittite language family. It's very selective to Tartessian, which started with Koch. I suspect that Cagwinn is merely using Hamp's name to support Koch's ideas on Tartessian, and that he's uninterested in anything else Hamp may have to say. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Cagwinn's attitude isn't particularly helpful. Getting back on topic in hopefully a more productive manner, may I suggest this: we add a discussion of the Insular/Continental and P-/Q-Celtic groupings to each of the articles (where it's available for them). That will give us a clearer picture of the consensus. If the consensus is that Insular/Continental is the preferred grouping, we'll leave it as is. If they're split, we can either add both to the info box, or remove them entirely and let the actual article explain the debate. I really would have thought that the Insular/Continental would have been the more common, but we're not going to figure it out with this level of discourse.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow. You mean to use different classifications on different articles? That would just mean contradicting ourselves. Also, I don't see what would be accomplished by repeating ourselves on each article. IMO we should mention both, and let the reader follow the links if they want to know more. That's what we do for all other topics, and the reason we have links.

Yes, Insular is definitely more popular. But P-Celtic has been making a comeback. Sources like Eska (2010) [we have older refs of Eska in several of our articles, he's written a couple chapters for the Routledge volume on Celtic languages, which has a couple editions now, and he was selected by the MPI for their classification] prefer Insular but note that P-Celtic remains a distinct possibility. I don't see why we should try to resolve the issue when the experts haven't been able to. Just acknowledge that there are competing models, and list Insular first since it's currently more popular. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't need to be in all the articles, except where it gives a good background to the specific languages, but we do need a good treatment at the key articles, and we don't have that currently. Instead all we have are infoboxes that get changed periodically and it's not particularly clear why. If it does turn out that scholars give the P-Q- divide more credence than it appears (to me at least) we can and should include both (or else remove them both and save it for the main discussion). But if it turns out most scholars still go with Insular/Continental, then we should leave that in the infoboxes and let the alternate hypothesis be explained as such in the main discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So, Kwami can get away with calling my edits "idiotic", but I am chided (and am even threatened by Kwami with talk of blocks) for saying repeatedly that his edits are uninformed and that he is a rogue editor? I have the utmost respect for Hamp, cite him as a source often - here on Wikipedia and elsewhere - and have been doing what I can to defend him from egregious attacks by Kwami here. A few days ago I was even contacted personally by John Koch, who is concerned with the way that Hamp's 2012 language tree has been attacked by Kwami on Wikipedia, and he assured me that there is no reason to regard Hamp's revised language tree as anything but his own work and that it is a legitimate publication. Kwami's attempts to reclassify all of the Celtic languages are not based on any scholarly consensus and he has not sought the advice or input of the community here before recklessly editing the articles. This is why I have been passionate about reverting his edits - they are mot only misguided, they are unilateral and pushing Kwami's unique POV.Cagwinn (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep complaining about sources. I've provided some. It would help if you sourced your own claims, such as Continental being a clade. My only problem with Hamp is that he didn't publish anything substantial: No analysis, no evidence, no argument. It's a very poor-quality source. Now, if you want to accept it just because it's Hamp, then fine, but you don't: You don't accept that Pictish is non-European just because Hamp said so, you don't accept that Celtic is a branch of a Burusho-Hittite family just because Hamp said so. In other words, this isn't about respecting Hamp, but about pushing Koch's theory on Tartessian, which you agree with but haven't been able to demonstrate widespread support for. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Kwami continually makes reference to "Eska (2010)" but refuses to tells us the full name of this article/book, or supply quotes! Eska produces several articles a year - what is he even referring to here? We need proper source citations.Cagwinn (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same one we've been talking about since this started, Routledge The Celtic Languages, the one cited by MPI. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL - you can't even give me a proper citation! I see now that on the Celtic languages article that there is a ref to Eska (2010), which is to his article Joseph F. Eska (2010) "The emergence of the Celtic languages". In Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller (eds.), The Celtic languages. Routledge. Well, this should probably be the 2009 2nd edition, which I own. Here are some quotes from the article:

Joseph Eska, "The Emergence of the Celtic Languages". In: Ball, Muller, eds., The Celtic Languages, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2009, pp. 22-26.

"The proto-Celtic speech area is usually located in the central European Alps. It is important not to think of proto-Celtic as a linguistic monolith, but as a dialectally diverse speech community whose geographical extent was changing and eventually expanding prior to the dispersal of Celtic speech throughout much of Europe and into Asia Minor."

"...It is usually assumed that the first language to have broken away from the proto-Celtic speech continuum is Hispano-Celtic...."

"The Celtic of ancient Italy and adjacent Switzerland has traditionally been classified into two languages, ‘Lepontic’ and ‘Cisalpine Gaulish’, the former spoken in a circumscribed area in the northern Italian lake district, the latter to the west and south in lower- lying areas. Eska (1998b), however, argues that the distinction is a false one and that the geographical peripherality and generally earlier dating of the ‘Lepontic’ records accounts for the minor differences between it and ‘Cisalpine Gaulish’....Under such a view, all of the Celtic of ancient Italy can be denoted by the term ‘Cisalpine Celtic’."

"There are a fair number of innovations which demonstrate that Transalpine Celtic, Goidelic and Brittonic are to be grouped under a single node on the Celtic family tree....The real question has been whether this node on the tree then broke into Transalpine Celtic and proto- Insular Celtic as in Figure 2.2, or into Gallo- Brittonic and Goidelic, as in Figure 2.3." [2.2 = figure of Proto-Celtic giving way to nodes of Transalpine Celtic and Proto-Insular Celtic, with the latter giving way to nodes of Goidelic and Brittonic; 2.3 = figure of Proto Celtic giving way to nodes Gallo-Brittonic and Goidelic, with Gallo-Brittonic giving way to nodes Transalpine Celtic and Brittonic]

"There are arguments to be made in both directions, but, since the most important diagnostic for determining subgrouping is common innovations, especially those that are unusual or not easily replicable, it is my view that one must postulate a proto- Insular Celtic node in the Celtic family tree."

"The final stages of the emergence of the Celtic languages are not in any dispute. Goidelic divided into a western branch consisting of Irish and an eastern branch consisting of Scottish Gaelic and Manx after the expansion of Goidelic speakers into the Isle of Man and Scotland in the fi fth century CE. Brittonic is now thought to have remained a unity longer, Old Welsh, Old Cornish and Old Breton probably not having truly been discrete languages, but varieties of what may be termed ‘Old Brittonic’. As Brittonic differentiated, it divided into a northern branch, now represented by Welsh, and a south- western branch consisting of Cornish and Breton."

So, how does this article support your re-classification efforts?Cagwinn (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! You just verified every important point that I made : (1) Continental Celtic is not a family. (2) Lepontic is not a dialect of Gaulish. (3) Insular vs. P-Celtic is still up for debate, though Eska sides with Insular. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute - you are admitting that you had never before read these quotes from the article that you keep citing? Do you even realize that the next article (also written by Eska, along with D. Ellis Evans) in this very book is called "Continental Celtic"? On page 28 they say:

"It is now common for scholars to segment the corpus of Continental Celtic into various subgroups such as Hispano- Celtic (also commonly known as Celtiberian), Gaulish, Lepontic, Galatian, Noric, etc.2 How many such subgroups may have existed in antiquity, as Greene (1966: 123) has noted, we do not (and cannot) know. The relationship of these subgroups to each other is still a matter of intense investigation, as is, also, the relationship of Continental Celtic as a whole to Insular Celtic."

On page 35 they say:

"The linguistic materials of Italy have traditionally been viewed as belonging to two languages, viz. Lepontic17 and Cisalpine Gaulish. It now seems clear, however, that they are one language, Lepontic in northern Italy and Switzerland comprising a geographically peripheral and generally earlier attested variety (Eska 1998a). In this work, they are referred to jointly as Cisalpine Celtic."

On page 37 they say:

"Transalpine Celtic refers to the Celtic of Transalpine Gaul. Though the term ‘Gaulish’ is frequently employed refer to both all of Continental Celtic from Transalpine Gaul and to the non- ‘Lepontic’ inscriptions of Cisalpine Gaul, it is clear that so- called ‘Cisalpine Gaulish’ not only differs from the Celtic of Transalpine Gaul, but belongs with ‘Lepontic’(Eska 1998a)."

James Fife in the an another article from the same book ("Typological Aspects of the Celtic languages", p. 5) says "The internal structure of the family has been just as controversial. The principal proposals for divisions, which ultimately are not necessarily competing theories, are the pseudo- geographic division into Insular and Continental Celtic and the more linguistically based division into P and Q Celtic languages. For further discussion of these theories, see Eska’s discussion below in chapter 2."

I contacted Dr. Eska today about the presentation of his ideas on the Celtic languages article (citing Eska (2010), which is actually Eska [2009]) and he says that is "somewhat confused". He sees proto-Celtic splitting into two groups: proto-Continental Celtic and proto-Insular Celtic, and that Celtiberian, Cisalpine Celtic (in which he groups Lepontic and Cisalpine Gaulish together), and Transalpine Celtic branched off "in sequence", leaving finally proto-Insular Celtic, which then split into Goidelic and Brittonic.Cagwinn (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'd read it. You just saved my the trouble of copying it here. Plus, I thought it ironic that you would post quotations that belied your own claims.

Now you quote more passages that prove my points.

You appear to have misunderstood what Eska told you, since you contradict yourself, saying first that Insular is the most divergent, and then that it is the least. If the former is correct, and Eska is saying that he got it backwards in 2009, then we'd really need him to publish something saying so. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have been studying Celtic historical linguistics for 30 years - I am not the one who is confused here. Even Eska says you're wrong (and so does Koch). I don't believe for one second that you have read Eska - I think you are deriving your information on his article from a secondary source (probably this MPI Glottolog that you keep referring to).Cagwinn (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you believe, since you're a bad-faith editor. If Eska now says that he was wrong in 2010, we need him to at least say so here himself, and preferably to publish a retraction. Meanwhile we follow sources, and the sources do not support your claims. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: That sounds reasonable. I had removed both from the info box at Common Brittonic for just that reason. Including both would be equally appropriate. I made that as a test edit here. This debate has been going on for a century and shows no sign of being resolved any time soon. I don't think we should try to impose a resolution. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I want to be clear that I think nothing should change unless it's clear that the Insular/Continental divide is no longer the majority view. I'm not convinced that's the case. The Celtic languages article makes some claims to that effect but mostly in works that are now 30 years old (and not properly cited). It has a section on Eska but it sounds like he's actually promoting a totally different tree than the traditional P-Q- construction. What are the findings of more recent scholars? Cagwinn, it would be good if you could provide some sources on your end regarding Insular/Continental.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not the majority. We're not talking about switching from one to the other, but acknowledging that both receive support. Because both have received support for so long, with no end in sight, we should reflect both. That's the best service we can render our readers. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Cagwinn just posted a quote from Fife (2009) saying that Insular/Continental is "pseudo-geographic" and that P/Q-Celtic is "the more linguistically based division". Since our trees are supposed to be linguistically based divisions, P/Q is supported by Fife – and he's quite recent. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Kwami, I'm not really seeing the necessity of changing the infoboxes, especially not if Eska 2010 (or 2009 or whatever) is the main motivation. From those quotes it sounds like he thinks something along the lines of the P-/Q- divide is something for which "there are arguments to be made" but ultimately he goes with something much closer to the Insular/Continental construction, going so far as use the term "proto-Insular". I understand this to still be the majority view, and Eska doesn't seem to be challenging it; unless there's other evidence that there's a big divide in the consensus, I think we'll be much better off explaining the situation and all prominent alternative views in detail within articles like Celtic languages, Insular Celtic, etc., rather than just changing wording on dozens of infoboxes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Eska isn't the main motivation. The motivation is that Celticists continue to debate the issue. It's not for us to pick sides in an ongoing academic debate. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So who else is favoring the P-/Q- hypothesis? In the Celtic languages article, the sources mentioned are 30 years old, and then there's Eska, who mentions it but specifically goes the other way. If one hypothesis is preferred by the majority of experts on the topic, there shouldn't be a problem with treating it as such in something so simple as an infobox. We can and should get into the debate in the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed, 2006) speaks of both divisions, and does not try to settle the debate. Fife (2009), in the same volume as Eska, says P/Q is the "more linguistic" division. Koch, who Cagwinn refers to so often, said the following in 2006 (Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia):

There is no general consensus about how the family tree of the Celtic languages is to be drawn, in particular, whether the British or Brythonic group [...] are more closely aligned with Gaulish or with the Goidelic group [...]. Nor is there consensus as to how Celtic languages became established on the islands of Britain and Ireland. In view of this uncertainty, the dichotomy of Continental vs. Insular Celtic is intended here as descriptive of the geographical situation.

The view that Brythonic and Gaulish form a separate branch or subfamily, opposed to Goidelic, Celtiberian, and Galatian, was standard doctrine in the mid-20th century. [...] Linguistically, [certain] names and terms are completely regular as Gaulish or Gallo-Belgic on the one hand, and as the Brythonic that became Welsh and Breton on the other. [...] In this light, the Gallo-Brittonic proto-language is more than a theoretical possibility. Nonetheless, some Celtic scholars favour the alternative hypothesis of an Insular Celtic proto-language, excluding Gaulish. This idea has generally not been borne out by the discovery of new inscriptions from Gaul [...] A hybrid model conceives of the Celtic languages as a dialect continuum, in which Brythonic naturally shares some features with Goidelic (its neighbour on the west), and others with Gaulish (its neighbour on the south and east).

Here he cites Gensler, who in "Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels" suggests that the similarities between the insular languages is due to a common substratum, not a common origin. Then he says,

The discovery of additional inscriptions or other types of ancient and early medieval texts from Gaul, Britain, and Ireland might shed more light on the prehistory of the extant Celtic languages and permit the reconstruction of intermediate stages between Proto-Celtic on the one side, and Proto-Goidelic and Proto-Brythonic on the other.

In other words, there is no consensus on either, and neither has been reconstructed. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian Source

I glanced at the article and thought it's relevancy was lacking since the issue was settled. Unfortunately, I should have read it so I could have dismissed it outright as complete rubbish. From the article: "and threatened to sue Sarkeesian’s company (which was never actually threatened). Sarkeesian and her lawyers responded (also not true, Sarkeesian did alone), [...] and Feminist Frequency was challenged as not being a legitimate non-profit. (not by Tammy)" It also seems to leave out certain facts, like how similar it seemed to official art that she got confused. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The details of the article, like whether or not Sarkeesian responded alone or on the advice of counsel, are totally irrelevant to the underlying issues. They don't serve to undermine the reliability of the source one whit. It's a law review journal from a school whose IP program is ranked 5th in the country by US News and World Report. They can be considered reliable on points of law related to this issue. As Cuchullain suggested, it's a reliable source and there's no reason to remove it. Please see WP:CCC. I know you Anita Sarkeesian page watchers are a very active bunch, but trust me I'm not trying to attack Sarkeesian. Review the early talk page archives if you believe anything different. And for the record, a link to the previous discussion would have been more polite than a plain revert. Some contributors might be turned off by that. -Thibbs (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, all Thibbs was doing was bringing the source up for others to check out, and they can't do that if you remove it. We determined to exclude the material in the previous discussion based on the sources we had at the time and the relative insignificance of the events; this can change as new sources appear.

For what it's worthy, after a very cursory perusal, this one doesn't change my opinion. It's well enough as a source, but it's a blog post on the website of the journal, not an article in the journal. And it mainly discusses some hypotheticals of what could have happened if the fan artist had a case - he clearly thinks she didn't - rather than adding anything new about the events. Interesting perspective, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Taíno may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Cuba, and the Bahamas), the Classic Taíno (Hispaniola and Puerto Rico) and the Eastern Taíno (the northern Lesser Antilles. Taíno groups were in conflict with the Caribs of the southern Lesser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Church of the East may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the region.<ref>Frykenberg, Eric (2008). ''Christianity in India: from Beginnings to the Present''], pp. 102–107; 115. Oxford. ISBN 0-19-826377-5.</ref> The Saint Thomas Christians traditionally

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with The Art Institutes?

Hi Cuchullain, I'm hoping you might have time to take a look at an ongoing conversation over on the The Art Institutes Talk page. Since February, I've been discussing with other editors whether or not to remove two sentences added by an IP editor to the article's lede. Both concern the school's parent company EDMC. While it seems there is some support for the information's removal and one of the sentences has since been removed, the conversation seems to have stalled. Since you helped with the article's initial revision last June, I thought I'd reach out to you to review the matter. I'd appreciate any time you could spend looking it over. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coel Hen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Colne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why have you redirected and blocked the Gaelic Irish Page

In the face of current tit for tat Ideological Racism it is imperative that the Technical grounds of highests Gracility levels per capita within in the physiological structures of hominids lies within the ethnic population of Gaelic Irish due to them being bore from the Magnon race, i not not edit much on wiki but i think it is very important that this information is available in the face of absurd world racism which is based on ideology, this information drives an immovable dividing line between expiratory ideology and technical scientific fact,can you please undo the redirct because i am not familiar with the procedure myself--Kovkikz (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me. I created Gaelic Irish as a reasonable redirect to the article we currently have at Gaelic Ireland. Nothing is "blocked" although pages can't move to a new title if the new title has an edit history (your edits at Gaelic Irish created an edit history). Sorry, but your comments are very hard to understand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Southsiders (album)

Hi - just wondering if your close was no consensus, and thus no move, or consensus not to move, and either way, a quick synopsis of your rationale. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add a rationale.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate it! Dohn joe (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(at the one that's not your Wikipedia e-mail).

126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments on these edits?

See [1]. Some changes removing Celtic may be justified, but not all I think. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he's mostly just replacing "Celtic" categories with more specific ones like "Irish". If that's the case I don't see it as a problem. Are there some where "Celtic" isn't replaced by something else?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of edits such as [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those do look a little more problematic. In general it's probably not a good idea from the reader's perspective to remove a useful contextual term without replacing it with a more specific one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This revert

Hi, I didn't mean to be rude in my reversion. I just think it's best to put all four of the links on the one line. It kinda clutters up the top of the page with two, doesn't it? Do you have a reason for adding an extra hatnote? Red Slash 05:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I made that edit first to correct the links, and because separate hat notes are better when they're for different things, ie, other uses of the title term versus other uses of terms that just redirect to the article. Especially here, where the "Immaculata" and "Immacolata" redirects aren't clearly related to the article's title, they shouldn't be grouped in with the one that is (Immaculate Conception (disambiguation)). Additionally, the "see also" tag is less informative than the specific tags and implies the listed articles are related in topic, not that the titles are the same. As your revert re-added incorrect links (Immacolata (character) is unnecessary and Immaculate (disambiguation) has been renamed), I'm going to restore the separate hat notes and correct links.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not taking it personally. Someone else has made edits in the meantime and I liked how the note ended up in his version - no unnecessary direct link. I'll see you at Talk:Immaculate Conception, then. Red Slash 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Canada women's football team

Hello.

I have copyedited all articles that erroneously linked to the Canada women's national (American/Canadian) football team, so we can pick up the discussion again (not that we couldn't do that before).

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War

I noticed that you closed this move request, but did not move the appropriate sub-pages listed at Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Please move them as well. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that they're all moved over to the new title. If there are still some that are a problem, could you tell me the specific ones?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• International reaction to the Russo-Georgian war
• Protests regarding the Russo-Georgian war
• Information war during the Russo-Georgian war
• Cyberattacks during the Russo-Georgian war
• Humanitarian response to the Russo-Georgian war
• Humanitarian impact of the Russo-Georgian war
• Timeline of the Russo-Georgian war
• Financial market reaction to the Russo-Georgian war
• Reconstruction efforts after the Russo-Georgian war
• Background of the Russo-Georgian war
• Template:Campaignbox Russia–Georgia war
• Template:Russo-Georgian war

RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the talk pages. Yes, I can move those as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF

As one article space editor to another would you mind please showing a little more friendliness and cordiality on the subject of these "Best of" and year album titles. There is often very little or no sources and the few sources that exist may have variants of "Vol.2" "Volume II", "The Best of" "Best of" and weighing sifting and balancing these is not black and white. This doesn't have to be so tense. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. If my comments distress you, I apologize, that's not my intent. But I'm not going to not respond when I disagree with your proposed moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nosepea68

Are you working on the ANI post or shall I? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on one now. I'll have it up shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Lee Strobel

Do you feel like attempting to answer the question about the article on Lee Strobel at Talk:Lee Strobel#How is this article at all in conformance with Wikipedia?? CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Planet of the Apes (franchise) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Watson (actor)|David Watson]], replacing Roddy McDowell). Meanwhile gorilla [[General Ursus]] ([[James Gregory (actor)|James Gregory]] and a reluctant Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans) announce a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time warp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit & mediation question

Bill--Perhaps you remember me, we exchanged a few messages about my edit of the Osceola and Renegade page. I've edited the page for slain Tallahassee Law Professor Dan Markel and today someone, who is registered but doesn't have a profile or talk page, made changes. One of the changes I'm more or less ok with, I said Dan & Wendi (they go to the same synagogue I do and are passing acquaintances but not really "friends") were "involved in divorce proceedings" at the time of his death. The person who made the change edited it to say he was involved in a custody dispute with his ex-wife. Actually there was more to it than custody, there were financial matters involved and Wendi wanted to move to South Florida with the boys which Dan opposed. I would say the post-Final Order matters were still part of the "divorce proceedings" but I don't have a major problem with the change I suppose. I am less amenable to the fact that I said he had two sons, Lincoln and Benjamin. The person who made the edit deleted the names and said "childrens names should not appear here. Please respect some degree of privacy for the minors." The names of the boys have been published in many media sources from the Washington Post to the NY Times to Dan's obituary. I don't see where not mentioning their names respects their privacy and I don't see the problem with it. Wikipedia is replete with the names of the children of notable people and it seems to me to be a legitimate piece of information about the subject. But you've had much more experience than I have with creating and editing articles so I thought I would ask for your thoughts on the issue. Also, while I could undo the person's edit, there's nothing to prevent him or her from re-doing it and me re-undoing it and on and on. Is there a mechanism to have an editor make a decision as to whose edits prevail? I hope you are doing well and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, David Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, Modern Ha Sofer. We have to be extremely careful about any material concerning living people per to WP:BLP policy. With both of these decisions, you need to hammer out what should be done on the talk page. If you hit a stalemate, you can seek dispute resolution.

In terms of the divorce proceedings, you need to review the best sources for the topic and determine wording that best represents what that says. In terms of his childrens' names, again, the WP:BLP policy is always to err on the side of caution. Whether or not the names have appeared in reliable sources, we need to be sensitive to their privacy. I tend to doubt it's crucial to include the names of the children; until we reach a consensus the material should be removed.

As another note, the WP:BLP policy applies to talk page posts as well; you should be careful to restrict your comments to material that has appeared in reliable, published sources and is intended for an actionable article change.

Thanks for your reply. Well, the information was again removed in an unsigned edit and I re-inserted it with an explanation of my thinking on the talk page. (I've been explaining my rationale on the talk page and they haven't.) They didn't change my edit on the divorce issue so I suppose they're ok with that. While I think the children's names are legitimate encyclopedic information and I don't see how stating the names impacts on their privacy I asked you because I respect your opinion. If you feel the names aren't significant enough to push the issue I'll let it go if the person changes my edit again.

I would note that I did suggest they stop making unsigned edits and follow the framework found on the Dispute Resolution page--and included a hyperlink to the page--but I don't think the person is interested in being a contributor so much as just changing that one bit of information.

Thanks again for your advice! Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I proactively took your advice and just now went back and deleted the names of the children. Thanks again for helping me improve my contributor skills! PS I was pretty proud of myself for figuring out how to insert an information box with his picture!. :) Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well good, sounds like the issue is resolved then. If you need anything else, let me know. In the meanwhile I'll take a closer look at it, but I'm not sure how much more help I'm able to be. I'm not at all familiar with the subject or the available sources for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

All the Best! RM

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#All the Best! RM. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing Anita Sarkeesian - let's do it?

I see that you've suggested to rewrite and summarize the key points, moving the bulk of content to the fork. I couldn't agree more. Could we try to work together to make it happen in an acceptable way for both? Diego (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great and it's a long time coming. I would be very happy to see some movement in that regard, especially now that we have a very solid number of sources that can give us a good summary, instead of us having to put it together piecemeal out of various different sources (or at least, not as much). Unfortunately I won't be very active for the next couple of weeks, but after that I should have some more time to devote to the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Madonna

Would you please explain how you arrived at your "no move" decision at the Madonna RM? Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course; I've added a rationale.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You failed to mention the support argument that the Virgin Mary is not commonly referred to you as "Madonna" (but as "Mary"). Also that the entertainer receives more page views than the Mary page, which is particularly relevant since we know almost all searches for the entertainer are with "Madonna", while only a small fraction of those searching for Mary will use "Madonna". Did you overlook those arguments? It's critical to understanding the irrational emotional element opposing the proposal - people are feeling it's a religious affront to change this title.

The reliance on past results is also troubling. I argue at User:Born2cycle#Yogurt Principle that an apparent lack of consensus record of RM results precisely like this article has often obscures an underlying hidden actual community consensus favoring the proposed title - that if the article is moved as proposed, the matter will be settled, finally. I sincerely believe that is the case here, and it's disappointing that you missed an opportunity to finally resolve this. Oh, well, someone else will have a chance to finally fix it in a year or two. --В²C ☎ 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I took all the arguments into consideration, and I did mention the page view argument in the summary. In any event this is a conflict between something that's primary in terms of use (at least by the measure of page view stats), and something that's primary in terms of long term significance. In those cases, the consensus determines the way forward, and in this case a majority of participants, most of whom made solid, policy-based arguments, opposed the move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you made, and are still making, the same error that many of the opposers made. You seem to be thinking that the question is about whether the Virgin Mary or the entertainer is the more important topic. But that's not the question. The question is which of these two is the most likely to be sought with the search key "Madonna". There are very different questions, and only the latter is relevant to us, of course. Even with respect to long-term significance, Mary is rarely referred to as "Madonna", and even then it's usually not "Madonna", but "the Madonna". Have you looked at the results of a books search on Madonna? [7]. It's quite telling - and books tend to reflect long-term significance fairly well.

I just hate to see another title issue continue to go on unresolved, when it could have been easily, and finally (as finally as anything is on WP), resolved.

I'll close with one last point. Imagine if you go back and reverse yourself; because you find that policy-based arguments do favor the move after all. So the article is moved to Madonna. Then, imagine 3-12 months later... can there be a proposal to move it back to a dab page? Well, of course, but what would be the policy-based grounds for such a proposal? That the entertainer is not the primary topic based entirely on long-term significance? Do you really think that would carry any weight?

Sometimes a situation feels exactly like it did back at Yoghurt. There too both sides seemed about equally strong, and so the status quo reigned. The proposals to move came up every year or two, sometimes more often. But each time there appeared to be no consensus, and the article was not moved. This went on for eight years, until finally the article was moved. Did the debate continue as many predicted it would? Nope. Utter peace broke out (just as I predicted it would). And I predict that if you reverse yourself and move this article as proposed, peace will finally break out here too. But if you want the controversy to continue to fester by leaving the article titled contrary to policy, don't reverse yourself. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just walking by: shouldn't you have convinced the opposers during the discussion, rather than the closing administrator after the fact? Do you think Cuchullain would go back and say "you know, this person was right after all"? It's not the administrator's decision... Mindy Dirt (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle, there's no mistake. This is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, and different parties made compelling arguments, invoking different parts of the guidelines, one way or the other. Ultimately the consensus was against making a change. As a closer, there really was no other way to close the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to disagree on what constitutes "compelling". For example, I don't find accurate but irrelevant arguments (e.g., "Madonna is the mother of God", "The Madonna is likely to be of interest much longer", "the original Madonna", "criterion weighs incredibly heavily in favor of the Virgin Mary", "greater enduring notability is the mother of Jesus.", "Mary has more historical significance", etc., etc. ) about the importance of Mary to be compelling. Almost all of the Oppose arguments relied primarily if not entirely on the premise that Mary is commonly referred to as Madonna - but there was zero evidence of that being the case. Numerous supporters made this point, and none were refuted. It was entirely within your discretion to discount these oppose arguments accordingly, and find consensus to be in favor of the proposed move. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You made your case in the RM but failed to persuade the majority of other participants, nor did I, as the closer, find your arguments so persuasive as to override the local consensus in this discussion. I'm sorry, but I stand by my close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You were not persuaded that the name "Madonna" is rarely used to refer to Mary (mother of Jesus)? Or you were not persuaded that rarity was relevant? --В²C ☎ 20:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Born2cycle. I was not persuaded that the primary topic argument for the entertainer was strong enough to override the local consensus against the move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up.

Pau riders was begun as a stub to expand. When objections began to be made about the title, I stopped. With a recent close I was attempting to get back to editing the article in an attempt to add some clarity. Obviously it didn't work. I wanted to check and make sure you don't mind at least allowing me to add Paʻu riders as an optional spelling as it is actually one of the most common spellings and is used among the riders and parade officials themselves--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the compliment. The "Paʻu" spelling should be there in the intro now. I don't think we need to include every possible variant of the name, though, they're mostly the same.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alien Nation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Planet of the Apes may have broken the syntax by modifying 8 "()"s and 8 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Planet of the Apes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Television Series |location= |publisher= Wesleyan University Press |page= 164| isbn= 9780819563293 }}</ref> Fox approached Jacobs and Abrahams about filming a sequel. Though they had not made the film

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Planet of the Apes page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Clarke. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) v