User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Talk:Gangsta.#Requested move 19 August 2015

Can you relist the discussion? Majority supported parenthetical disambiguation, while four opposed extra disambiguation. Period or no period, parenthetical disambiguation was favored. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be time to let it go. RMs are not a vote. Calidum 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How is a period well sufficient to distinct one from another? Wouldn't it be more comfortable for you to vote rather than close? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you decided to overturn the previous RM decision and then closed the recent RM as "no consensus". Wouldn't that make you involved or having COI? --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• As you closed the preceding Move Review, you should not have closed the RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he doesn't have to recuse himself per WP:INVOLVED and to suggest otherwise is wikilawyering. His only involvement in the matter is in a purely administrative role. I don't get why this one period upsets you guys so much. Calidum 15:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the close Cúchullain. (I personally have clarified my !vote.)

User:Calidum, WP:INVOLVED might be a bit strong a term here. Instead, I'd like to emphasize that WP:MR is a process of very high respect, and that standards there are higher than most other places. Cúchullain is an experienced and respected RM and MR participant and closer, and I don't want to suggest in the least that these rules are written for him. Consider instead a lesser closer taking this a precedent, closing a MR as overturn to something, and then closing the followup RM as the same something? There are obvious possibilities of bias reinforcement if this is OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)George Ho:No, I don't have a conflict of interest, and I've been involved here only in an admin capacity, which is not a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I had some time for Wikipedia and decided to use it helping clear out the RM backlog by closing a convoluted discussion I was already familiar with, and which seemed to be a clear-cut case of "no consensus". As I said in my closing statement, when looking at the strength of the arguments, and taking into consideration the arguments in the last discussion you started a month ago, it seemed obvious there was no consensus for a move, let alone for either of the two suggested moved options in particular.

While I think it's unlikely that letting the discussion sit open for more time would yield a consensus, I would have been amenable to re-opening and relisting the discussion. Your decision to start a move review now precludes that. It's especially frustrating that you said in the MR that I "turned down" your request to reopen and relist when the reality is that you jumped the gun before I could respond.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I've reverted. I didn't mean to jump to conclusions. I hope this doesn't affect your decision. George Ho (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving the discussion open a while longer. I'll relist it and leave a comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain, thanks for your work on this. —  AjaxSmack  22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• asked User:ConstitutionalRepublic on talk page if he/she is Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether you are willing to vote. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Midwife for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midwife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Celtic languages

Hi, could you please consider interceding on the Celtic languages article? A few editors, including the notorious troublemaker User:Kwamikagami, are edit warring with me in order to remove a perfectly accurate map of the modern Celtic countries with shaded regions for where Celtic languages are still actively spoken - all because one of these editors - who clearly doesn't have much knowledge of Celtic languages - said he didn't understand the map. This editor, User:Jeppiz has even reported me to WP for reverting the removal of the map. Cagwinn (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cagwinn: The concerns about the map look reasonable to me. Just at a glance it appears that a number of the dark green areas are wrong. Maps need sources just as text does.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rastafari), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston. 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) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

E-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.

John Carter (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Earliest Pictish

The original Pictish language bears no connection with the later Brittonic dialects of Pictish at all. The original language was of Neolithic origin and what is known of its vocabulary is entirely different than Brythonic or Goidhelic! This has been proved by one with a degree in ancient languages. Also the case against non-Indo-European is error. If you have an issue with this, please leave a message on my talk page. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg: sorry, what's this in reference to?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cúchullain My due apologies for not clarifying the reference relating to the last clauses of the final sentence in the first paragraph of the Picts "spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brittonic language spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them."[1] An asterisk that I inserted to explain the difference between the earliest Pictish language and the more recent Brittonic one, was removed by 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'. So I scrolled down the edits until I found the UTC who added this reference. I was just scared that readers might assume that the original Pictish tribes also spoke an Iron Age Celtic dialect, because that would be error. For example, the words TAGONA (to be) and NAUKA (to possess) - almost synonymous with a totally unrelated language (to Celtic anyway) - Basque DAGO and NAUKA, are quite distinct from any part of the Celtic vocabulary. You would no doubt know that Ogham inscriptions were probably used on leather long before what is visible on stone. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg: What article are you referring to?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm going to keep an eye on this one. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

Could you please take a look at TAFI. I have nominated both Gustaf and Bill Skarsgård. Could need some more input. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil American

There is an ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPP#ITN system on deaths

I invite you to central discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Foreign Affairs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

IDHT concerns

Hi Cuchullain.

Posting here to avoid the drama of an ANI thread. I just want an admin to look into a potential problem on a GAR, and you're the only admin I know who is impartial (I don't recall us ever actually agreeing on a content dispute outside of the Ugetsu Monogatari RM three years ago; I don't know if you have any history with the other party), not involved in any other dispute anyone else involved is currently marred in, and likely to act in good faith (don't ask...)

About a month ago, User:CurtisNaito and I were both placed under a moratorium by Dennis Brown (here). We were told not to "push the boundaries of incivility, bludgeon discussions, violate WP:IDHT, act in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breach any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors" (emphasis mine). The result of a violation would be "either [Dennis Brown] or another admin should simply block[ing] for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks".

CurtisNaito has, I believe, engaged in the same kind of disruptive IDHT behaviour on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Japan/1 that led to the above numerous times since the moratorium, and has been called out for it by myself and several other users (these warnings were, ironically, ignored). He has been claiming that no one ever proved any sourcing problems with the article, that no edit-warring has taken place, that no editors have presented positive proposals for expanding the article, and so on, all of which are blatant IDHT.

Diffs are a bit hard for this, since the only way the diffs could be valid is if one looks at the background to see how they are IDHT, but the single worst example is probably the first one, and the most recent one (the one that has everyone annoyed at the moment) took place yesterday. Ctrl+F this page for the "IDHT" and you'll see him being called out by me, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey.

The CurtisNaito IDHT problem expands across about a half-dozen talk pages (all of which now have massive archives as a result) and was what led to what would otherwise seem like an overly harsh moratorium on such behaviour. I don't want to get into the details, but the moratorium and the recent edits should speak for themselves.

Sorry again for such a sudden, and likely burdensome request. And for such a long post. If you want to block me for bludgeoning your talk page, I understand, but I felt a thorough explanation was in order.

Best regards,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On an at best tangentially related point, there is a very good chance that an arbitration case regarding the conduct of many of the editors involved in this discussion and others will be opening shortly. I have no idea when it will be opened, but tend to think it might be only after one of three open cases reaches some point or other, but get the impression personally that it might be this weekend or early next week. You may wish to submit any evidence you might consider relevant at that time. As in the only other discussion I have had regarding the matter above, I have nothing to say about it directly, being basically uninvolved in that. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'll have a look at it, but my suggestion would be for you to disengage. The ARBCOM case is very likely to be taken up, and continuing the types of disputes that led to it is likely to cast you in a bad light. I'd step back before you make things worse for yourself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the ArbCom case has NOTHING to do with CurtisNaito and the history of Japan GAR. CurtisNaito (and one of his allies) just jumped in to the ArbCom case because he saw another opportunity to get rid of me. I don't think the CurtisNaito problem has reached the level where ArbCom is necessary yet -- if the ArbCom case didn't exist, the problem could just be taken to ANI where it would likely be resolved pretty quickly (I wouldn't even have to do it, since two or three other users agree with me). It therefore seems extremely unlikely that ArbCom would actually weigh in on the issue at hand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given that you have once again displayed in the above your remarkable tendency toward clearly paranoic insistence on assuming both bad faith of others, and in making a rather clearly over-the-top accusation that the sole purpose of others is to "get rid of you", and that you have displayed this same tendency of paranoic assumption of bad faith toward several people, I think it is reasonable for many others including perhaps the arbcom to question whether there exists one specific problem area, your personal behavior, which is consistently unacceptable and perhaps primary cause for the situation that now exists. Also, honestly, I rather doubt you have all the information ArbCom and others might on this subject, and also whether you, who are perhaps so clearly blinded by your own presuppositions, are even capable of judging the matters. Also, from what I remember, Curtis and TH chimed in at least a few discussions regarding Catflap, and although I haven't checked you may have even at least implicitly made the same sort of paranoic judgements there you did in the above. All that being the case, honestly, I think it very reasonable to question whether you as an individual are even remotely competent to determining what is and is not relevant to this particular problem. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, yet another prime example of holier-than-thou commentary from the Warlord of Mars himself. I do believe Hijiri is paranoid about sockpuppetry (and he had good reason to be until fairly recently), but paranoia is not the case here. CurtisNaito and TH1980 showed up at the last ANI to request a block/ban of Hijiri. That in no sense of the word makes them "involved". They were never part of any of the actual disputes or even the IBAN discussion. You and I are involved. The only reason I can think of to let both of them be noted as "involved" at ArbCom is to strengthen the case against Hijiri in the hopes that they'll be more lenient on Catflap. And FYI after the ArbCom case is closed and the ANI case against TH1980 is closed (so you can't accuse me of gaming again) I'll be filing for an IBAN between us. Also, I don't want you showing up on my talk page uninvited again (this means "don't show up on my talk page unless I ping you"). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And another rather ridiculous attempt at misdirection by Sturmgewhr, similar to his laughably incompetent attempt to insult me for his own inability to adhere to guidelines at the ArbReq page. Regarding what you can and cannot think of, I hope at some point you realize that, much as you may perhaps think otherwise, other people may know what they are doing, and may what needs to be done, possibly on the basis of additional information available to them, a bit better than you do. And, regarding the comment below, it seems to me Hijiri88 has decided what is the primary instigating factor here, and that is his former stalker whom he seems to believe is the instigating factor in all his disputes. I can say in pretty much absolute certainty that he is wrong in that, and that, at least in my case, it is the grossly unacceptable nature of much of his own conduct which prompts the involvement of others. He may think otherwise, and even be convinced of it by his own tendency toward paranoia, but that is far from being anything remotely like "proof" in the eyes of others, some of whom are privy to additional information which is not available to him at this time. Regarding your demand above,the evidence is clear that you cannot even abide by the requests others clearly make toward you to do the same thing by me on my user talk page, and, actually, as can be demonstrated, that neither can Hijiri88. Yet another rather transparent attempt at misdirection regarding your own lack of demonstrable understanding of many things, which, rather amusingly, you don't let get in the way of the rather amusing possibly hypocritical attempts to impugn others you seem to so regularly make. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Misdirection? Incompetence and hypocrisy? You're hilarious with your pseudo-philosophical comments aimed at insulting and belittling others. And apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way. And as for me "violating" your demand on your talk page, did you honestly expect me to not reply to your insulting rant about how I'm beneath you? Get over yourself. And no, you don't know what you're doing "a bit better" than me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not as hilarious as your refusal to acknowledge it. And your all too apparent possible incompetence in using the page of someone who isn't on arbcom, like Cuchulainn, to apparently soapbox about whether people should or should not be included in the arbitration. And, for what it's worth, the link you provided has nothing to do with belittling others, although I thank you for once again showing your remarkable lack of understanding of so many things in which you involve yourself. I was asking Begoon why he had made a bit of a withdrawl from a critic site, by the removal of his avatar there. Apparently, you are continuing in your efforts to try to avoid any sort of attention to your own actions by some of what might be the most incompetent and ill-informed jumps to conclusions I have seen in some time. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Refusal to acknowledge your misdirection/incompetence/hypocrisy? Of course I acknowledge that! And yet your comments here, uninvited as usual, were to soapbox about Hijiri's paranoia and "whether people should or should not be included in the arbitration". And no, it had nothing to do with belittling others, it was about your unwelcome pseudo-philosophical comments. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, as I see it, the problem is less this particular "issue at hand" and more your tendency to get into the same types of disputes again and again. Whether you're right or wrong on the specifics of this dispute, you're not going to come across very sympathetically to ARBCOM if you let yourself get into another very similar conflict. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, "what am I doing that leads me to get into so many disputes with so many different people on Wikipedia?"--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence

The case is now open. You seem to have been involved with Hijiri88 in the past, and I think any input you might see fit to offer about any of those involved, or about the nature of your prior interactions with any of those involved and perhaps any opinions you may have developed about them. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk Archive

It felt like the conversation was slapped so hard in the face that it was over. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand the response. But it's important not to generate more pointless discussion by closing down a discussion before it's over. If it's really slapped so hard in the face, it will be over whether we archive it or not. Better to give it a while and archive it when it's clearly run its course.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I suspect there might be some canvasing going on here. Usually things are pretty quiet unless somebody off-site says something. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy Hazouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page At Large. 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) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria

I see you have moved the article Turks in Bulgari to Bulgarian Turks, based on talk page discussion there is no support for this. 3 support the move and 3 oppose the move 1 abstained. Could you revert back to original state. Hittit (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Hittit. I left a lengthy explanation for the close. Move discussions are not straight votes, so as I said, the headcount didn't factor into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly any arguments, in the same token you could have argued for the original article naming just as easily. Hittit (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As I say, the !votes were evenly split, but I found the arguments in favor of the move to be much stronger.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

How can we proceed as having additional opinion would be the best course to go, please note Turks in Bulgaria naming has been valid from the creation of this article, many people have been involved in building this for many years just to be bluntly renamed. Hittit (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hittit: please indent your posts with colons (:). I'm sorry, but I stand by my close. If you want to pursue it further there are a few options. You can take it to move review, where you'd have to establish that the close was out of step with policy and the WP:RMCI. Alternately, you could wait a while and start a new RM and try to build a consensus that "Turks in Bulgaria" is the better name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus -> status quo ante

Hi, after a lack of consensus as at Talk:Kwara#Requested move 27 October 2015, should not the outcome be to revert the move back to the status quo ante? – Fayenatic London 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fayenatic london. I considered that, but the current title was selected via an earlier move request here, closed by Jenks24. As such, my close should be read as no consensus to change the results of the last formal move discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That RM had pretty weak participation, and I would see the Kwara State move as secondary to moving the disambiguation page, so it's doubly marginal IMHO, but technically you're right. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Station article moves

When you rename articles related template functionality is broken. Those should be changed at the same time. You also seem to be randomly jumping all over the map. Please change one line, state or system at a time. That would facilitate repair work for those of us fixing things behind you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: I'm doing them state by state and system by system, except a few cases where other names conflict with the change. So for today I did Amtrak stations in North Carolina, changing a few others that conflicted with the moves, such as the various Lexington stations. The templates don't appear broken, as the redirects still work, except in cases where they were already even more broken by being ambiguous to begin with (as with the Salisbury stations). Either way, I plan on correcting them when the moves are complete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If you move an Amtrak station please fix the related Template:Amtrak stations and any other navboxes, route diagrams and system navigation templates. Since it already had adequate disambiguation, there was no need to move the Lexington (RIRTR station) until you are proposing to rename the entire system. I'm trying to work with you on this but I just can't keep up. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I do try to fix the templates and links, but the whole thing has been so broken for so long that it's cumbersome trying to update them after every move. It's far easier, for instance, to make one edit to Template:Amtrak stations when a series of changes are done (it also prevents people from saying "change the whole system or don't touch anything," which has happened). In the meantime, redirects allow the template to still function correctly, except in the case of items that were already ambiguously titled, which of course was already a serious problem.

Lexington (RIRTR station) is a bad title because no one anywhere knows what "RIRTR" means. It's an abbreviation for a railroad system that's been extinct for decades. The city is well known, however, and the guidelines would suggest Lexington station (Rochester, New York). I'm not going to change it back now, however.

I thank you for your hard work on this. We'll get there eventually.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Where were these changes, or these discussed? They have left a horrible mess, with double redirects and a lot of pages which have been left linking to the dab pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to revert these moves, there's been *no* attempts at discussion from this user. They did the same to Salisbury railway station too Jeni ^(talk) 10:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Moves

Hi, please don't make controversial page moves without starting a requested move discussion first. As you're an administrator I won't go into detail as you should know better. Thanks Jeni ^(talk) 11:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the moves back to their previous state to avoid breaking any incoming links, but won't object to a requested move being opened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64, Jeni, and Ritchie333, I understand the frustration, I really do. This is the result of working to get articles on Amtrak stations in North Carolina in order, which uncovered pre-existing disambiguation issues as you are seeing. Previously, virtually all articles on American train stations were titled contrary to standard Wikipedia conventions and there was little concerted attempt at disambiguating them among each other or among similarly titled articles from other countries. The WP:USSTATION guideline was the result of at least 23 previous discussions highlighting the problem, and was exhaustively discussed and honed before it was adopted.

In attempting to fix the problem, and create necessary hat notes and dab pages, problems arose with articles like Salisbury railway station and Durham railway station, which have titles ambiguous with other railway stations, but weren't clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and didn't link to all (if any) of the others. There's no problem with making uncontroversial moves to fix obvious problems without holding a formal discussion first, just as there's no problem with someone reverting the moves if they identify another issue. As you can see, the issue is so systemic that many of the moves resulted in redirected or broken incoming links. I fixed as many as I could on the templates before I got called away. However, broken links are a temporary problem, and not too difficult to fix. Fixing a broken status quo is clearly much more difficult.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly from a global perspective, I can't obviously see any importance on the East Coast Mainline station over the principal Amtrak station in North Carolina, but years of experience has shown me that pretty much anything that has a notable name in multiple different countries is controversial, particularly as non-admins cannot undo a page move without assistance. So a requested move definitely sounds like the right way to go. You were bold, I reverted, now let's discuss! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, thanks for sorting out this mess. Could you also please move the Talk:Durham railway station (England) page back to Talk:Durham railway station. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - anything else I've missed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thank you for your efforts. The problem reduces itself greatly when disambiguation is in place, so that readers who type in or click on "Salisbury railway station" intending one of the other three stations can still find it. Durham is somewhat less of an issue as there are only WP:TWODABS, but we do need to make sure the hat notes are in place. I'll consider an RM for Salisbury.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's generally accepted to be fine to make uncontroversial moves without a discussion, however moving established articles to disambiguate them in this way is rarely uncontroversial. It's all well and good saying that they can just be reverted, but those of us without the privilege of being an admin can't revert your page move once you've edited the original redirect without having to involve other people, so it effectively stops the BRD process in it's tracks. Please, in future, play it safe and start a discussion if you're at all in doubt. Jeni ^(talk) 15:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank's Ritchie for sorting out this mess :) Jeni ^(talk) 15:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't think it would be controversial, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Neither article appears to be the primary topic of the term, and the disambiguation problem pre-existed the moves. However, it all seems to be sorted now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Honestly, I didn't think it would be controversial, otherwise I wouldn't have done it." - been there, done that. As something of a compromise, I can see an obvious merit in Durham station being a disambiguation page (which it is), but US readers would probably never refer to "Durham Railway station". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the same can be said of Hillsborough railway station (Northern Ireland) which needs to go back to where it was until very recently. Also, we now have West Lake station redirecting to a disambig page for Westlake. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If Hillsborough railway station (Northern Ireland) returns please make sure proper disambiguation links are included. The West Lake station redirecting to West Lake (disambiguation) is exactly the kind of systemic problem that brought us here to begin with. Obviously, that kind of thing should not be happening, but there are hundreds if not thousands of other examples.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment When there are only two similarly named articles a note at the top of each is sufficient. It is not helpful to create a third page for disambiguation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iceni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cladius. 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) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Cherry-picking

Hi. In closing this move request, you didn't seem to take into account my comments (which the nominator had accepted) that Cherry-picking (with a hyphen) would be a better target. I hope you'd reconsider. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I remember. Looking at the discussion again, there wasn't explicit support from the other participants, and as one of them noted, it may not jive with MOS:HYPHEN. I do note that redirects with the hyphen are already in place, so anyone that types it in or clicks on it will get where they need to go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Gifu move

I have a concern regarding your close of this discussion. You said, " It was also suggested below that the city may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Gifu, which would moot the issue in this particular case. There wasn't a consensus for that measure in this discussion..." Based on this comment, I have to question whether you read the discussion or not. Of the seven people participating in the discussion, there were initially two people who opposed the move and five who supported it. Of those, one of the opposes was me, and I suggested moving it to just "Gifu". The other oppose changed their mind and stated they supported moving it to just "Gifu". Of those supporting the move to "Gifu City", three of them indicated either that they preferred "Gifu" or that they would be fine with it. Based on this, I ask that you reconsider the discussion and consider the decision to move to Gifu instead. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, when your goal is to convince someone of your point of view, it's usually not very productive to start off by insulting them. As I said, I found there to be clear consensus to move away from "Gifu, Gifu", but I didn't find sufficient consensus to move to the base name. Especially as that means also moving the dab page and changing incoming links, that would need evidence indicating the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Gifu", but little was provided in the discussion. As I said, it would be better to sort that out in a separate, dedicated discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So how much would convince you of consensus? Five out of the seven stated they were fine with moving to just Gifu. That's over 70%, which is significantly higher than many other things decided by consensus here. That was a higher consensus than it was to move to Gifu City, especially when you take into account those who initially supported Gifu City who changed their minds to just Gifu. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, we'd need to see evidence that the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the prefecture and other uses. That's the main thing, and we didn't see anything substantial in the discussion. Page view evidence, Google Books and Google News results, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Cooch

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1! Merry Christmas to you as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? Oh why?

Why would you mess about with my station renames, when your time could be better spent by dealing with the many other ones that need moved? The reason for using the Texas disambuation was to clearly indicate the station is neither of the ones in San Marcos, California. You may be technically correct, but that is unproductive. There is also no need to create a disambiguation page for only two articles when a hatnote would suffice. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: it's not "unproductive", it's following Wikipedia style and it's necessary for proper disambiguation for readers. When the base name already redirects to a disambiguated name, the extra verbiage serves no disambiguation purpose and the title is WP:MALPLACED. Anyone who clicked on the base name "San Marcos station" was already going to the article. I didn't see any other stations besides the three partial title matches, which are already covered in the hat notes.

As for the dab pages, the base name needs to be filled in every case. That's part of the problem we've got now. People typing in or clicking on, for instance, "Mineola station", were getting a red link, and neither station was covered at the dab page for Mineola. Dab pages with two entries are fine if neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If one is the primary topic, it gets the base name and the other is linked in a hat note.

Now, I totally agree that in many of these cases, it's likely one station is the primary topic and dab pages are unnecessary. Experience has shown that DanTD or others who dislike/don't understand Wikipedia naming conventions will just revert them back to the non-compliant names, leaving an even bigger mess than before. It's just easier to create the dab pages so at least readers aren't totally left in the lurch as they were under the old convention, though it may be worth revisiting some of them at RM at a later date.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz, also, if you think we're better off with a dab page for San Marcos, I'm happy to move it back and create one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I said above that you are "technically correct", because there is no exact conflict. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it's just my frustration that you talk the talk but you never seem to make any real impact on this US station naming convention that you quote. So, why don't you just pick an Amtrak line far away from sphere of interest of the user that annoys you? Try running along a line on the west coast, or giving the State of California a makeover. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've moved dozens of station articles at this point, and I plan on continuing. I tend to wait to start until I have enough time set aside to take care of an entire category at once, so that I can look for name conflicts, add necessary disambiguation, fix templates (including the Amtrak template at your specific request), and deal with whatever fallout comes with it. There are a *lot* of these articles, and like most people I don't have infinite time for Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Help for Texarkana

Enough of my whining. I need your help as an admin. Texarkana (Amtrak station) should probably be moved to the historic name of Union Station (Texarkana) under the naming covention - and just simply because it predates Amtrak. I think that is preferable to Texarkana Union Station, but you will advise about that. Secondarywaltz (talk)

Sure, I can move it. Either name would work by the conventions. If "Texarkana Union Station" is in use in the sources, it would let us avoid the parentheses. At a glance, it's used at least on the Great American Stations site and a number of books on Google Books.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I prefer not to use parentheses as well, but I thought that WP:USSTATION specified use of the "Union Station (City Name)" format. This is where you have the experience and can make the proper choice. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: Sorry for the delay. Parentheses are used if the common name is taken, but if natural disambiguation is available, it's generally preferable. Sometimes this has to be decided on a case by case basis. So, for instance, Chicago Union Station, Tampa Union Station and Hartford Union Station are in use, but in other cases there aren't natural alternatives, as with Union Station (Washington, D.C.) and Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi). It does appear that "Texarkana Union Station" is well established in sources - and additionally, the station is partly in Arkansas and partly in Texas, so the state should be avoided to reduce confusion. If there aren't any objections, I'll move the article to Texarkana Union Station.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: Looking at it, there have been two previous move requests there, so it shouldn't be moved without a new consensus. I'll start a new RM discussion; please make sure to weigh in there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

United Provinces of the River Plate

I am rather concerned by your closure of this move request and decision to move to the Spanish name. Looking at the strength of argument to move to the Spanish name, I see very little logical argument and a lot of emotive posturing about the Spanish name. It had to be relisted several times before getting any votes in support and came a few months after a none controversial move back to the original article name and the name commonly used in the English language. I don't see a concrete consensus in support of this move request and I would venture to suggest if anything it should have closed as a no consensus to move. WCM_email 18:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wee Curry Monster. I'm going to move the article back and reopen discussion because, apparently, I participated in the discussion a month ago and apparently forgot about it. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemper Street Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal. 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) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Aberdeen (B&O station)

Read this unfinished article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been unfinished for five years. We disambiguate by articles we actually have.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have plenty of sandboxes I'm still working on. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Questioned RM close

Hello Cuchullain.

Please don't take offense, but per WP:RM#Steps to list a new review request, step 1, I question your close on the Talk:Dale Earnhardt, Jr.#Requested move 30 December 2015 by contacting you.

The reasons why I question the close is the following:

1. There is an 8–7 majority for the move. While an RM is not a vote-stacking contest, this is obviously not a disadvantage.
2. Quoting WP:RMCI, "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.",
3. So what is really the strength of the arguments?

For a move:

1. The drivers are mentioned by reliable sources, to a varying degree, but nevertheless mostly without the comma. This argument goes to WP:COMMONNAME.
2. The argument has been put forth – admittedly by me, but acknowledged by an opposing editor – that "comma-laden sentences" makes the reading harder, and often cause editors to make punctuation errors, particularly with respect to WP:Copyedit#Punctuation.

Against a move:

1. This can be summarized as "History", aka WP:RETAIN. Compared to the for arguments, this argument is in my view fairly weak. I cannot properly assess the risk of wheel-warring, but generally speaking, I'd guess it's low. There was a move (of the Earhardt article) to the comma version in June 2015, preceded by a move in the other direction in Feb 2015. If there are any more moves, they are before 1 March 2009.

So, what do you think?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

HandsomeFella: Thanks for your comment. I closed as I did because the !votes were about evenly split, and participants on both sides had pretty solid arguments. The common use argument is solid, though but so is the "history" argument: as someone said, if it ain't broke, there's no compelling need to fix it in a bulk move. Wikipedia style is inconsistent on names of this type, and both are used. Considering that participants remained evenly split after more than two weeks and a relisting period, with no new input for days, I don't see that leaving it open would have found a consensus one way or the other.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Social Justice Warrior (2nd nomination)

You were involved in original discussion. [1] Koncorde (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

CATA

I'd JUST redid the entire page to reflect all of the changes, and now it's all lost. I'd left a note for a full day in case anyone had anything to say. I wish someone would have offered some opinion before hand instead of literally in the middle of my switch over. I also object to the change. Regardless of what is most common, the official name by CATA is how I had it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticalthinker I'm very sorry you lost your work! That's really frustrating. As for the title, WP:COMMONNAMEs, rather than WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, and this one isn't even close: 3 Google News hits vs. nearly 5,000. I was planning on doing a rewrite myself, as I couldn't tell that you were working on it. I'll leave you to it if you like so there isn't another conflict.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for putting up with me this morning. I'd practically been waiting for this facility to open, so when everyone rushed in, I didn't quite know what to do. Criticalthinker (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Criticalthinker!. And thanks for your patience and great work on the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Leavenworth station

References for Leavenworth station seem to call it "Icicle Station". Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz: Good call, a cursory search suggests it's more common. I'll move the article and will get to the template when I've got access to a computer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not as active on Amtrak stations anymore, but I've still got you covered. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Secondarywaltz. Did you happen to see the open USSTATION RMs, here and here?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That is why I got out of the debate and stopped editing US stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, it is a lot more stressful than it should be. I hope you come back when things have calmed down.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It have no verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldhorajan92 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacksonville Magazine logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)