User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

OK, I've signed up

Hi Cuchullain, thanks for the invitation, I've just signed up. I'd be glad to help, but I'm not going to dedicate myself solely to this project, if that's fine with you. Thanks again for the invitation. --Kyoko 06:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Haunting" Road

Hi, Cúchullain, I'm a bit late to the debate, but I left a comment at Talk:The Road (novel) against the use of "haunting" in the lead. In short, I agreed with you in that I think it belongs in a "critics describe the novel as etc, etc" context. To satisfy all parties involved, I'm prepared to create a new Reception section that would mention the "haunting" description and a multitude of other info, including criticism, awards, and honors (the last of two are sorely absent from the article if you don't count Oprah and the Pulitzer mention in the lead). I was wondering what your thoughts on that are? Regards from a fellow Osprey. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Maria, That sounds like a great idea. Awards and honors really need to be mentioned, and there is very little about criticism and reception. I'll leave a note of support on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. I've made a quick start (not much time to devote tonight, I'm afraid) on the new section as well as moving things around a bit, so take a look if you have a chance. I hope this doesn't ruffle many feathers; I honestly think it's a compromise everyone can live with. María (habla conmigo) 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

I reverted vandalism on it. ;) --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pupster.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I saw that you just created a disambiguation page for "jail bait," and I have a question. When is it worthwhile to create a dab page? I ask because I just moved a page that was created under the title "C. Fairbanks" to the title "Charles H. Fairbanks". There is already an article titled "Charles W. Fairbanks." Is it now worthwhile to create a dab page for these two Mr. Fairbanks? ---Charles 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on if there is a primary usage of the term, and if there will be a risk of confusion with similarly-named articles. If Charles W. Fairbanks is the primary use, then Charles Fairbanks should probably just redirect to his article, since that's what most people who type that name in would be looking for. If neither is the primary use of the term, then Charles Fairbanks should be a disambig page. It looks to me like the vice president is more prominent (at least there are many more incoming links), so I just linked to the archaeologist at the top of the page. If there were more than two notable Charles Fairbankses, then a disambig page should be created (probably at Charles Fairbanks (disambiguation)).--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your logic here. The newer article, Charles H. Fairbanks, has no links and is in need of a great deal of work and improvement. But, he seems to be a notable person, and worthy of an article. Charles W. Fairbanks is certainly much more notable, and more likely to be the one for whom people might search. If another Charles Fairbanks appears, we will deal with him when the time comes. Thanks for your response. ---Charles 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aliyah

Great cleanup on the Aliyah disambig page!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

what im saying

no sceintific credibillity, no evidance, anywhere in either archeological digs or corobborating native american oral histories ( i checked) and above all its insulting to the native community, hence i made it go away. id like to keep it goneCharred Feathers 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's something that the Book of Mormon actually says, and that page is for documenting all the prominent theories, wherever they come from. All we're doing is saying the theory exists, and attributing it to who says it. We are not saying there is any archaeological or historical evidence supporting it. Much of what's on that page has no real evidence supporting it, it's recorded because it is notable or influential in some way. And Mormon beliefs are certainly notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

...this edit. The Long Man of Wilmington also has a section devoted to popular culture. Why not the Cerne Abbas giant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrothberht (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

First, the pop culture reference was not clearly related to the subject of the article (was it even the Cerne Abbas giant that was on the show?) Second, trivia sections are discouraged, and the section you created is effectivelly a trivia section. Finally, the info you added didn't seem particularly notable. I haven't looked at the Long Man of Wilmington to see if that trivia section needs to go, but just because some articles have such sections doesn't mean they all should.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, it was the Cerne Abbas giant. This can easily be verified by looking at the mentioned scene and comparing the figure show there with the Cerne Abbas giant. Secondly, the section you refer to about trivia sections does not state that trivia as such are discouraged, but merely that they should, if possible, be integrated into the main text of an article. In my opinion, that is no reason to remove the fact that I added. At most you might rewrite it into the article, but I felt it would be better suited in its own (little) section that can be skipped by people who are not interested in popular references (i.e. people who do not think popular references are notable, as you say). Your last point is logically valid, but it does not imply that the section should be removed, either. Personally, I would like you to revert your edit or incorporate the fact into the article, unless you have a proper reason to discard the information I added. Hrothberht 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't think the reference is notable, and it certainly should not go in its own section. It is just not important enough to the subject to warrant inclusion (as per handling trivia). There's no need to list every pop culture mention of any particular subject, this is an encyclopedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources for this statement

You claim that Holger Danske has Danish origins here. How can this be when he originated in the continental Chansons de geste? Trust me, I know the medieval Scandinavian sources quite well, and I am eager for you to tell me in which medieval Danish chronicle or Norse saga he first appears. The first source that I know of is Karlamagnus' saga, which is a translation from continental sources.--Berig 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, when he appears in Karlamagnus' saga, he is called Oddgeir and not Holger. This makes your claim of Danish origins quite unlikely, because this means that the name Holger cannot be derived from the tradition of Karlamagnus' saga. Instead, it is likely a national romantic Danish adaptation of Ogier.--Berig 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the character originated in Scandanavian material, and I don't think the previous phrasing indicated that either. But whatever his origins, Ogier the Dane is obviously considered Danish at some point in his development, hence the "Dane" part of his name. Much like how Zorro is considered Mexican, though he originates in American material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work with Chevrefoil!

Hi Cuchullain, you did a great job with Chevrefoil! I haven't been doing anything with the Lais of Marie de France lately, due to a combination of distraction, laziness, and feeling somewhat wikibonked. When I get around to it, I will have to read that lai in the edition I own, and see if I have anything else to add. --Kyoko 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kyoko, I was just about leave you a message about that! Thanks for the kind words. I tried to use essentially the structure you created for the other Lais, and I'd love it if you could take a look when you get a chance to see if there's anything you could add.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When I get around to it, sure. Something I really must do sometime is read more about the Tristan legend. I have a book that collects various medieval French treatments of the story, but I haven't yet read it. --Kyoko 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Life of Saint Denis

I notice that you moved this page. However the old name was correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names). The Life of St. Denis is a text that exists in more than one manuscript. This article is about a specific manuscript that is famous more for its illustration than the text. I am moving the article back. Dsmdgold 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it because we have no other article on the Life of Denis, so I though it was more appropriate to have it at the common name, as there would be no risk of confusion with another article. I have no strong feelings about it, however, as long as the The Life of Saint Denis redirects there, or becomes a disambig page that links to the MS page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally we will have an article on the text that would link to articles on each of the manuscripts which contain it. However, until such time I can live with it being a redirect. Dsmdgold 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

The phrase "a year and a day," in the first paragraph of the telling of the tale, redirects to a disambiguation page. How helpful do you think that is for new or inexperienced users and readers? Should I alter the wikification of that phrase to lead directly to the article on the use of that term in the context of "paganism" and "secret societies"? ---Charles 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all useful to link to it; we have no article that is directly relevant. That "a year and a day" is a period of time frequently seen in Medieval literature is already discussed later in the article. I removed it entirely, thanks for pointing it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Looking again at the disambig page, I realized there was no article directly relevant. Interestingly enough, it reminded me of the recurrence of that theme in Medieval literature, and ritualistic literature in general, and sparked inspiration for the script I am writing... and to which I now return. Thanks. ---Charles 23:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see having an article on that someday, it does occur fairly often. Good luck with your script!--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Thought your edit on Lilith to change wording in the neopagan section so that their views on the goddess were still represented but not endorsed were very good. Nice way to handle that. DreamGuy 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DreamGuy. It was actually just a revert to what it said previously, but sometimes the old version is just better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

GGM

I'd have thought that your various Gabriel Garcia Marquez subcategories are instances of over-categorization. Want to explain your logic, though? --Jbmurray 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you're referring to the placing them all in a dedicated "works" category, I did that to keep them all in one place more than anything. If you mean separating out "books", "novels", etc., some things are books but are not novels, but as a prominent novelist I felt Marquez should have a category to appear in the "Novels by author" cat. And about putting some of them in more than one cat, I did that on works I'm not familiar with, and figured someone who does known them will be better able to decide whether something is a novel, a short story, or just a "book".--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me that a flatter category system is sometimes better. "Novels," make sense. "Works" too, probably. But I'd probably skip "books." So you'd have works -> short stories + novels (plus other non-categorizable books), rather than works -> short stories + books -> novels. If that make sense. --Jbmurray 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

Claiming that "Muhammad received most of the revelations in Aisha's company" is Goodwin's way of accusing our Prophet of making the Quran up. Reading that offends a Muslim as much as someone who accuses Jesus or Moses of being a pretender.

Can being 'referenced' or 'sourced' save any statement from being biased? --Alperkaan 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about this, all it is saying is that Muhammad reportedly received most of his revelations while he was with Aisha. It says nothing whatsoever about him making them up, and it even calls them "revelations". I can't see how the statement is offensive to you. Do you disagree with the word "reportedly", or with the idea that he was with Aisha when he had them?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Chevrefoil

On 16 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chevrefoil, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to redirects over page name

Is it always preferable to link to a redirect to a disambig page instead of directly to the disambig page? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages isn't clear on this point. "This issue was brought up on another page some time ago" isn't helpful to me, and I don't appreciate the exasperated tone. --Confiteordeo 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't exasperated, I'm sorry you thought I was being a jerk! The internet is terrible for communicating tone. I was trying to clarify why I knew that; I did the same thing as you a few months ago. Apparently we're always supposed to do that for disambig pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title, when we want to link directly to a disambig page. It's to tell the difference between incoming links that should be going to a more specific article and ones that are there on purpose. Of course, it's rare that there's a need to link to a disambig page anyway, so not everyone knows about the guideline.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I wasn't sure what the MoS meant by "accidental links." Oh, and sorry for being touchy... it's late here in Europe, and I should really be heading to bed... :-) --Confiteordeo 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Americas

Hello Cuchullain:

Thanks for the note.

I am Prof. Heynard L. Paz-Chow, graduate in Political Science from the University of Sevilla, España, Graduate of International Relations, from Florida International University in Miami and Political Science/International Finance at Regis University in Denver, Colorado. My international experience in both Europe and América includes research and implementation of the European Community and the Organization of American States during the conflicts of the 1980's in the hemisphere. I speak perfectly English, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Currently, I am a Vice President of Banking here in Miami.

The reason for the changes is that several people have asked me in class about this debate going on in Wikipedia. Reasons, citations and bibliographies have been very detailed describing the historic, rationale and current usage at academic and international forums by your other participants. The editing of this page is to eliminate such confusion. It is my suggestion that you learn, accept the contributions of others and let us enjoy the moment. This is not an edit war, but I will contend daily on this monstrosity of academic inaccuracy.

I am very interested in the Celtic nature and its influences within Spain and France. Perhaps you can enlighten me and help me in such research on that theme.

Thank you,

HEYNARD L. PAZ-CHOW—Preceding unsigned comment added by HPazChow (talk • contribs)

Citation style

I disagree with your reversion of my edits on the citations for Melville's "Encantadas." I can't find evidence in the most widely-used style manuals or in any references section of the scholarly books on my shelves for the format you're using. (For example, you use a semicolon to separate author from editor when, in the case of a title that has both an author and an editor, they're usually separated by the title, with the editor's name coming after it. And then there's the use of one set of parentheses for the editor designation and another set for the publication date, with the two bits of data placed side by side....) From what I've been able to determine, your format isn't standard in the humanities, but there is a similar style in the sciences or purely current events/journalistic work. In these two cases, placing the publication date at the front of the citation is crucial because of the heavy amount of periodical sourcing and the premium both fields place on research or knowledge that is absolutely the most up-to-date. I see the passion you have for history and literature and your extensive WP contributions in these fields. Maybe some of the bibliographies or endnotes in your lit crit or history books would be useful guides.

Also, not only does your citation style seem to me to be non-standard, it also doesn't conform with the way citations are done in "Literature and Theatre" Featured Articles such as A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Thomas Pynchon, or Samuel Beckett. I realize my WP experience is still much more limited than yours, though ... and a just-completed glance at some other FAs, whether in lit or other humanities categories, doesn't support my viewpoint. Maybe if you could tell me the consensus on the relative importance of trying to bring all categories within a field into a uniform format vs. trying to keep citations within an article consistent, I'd be able to proceed with more productive edits. Or is there some place in the MoS pages where citation format is still being debated or has come to some kind of resolution? I understand the non-elitist approach of WP, but it seems a little strange to me to reinvent this particular wheel (and apparently quite a few others).

I also wanted to highlight a couple more things: (1) when the edits to the "Encantadas" article were reverted, not all of the info I'd moved or added was deleted, so there may be a need for all of us to be a bit more careful when reverting or making edits; (2) the astonishing haste with which some of my edits have been changed by a handful of WP pros, though in some ways completely understandable due to nauseating experiences with vandalism and such, in other ways seems to run counter to WP's non-elitist mission. If only experienced WPers think they know all there is to know about WP and everything else, where will WP be? Such haste, with the hyper-defensiveness and very real arrogance I've felt emanating from it or embodied in it, is quite offputting to a newbie who may actually know what he's talking about if he's given half a chance to let his edit sink in or to make a considered and considerate defense of it. (I'm not referring to your actions here but to those of others in the aforementioned handful.)

Still, the amount I need to learn about the way things work around here humbles me. I'll stop blabbing away. Thanks for your time, help, and attention to my concerns. Scrawlspacer 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Scrawlspacer, good to hear from you, and I'm glad we've got someone who knows what they're talking about on board. The style I use here is from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. I believe it's based on the APA style. As far as I know, no particular style is favored over another, but it's generally best not to replace one style with another if someone has already formatted it according to one. That is, as long as the style is consistent within the article; if not, then just go ahead and pick one to make it consistent.

I can understand your frustration in getting reverted, especially if people are being unfriendly about it. When I was a newbie I had some experiences that nearly put me off of the project. A good solution may be bringing up your intentions on the talk page before making major edits, so that others can see what it is you want to do. I'm available to lend a hand if you need anything, don't hesitate to ask.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative and friendly reply. I look forward to working with you. Scrawlspacer 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Mist meets Playstation

Greetings Cuchullain! Its been a while since our first, and hopefully only, amicable disagreement and I see you're still going strong. If you have the time to spare I was wondering if you could take a look at what I consider to be a very dubious article: Gorboth. I came across it as it was tagged "Welsh mythology" and also described as such in the article (not any more!) (plus "Celtic mythology"). I've tagged it as a hoax and would like your opinion, please, as I'm thinking of putting it up for deletion. Do you know of any such character? And if there is a folklore reference buried somewhere is there anything which remotely supports the incredibly detailed and fantastic yarn in the article? You'll find my comments and observations on the Talk page. Hwyl, "Great Soul" Enaidmawr 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Enaid. Off the top of my head, though, I've never heard of any such character, you may be right.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Green Knight DYK potential

Cuchullain, I want to apply this article for DYK, but am not sure what angle to take. Any suggestions? Wrad 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Good work, by the way!--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp"

How is a deletion appealed? "Nothing has been put forth indicating that the book itself is notable, though the subject may be." is an arbitrary and untransparent judgment. I would have no objection to a balanced and reasoned finding but to dismiss the arguments that have been put forward as saying nothing is simply to express contempt for the contributors. I have argued that there are grounds for considering the book notable particularly in the context of the Wikipedia guidlelines relating to Academic Books and the book's contribution to a live debate in an area of substantial controversy. my and other people's arguments may or may not be sufficient to justify the book's categorisation as notable but don't just turn your nose away from what we have said. --Opbeith 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone with my summary of my decision, and I certainly didn't mean to disparage your arguments. What I meant by "nothing has been put forth" was that no reliable sources (or not enough, anyway) had been provided demonstrating that the book was notable per either WP:NOTE or the more specific WP:BK (or its subsection for academic books), even though the AfD closed several days late. In other words, the sources given were not about the book, they were about the subject the book was about. If there are no reliable sources to use, then we can't have an article on it. Many of the keep votes were also to the effect that the subject was notable, not that the book itself was notable for any reason other than being about a notable subject. Since the article was meant to be about the book, I saw no other choice but to delete.

To answer your question, you can ask the deletion be reviewed at Deletion review, though you should read up on the deletion policy if you intend to do this. You can also ask me if you have further questions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cúchullain, thank you for a prompt and considerate reply. I'm used to Wikipedia administrators arriving from nowhere, passing judgment and accelerating away without bothering to inspect the roadkill so I read your judgment as just another fiat handed down by the lords of arbitrary rule and I appreciate you now taking the time to explain it in more depth.

On the substantive issue of course I still disagree with you. I thought that the Bosnjaci.net review article I referred to confirmed that the book was a significant contribution to the debate about Jasenovac and the Bosniak presence among the victims. Unfortunately that is the only English-language reference I found but I would still argue that an understanding of the context and the considerations taken into account in the Wikipedia Academic Book guidelines would provide sufficient support for the book to be seen as having notability both in its specialist field and in contemporary political debate. I would also argue that an article on the book is the best way of ensuring that the important information the article contains is preserved in Wikipedia.

If you had been involved in the Wikipedia battles that have gone at the Srebrenica massacre and Bosnian Genocide articles among others you would be aware that the atrocities perpetrated on Serbs during World War II by the Ustashe government of Croatia were and continue to be used by Serbs to reject blame for acts of aggression committed during the Yugoslavian wars of the 1990s. Serb nationalist propaganda has used the tragedy of Jasenovac and continuing controversy on the subject to mitigate the impact of the charges and court judgments that have found the Bosnian Serbs guilty of the genocide of Bosniaks. Halilbegovic's book on the fate of Bosniaks (as ethnic Bosnian Muslims were referred to in the past) in the extermination camp at Jasenovac challenged the use of Jasenovac by Serbs who portray themselves as victims of World War II atrocities and the Bosniaks as not.

You must be aware of the disputes over the ongoing cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the recent International Court of Justice finding concerning the B&H vs S&M charges. The facts at issue remain the subject of bitter argument. As you will see from the Bosnjaci.net article, by highlighting the fact that Bosniaks were yet another of the minorities who were victims of the Ustashe at Jasenovac the Halilbegovic book has had an impact in the context of that debate, an impact confirmed to me by Bosniak friends but for which I am unable to pursue further references as I'm not competent in the Bosnian language.

I certainly don't concede the argument that in its field this is not a notable book but it would be easier to compromise if one could be certain that the information this article provides would be safe in an article dealing with the subject instead. However I think that is doubtful. Almost certainly there would be pressure to merge the article with the main Jasenovac article where it would almost certainly be reduced to a minor footnote or its content deleted. The number of Bosniaks killed was relatively small compared to the number of Serbs and other minority groups. The significance of their inclusion among the victims depends on an acknowledgment of the facts of the past to the arguments of the present.

This is only one of the battlefields in the wars of the former Yugoslavia waged at Wikipedia. I have been one of the people who has been involved in drawn out fights to resist attempts to have the Bosnian Genocide and Srebrenica Massacre articles subsumed into other subject articles as part of a campaign aimed at obfuscating the reality of genocide in Bosnia. Defending these major articles has been time and effort consuming. I can't see myself and others continuing to fight battles on those fronts and at the same time continuing to sustain resistance in this particular area of ongoing ethnic aggression. The reality of Wikipedia means that the genuine significance of the subject is almost certainly not going to be relevant. The availability of the information is only likely to be preserved through respect for the publication that made it available.

Anyhow there are other more crucial battles to be fought and now I've had a decent response from you you hopefully now understand why "the losers" often feel so angry at the apparent cavalier behaviour of Wikipedia administrators, so as life is short and the work is elsewhere I'll have to throw in the towel until more English-language references appear, as I'm pretty sure they will. And now I've tried to find the deleted article to check something in it and of course it's not there to - so all the information has gone! I guess we just have to think of it as a house that's burned down. --Opbeith 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I refer you to the transcript of Haris Silajdzic's recent discourse at the CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington [1] pages 9 and 10 and particularly page 13? Not that it will do any good. --Opbeith 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it in any way helps to establish the notability of that book, it should have been brought in before the AfD closed. Keep in mind that I didn't say the subject the book deals with isn't notable, I felt notability for the book itself hadn't been established, and it didn't look like it was going to be.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Silajdzic (Bosnian ex-PM, now Joint President) only spoke to CSIS on 24 May. --Opbeith 09:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am upset about the deletion of the book. I feel, the article could have been paraphrased or enhanced in a different way, but nevertheless, the book is extremely important and notable source which documents all victims of Jasenovac concentration camps with a focus on Bosniaks, who were ignored in previous research (just as Roma victims were, for example, largely ignored). Having said that, I am upset with the way deletion was handled. The article could have been modified, but it should had not been deleted. What you have done is sad, offensive, upseting, and disturbing - but I have learned to live with that, so nothing comes as new. As Haris Silajdzic implied, it seems that everybody around us wants us to forget what happened and move on. I am not forgetting, I am not forgiving, and I am not letting people morally equalize primitive radical animals on one side, and civilized Bosniaks who were victims of modern-day fascism of the 90s. I admit, Bosniaks are not even close to being perfect, in fact, I could write a book about the deficiencies of my people. But nobody is going to stand there and point the finger and say that both sides suffered tremendously - yeah right. Not even 1 Serb town was under siege during the war. And I know why the article was deleted, there is more to it than it seems, but it's okay, I used to live with it. PS: The only reason I don't have time to devote to criticizing the faults of my own people is because I am wasting my time on fighting revisionism (moral equivalism), genocide denial, and other attempts from the enemies of the common sense. Bosniak 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly did not close as I did because of any pre-conceived notions about the subject the book covers, I did it because notability had not been established for the book by the time the AfD closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I think Cuchullain has behaved a lot better than other Wikipedia administrators. Like you I continue to disagree with his judgment but I think he has acted fairly as he sees the matter and above all he has been prepared to discussing the subject. However the information is gone from Wikipedia so Psychonaut's insistence on policing the letter of the law for whatever reason has resulted in a net loss of access to knowledge and, Cúchullain, that's where I think you were wrong in not taking advantage of the pragmatic flexibility which is present in Wikipedia guidelines but so often ignored. I know this battle is lost but I hope in future you'll bear the wide picture in mind as you examine the narrower one. --Opbeith 09:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

afd discussion

Bill, can you take a look at an article for me. It was nominated for deletion. Then the administrator removed the nom and now a fellow editor has taken it upon himself to delete it. I'm constantly improving all articles I write on a daily basis. But, I'm having a hard time when users are a little too quick to "delete" articles without fully reading them. It was an article that I reposted after it was deleted last month. I improved it and cited references and external links. So, I haven't had any trouble with it again until recently.You commented on the discussion because you saw that I voted twice. I didn't vote twice intentionally. I'm still not sure how discussions fully work yet. I'm actually reading it on another window as I look at articlesJoeyC5 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Du’a Khalil Aswad

The source is the Assyrian International News Agency and it states that "a number of armed local police officers were present who in fact helped the crowd to kill the woman rather than preventing the crime." Why do you think is this not valid? Thanks, S.dedalus 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The AINA article only says the website that originally aired the clips said the police helped kill her, they do not make any claims about it themselves. But the way the sentance was originally phrased makes it sounds like they're making the claim. Since it's not obvious from watching the video, we shouldn't include the statement unless there is a reliable source to attribute it to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes I see. And jebar.info is not a reputable news source? I can’t really find any information on it.S.dedalus 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, so I don't know if it's reliable or not. I guess the first step would be finding wherever it was they said that, and seeing if they attribute it to some source besides the video. If they say you can see that in the video, I think that's flat wrong - it's not obvious from watching it, and I don't think reliable media would claim it is. If they don't give another source, that would be a strike against their credibility as well, given the seriousness of the allegation and the fact that no later reliable sources have even even repeated it without the qualification that it was jebar.info that said it.

If you want to include the line, you could say something like "according to jebar.info, police officers did nothing to stop the attack and even participated..." and then give a link to wherever jebar said it (if you can). But I'd prefer we stay away from such sensational and serious allegations until we can find a real reliable source to attribute it to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this is where it talks about Du’a Khalil Aswad I assume. Since I don’t speak Arabic I guess I’ll have to try to find someone around here that does. S.dedalus 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dead: LIVE as WWIII movie?

Hi, when you created List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction you put "The Dead: LIVE" as a 2005 movie--is this the same as the 2006 zombie movie on imdb here or is it something different? If it is that one, does it actually involve a world war? Normally zombie movies are put in the "Decline and fall of the human race" category. Hypnosifl 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. When I created the page I only moved the list over from where it was previously at Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I didn't add anything new to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Xanadu (musical)

OK, but couldn't a person wind up there by clicking on a link and really want to see the movie info or some other Xanadu page? Do you know how to get an image into the article? I'm a bit tech challenged. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They could, but that's not what disambiguation notes and pages are for - they're for redirecting a reader when one title can have multiple meanings. For other uses, they will type in or click on "Xanadu" or "Xanadu (disambiguation)"; if the subjects are related in some other way, they should be linked within the text of an article. And images are a bit complicated, has it been uploaded yet? Wikipedia:Images should anwer most of your questions, but if you have more trouble let me know or ask at the help desk.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Knight

This article is going through a peer review now, hopefully the last one before FA candidacy. I'm just wondering if I could get your input and help. Two heads are better than one. Wrad 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. I've been sick lately and haven't been in a condition to make serious edits. Wrad 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ain't no thing. I'll do more when I have time, but it will probably be tomorrow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We're close to applying for FAC. I was just wondering if you could add sources for the historical context info you added. Also, I'm tempted to say that the Morte d'Arthur connection already is sourced. What do you think? Wrad 18:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the sources soon, but I probably won't be able to tonight. As for the Malory connection, a page number to whatever edition the quote is from couldn't hurt.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't have a copy of Malory, do you? Wrad 23:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Several. I actually have two where I'm at, I can do it right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'Tis done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

King Arthur and King Cornwall

Hi! I've nominated the article for DYK, but there's a bit of confusion in trying to improve the hook. I've listed a couple questions on the article's talk page, if you know any of the answers, it would really help clear up the confusion. Thanks! -Bbik 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded at the talk page and at DYK. I hope that clears it up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't quite the answer I was hoping for (though it was better than I was expecting, I wasn't sure if you'd have any details at all), but it did knock some sense into me and make me realize how easily I could've bypassed the confusion in the first place. There's actually a decent hook now, rather than the awkward thing I had originally. -Bbik 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On June 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article King Arthur and King Cornwall, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for putting in the effort with the article and ironing things out.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

America

Um... why are you reverting my edits [2], [3] to the American disambiguation page? I assumed the first time it was just the accidental reverts from an overjealous vandal patroller, that saw an unregistered account's edit without bothering to read the changes (as has been happening constantly for the past two years or so). --81.178.233.111 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

jacksonville, Florida

yes i did. i fess up. i was just about to say that i couldn't resist but i could. sorry HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

KA project

Well, the project has kind of slowed down, which isn't unusual if it doesn't give people things to do well enough. I think we should start up a collaboration to bring the King Arthur article up to FA, with a clearly-written plan, such as:

1. Clean up the article: Cite everything, proofread, resolve tagged issues, etc.
2. Apply for peer review and resolve all issues brought up.
3. Apply for FA status.

I could put a message on every project member's talk page alerting them to the collaboration and inviting them to join in. This should build project unity and capability as well as make the King Arthur article a million times better. Any suggestions? Wrad 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So what do you say? Wrad 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry, I must have missed your original post. I think that's a great idea. Let's do it. I want to start by citing all the statements, and probably correcting some of what's there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured my post had just gotten lost in the shuffle. You've been gone awhile! Anyway, sounds like a good plan. I'll go ahead and spread the word... Wrad 03:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Nyeusigrube

if you are afraid that there aren't many members on it then you should put it in inactive wikiprojects NOT delete. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

William Patrick Hitler

Admittedly, I took the info of William Patrick being a half-nephew from Image:Hitlerfamilytree.png instead of a reliable source. But the table is correct, so I added the half- to the article. Isn't that the correct term? Geli Raubal's article also says she was a half-niece of Hitler. —AldeBaer 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

William Hitler was indeed the son of Adolf's half-brother Alois Hitler, but I think the term "half-nephew" is overkill. I don't think it's standard, and at any rate "nephew" is sufficient (one does not even need to be blood related to be a "nephew") and we explain the relationship in detail further on. Also, "half" was mispelled.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo? Ach, yes I did. Alright then, agreed it'd be overkill. Blame it on me not being a native speaker. But yet again, I've learned something useful, so worth it all in all. Regards and sorry to bother you, —AldeBaer 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Happy editing!--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Nyeusigrube

i am glad to say that your attempt at revenge by nominating for deletion the Wikiproject i created has failed. next time if you want to seek revenge please do it by posting a long chain of expletives on my user page. have a nice day. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Revenge? You need to assume good faith. I nominated your project for deletion exactly for the reasons I gave. Its scope is limited to a few works by one author (and no, the subject is not comparable to the extremely popular Harry Potter), and your project's main article was deleted. You should address those issues if you don't want your project deleted in the future. And to counter your accusation, if was really upset about your vandalism, I would have blocked you when you did it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

wasn't thinking clearly. outside influences and the fact that exept for very few almost all of the articles i have created were nominated for deletion. it kinda pissed me off. now that i think about it i was the one instigating this entire thing witht he edit to jacksonville. i suck. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

in response to your comment about popularity of the Nyeusigrube books, among my circle of friends it is actually more popular than the harry potter books. --HRH Crown Princess Abi of the United lands of Liberty 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's plenty popular with your friends, but Harry Potter is obviously more noteable in the wider world, and there are far more reliable sources on it. That's what really matters.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Please do not remove relevant links to sister projects as you did here [4]. The linked Wiktionary page provides translations for both the name of the prophet and for the title of the book the prophet wrote. It is therefore directly relevant to both articles. --EncycloPetey 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a dictionary definition on the name Habakkuk offers much relevant information on the book the prophet wrote. The Wiktionary entry is about the name itself, which is held by the prophet, his book, and virtually nothing else. I don't see the relevance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to etymological information, it provides translations of that name and title into all the various languages available. This is information featured on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul Kims' guest house

Uhm. Excuse me but who died and made you God? I am a little bit annoyed here. WP: NOT D Uhm. It sure seems like you came in and deleted an article when there was still discussion. I think that isn't fair and an attack on Wikipedia values. Am I wrong? I am offended. Nesnad 12:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you miunderstand how AfD works. AfDs are open for five days, after which they can be closed at any point. Not only was this Aopen for 11 full days, but there was no discussion at all for 7 days. The only one voting to keep the article was you, the creator, and notability had not been established with reliable sources (the travel guide may well be reliable, but it didn't establish notability.) I'm sorry you're offended, but I stand by my decision.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what are my steps to disagree with your actions? This is madness. I am annoyed because I am trying to share information with Wikipedia and it's getting deleted on me. At the same time the AfD was going on for that article, there was one for List of Samurai Shodown characters and countless other not so notable pages. If I feel the community is assuming that there is no notability because it is Korean or something with out helping me find sources, what are my actions now? I think it's silly to trash a page when it's still young. There were book sources in my article, yeah it was Lonely Planet, but come on, that is more than a lot of other pages. I have no connection to this article really, but this has just gotten under my skin. Why can millions of other minor but notable pages have a page but this one can't? Where can I address this question? Thanks, Nesnad 11:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say I'm very sorry you're aggravated and I know having articles you started deleted is frustrating. You can take this up at deletion review if you really think deletion was unwarranted, but I must tell you that it's unlikely to be overturned. Like I said, notability was not established, and consensus was for deletion. The onus for finding sources and establishing notability is on the ones who want it kept; also note that the fact that other non-notable articles exist does not exclude this one from the meeting the notability criteria.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of List of free shell providers

I don't understand why the list of free shell providers was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_free_shell_providers), while articles such as comparison of webmail providers are not removed? These two topics are very similar and should be treated the same in my opinion. Independence 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either; what other articles are you referring to specifically? If they are just directories like this one was they should be deleted as well, but I'd have to look at the individual cases. The consensus at this AfD was pretty solid when you discount the votes from the likely sockpuppets saying "stays". Mind you, I was just the AfD closer, I don't know much about the shells or webmail providers; my decision was based on the WP:NOT policy and consensus rather than my opinion on the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this article: Comparison_of_webmail_providers. The list of shell providers was very much like this article (but without any attached screenshots). Even though the name was "list" instead of "comparison", it was just as much of a comparison as this article on webmail providers. In my opinion it was more than just a directory, since all the features and differances between the providers were listed - like a comparison in other words. Independence 15:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That article also looks sketchy to me; it looks like a directory of providers with advertisement-like comparisons of some of their features. But as I said my knowledge of this subject is very limited, I don't know if webmail providers are more notable than free shell providers, or if the article can be altered to fix it. I'll have to leave it in the hands of someone who knows more about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

smile

munkee_madnesstalk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Urgent

This is User:Slakr, but if I post here using that account, the vandal will see and revert it. User:Wikisparkle34 is continuously reverting WP:AIV to avoid being blocked. Thanks. --69.56.219.218 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

btw, sorry for bothering you, but there's nobody else who's an admin online. --69.56.219.218 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else blocked him. Thanks, though. --slakr 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if you see them back to their old behavior after the block expires, let someone know; if it's a vandalism only account, it will probably have to be blocked indefinitely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey, I noticed you're a member of the Indigenous peoples of North America project, and an administrator, so figured you might be interested in helping out with an article. Battle of Washita River has been blocked for awhile because of edit-warring, and is stuck in a horrible place. A couple of us have been trying to work out what needs to be changed on the talk page (with a little recent help from Phaedriel), but there's a lot to do, and so far the blocking admin (Evilclown93) has been silent. If you care to help out, it would be much appreciated. Cheers! Murderbike 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it, but I've been really busy recently, and I don't know how much help I'll be able to provide. Thanks for the heads up, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Sickbed of Cúchulainn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Diego Salcedo Article

I've seen you changed the last information I added about Diego Salcedo (soldier). I think you know more of history than I do! In this case, I'd like to know if you disagree with what I learned in school in Puerto (cause I'm from Puerto Rico), or you just changed it with out actually reading what I wrote! Please let me know what do you think about this, because I think is not fair to tell a story to our kids about somebody never existed.

Regards, Phantommn

Tela Tequlia and Wayback Machine

I strongly disagree with you saying the WayBack machine is not a good / reliable source, according to the Wiki guildlines "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If you look at the wikipedia article about the Wayback Machine you will see it is a non profit neutral and trustworthy source, and the reference is actually a real actual snap shot on exactly how her site was. And the information on how her site started is relevant because it shows what kind of modeling and business she started her career in. If you also look at the discussion page on Tela Tequila there is a strong agreement her adult modeling should be included in the article. CrazyRob926 06:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the issue isn't with the Wayback Machine, it's with the site you found using the Wayback Machine. It's just an old version of a commercial webpage. You're using it as a primary source for negative material about a living person (at one point you called it a "porn site"). Per WP:BLP, poorly sourced contentious material needs to be removed. It doesn't matter if there is strong agreement or not on the talk page, or even if it's potentially relevant; if there are no real sources backing up the line, it needs to go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an "old version" of TELA TEQULIA's OFFICIAL webpage! How is that questionable? It is a page her, herself put up if you look at the copyright tags on the bottom of the archived sites, and even look at the web address of the site, it is the same address as her CURRENT official website. How is it negative? She obviously was proud of her adult modeling, and still is to this day. It needs to be part of the article to cover her full modeling career. Why do you think she recieved the Playboy Cyber Girl award? I agree the inline link to porn may have been negative, and i am fine with that being removed. There are several other references on her article using the Way Back machine archive of the same site the cites I used, yet you only call the ones I added poorly sourced?CrazyRob926 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

One last thing to add, I do not see how using a historical archive on her official web site is negative. Please explain, its not like it is a archive from a POV or slanderous web site or article, it is from her still to this day official web site.CrazyRob926 09:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. The sentence is the negative part, not the website. You're sourcing material about a living person with a very poor source, in this case an old version of a web page. If you want the material included, find a real, secondary source discussing it. Otherwise it stays out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Program

I didn't understand what MoS point your latest edit was about; but I disagreed with the opinion in the summary of the one before that, so reverted both. Please explain? Dicklyon 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Hey! Long time no see and all that. I'm about to apply for GA status on this article, but it needs a copyedit. I plan to go over it myself, but it may be good to have someone a little less familiar with the writing help out. Your assistance will be appreciated. Thanks. Wrad 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wrad, I've been unable to contribute very much for the past while. Sir Gawain looks quite good, I'll take a more extensive look at it right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Du’a Khalil Aswad photo

You may be interested in the continuing discussion of the Du’a Khalil Aswad photo. It seems that Cshay disagrees with the consensus. --S.dedalus 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clueing me in, I hope the dispute with this editor can be resolved on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus (3 against 3) and you are being a tyrannical piss poor admin. Cshay 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Get another admin involved

Seriously. I asked you to the first time. You are in over your head. You can't be impartial. Cshay 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a system for resolving disputes. The first step, talking about it, is clearly not working. I suggest we take the second step - disengaging for a while. If you still feel the same after taking a break, you can move on to the next steps, namely a request for comment and requesting a third opinion. You can do any of these steps yourself, you don't need me to do it for you. I must again remind you to be civil and not deliver personal attacks if you want your opinion to be seriously considered.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, why isn't it working? Perhaps if you actually parsed and understood everything I have written on this issue instead of ignoring it, dismissing it, or otherwise acting as though you are the all knowing and all powerful editor we might get somewhere. If you do keep that image "below the fold" no matter what happens to the other image, you probably won't have much more argument with me although I am not happy about it being inline since it deprives people of the choice of whether they want to look at a gruesome image. If it pops back to the top, you can expect more discussion and dispute. Cshay 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)