Talk:Chaouacha

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).

since when is moving a dabbed article to an available redlink a "Point violation"? edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Distorting actions and motives in such claims from "your faction" I'm getting used to but this is nonsense. The redlink was available and there are no other uses for this name, so undabbing it is mandated by guidelines. This move was not POINT; yes I missed the conjugation, it was late at night my time and I was tired; you are the one being POINTy and AGF here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no faction. I am anti-you when you act like a disruptive and spiteful jerk which you have been doing lately, and I am anti-kwami when his obsession with moving articles around gets disruptive. Both of you are wasting your own and other editors timne when you could be writing content instead of moveing around articles written by other people. And yes you are making a point violation because you know full well that there is a valid norm having articles about ethnic group located at X people, and you also know that there is no requirement for articles to be located at the shortest possible title.you just dont agree with it, and since you failed to get consensus for your opinion over most articles where you have suggested this you are now picking the low haning fruit by moving the articles for which there are no articles about languages yet. Probably in an attempt to make it look as if there is a preference for the shorter but ambiguous title. SO no, there is no "mandate", you are just choosing to make it look like that out of spite and a weird preference for ambiguous titles. I however and not going to waste more time on your crap, I have better things to spend my time on than egotrippers and angry mastodons like you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I won't bother filing an ANI on your ugly comments here, and I know it would wind up focussing on me instead of you, but here's a quote from Cuchulainn's close in returning Tlingit to its original title:

The result of the move request was: Move. While support for this move was less clear than at other similar RMs recently, supporters were still more numerous, and had stronger arguments. The stronger oppose votes from JorisvS and In ictu oculi referred to the WP:NCL guideline, which has traditionally recommended disambiguating both ethnic groups and their languages. However, they did not address the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concern, specifically the page view evidence and the fact that Tlingit already redirects to this article, and has for almost all of the three years since the page was moved to Tlingit people. As such, the invocations of the article titles policy (which trumps the guidelines) by several of the supporters become even more compelling. This, taken with what seems to be an emerging consensus that peoples are generally primary topics over their languages, leads me to find a consensus for this move.

You are so out off-base in your comments above, when stripped of their insults, that it's rather sad....if that's the word.Skookum1 (talk) 06: 21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Add topic