User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Jesse James

I apologize if I stepped over any lines. This editor has completely frustrated me today in re: to this article, his edits, use of sources and copy & pasting. I have requested dispute mediation to try and sort these issues out. Whether or not the lead is sufficient doesn't at all seem related to what the editor keeps trying to put in. Again, my apologies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. For his part he's certainly not making things particularly easy with his bad edits and rude talk page comments. I had hope that he would follow Master of Puppets' polite suggestion that he stop edit warring, but that was evidently to much to ask for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I act differently when I meet with WP:GOODFAITH or on contrary a WP:POV standpoint that tries to WP:CENSOR all opposing views with full reverts. Mediation committee will handle the case further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jesse_James Kasaalan (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarizing allegation

Completely removing an important opposing view after protection, claiming plagiarism is not helpful for imporevement. Other editors may put some progressive effort for paraphrasing more instead completely reverting them, so we can have all major views about the myth.
Plagiarism depends on the length of the original article and the length of the quoted part, so it depends context. 3 sentences from a newspaper article [1 sentence is partly quotes from a book] which doesn't leave much space for paraphrasing, with apparent quotes and source is not plagiarism. At least it is what they teach at academical writing classes at my college. Will you implement my later proposal so it can be reviewed by mediation committee.

The article talk page will be a better place for this discussion. I stand by my removal of the line, as the quote was mangled and improperly cited, thereby become a plagiarism issue. As such it had to be removed on sight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again by Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM I don't agree with you, yet I even improved proposal, so it only quotes claimed phrases, and Hobsbawm therefore no plagiarism issue may left. I improved paraphrasing in talk page, so removed quotes. My harsh comments better stated, summarized and neutralized after a second review. We may discuss more on talk page. Kasaalan (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your other revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310533490&oldid=310532923 is unprogressive, I merged some sentences and added wikilinks for important concepts. The admin asked to stop editing in controversial section, and the edit is not controversial a bit and not related to the legacy section at all. You should self-review your revert of civil war section. Can you reply my questions at talk page. Kasaalan (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Master of Puppets said, "please do not make any further edits if you are involved in the current edit war or intend to make a change which would be disputed." It was a polite attempt to get you to stop edit warring willingly and use the talk page that the page would not have to be protected. You ignored that, so the page had to be protected lest it be subjected to further edit warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all, there is no need to discuss for wikilink additions and grammar correction. The content dispute was for another section, and I stopped editing that section and lead after his warning already. Kasaalan (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you "agree at all" or not, Master of Puppets has endorsed my protection of the page. What he said was, "please do not make any further edits if you are involved in the current edit war..." You were involved, and you edited it anyway, totally ignoring his attempt to stop the edit warring without resorting to protecting the page. So I reverted back to the last edit before your changes and protected the page. That's common procedure. You'd be better served participating in the dispute resolution than posting on my talk page again and again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Hey, thanks for protecting it! Just remember to put the {{protected}} sign up. C: Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse image

Hi,

Regard this diff, the reason I used the image was because it was used by David Frankfurter in his book Evil Incarnate to illustrate previous images of the black mass that led into the satanic ritual abuse moral panic (see here). I had thought it was not copyright protected, but apparently I'm wrong (as it says in the google books preview). Was that the most substantive objection to the image, the copyright status?

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the image page, the copyright is expired, so if that's legit copyvio shouldn't be an issue. I removed it because I don't think it's particularly connected to the article, especially not enough for the intro. It doesn't depict the subject at hand, it's just a fanciful early-20th-century image of a "black mass". Perhaps you could argue that it could be used elsewhere in the article, but the caption doesn't indicate why the image is relevant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I replaced with a better caption, that'd be legit? Based on Frankfurter, a more suitable introduction would probably be:

[[:Image:Martin van Maele - La Sorcière 06.jpg|Engraving for Jules Michelet's La sorcière, depicting a sensationalistic ritual modelled on the Catholic liturgy; texts and images like this were precursors to the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, and was used by believers as evidence for a long history of satanism within Western civilization (Frankfurter, 2006).|thumb|150px]]

Whaddya think? There's not many images work on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The caption is much better, but it should not go in the lede, and it should only be included in the article if that material is actually discussed in the article. To me, the image doesn't address the key part of the moral panic, which is child abuse, and as such it's not any more useful than any other image of "Satanic" activity.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like an image in the lead, because the lead itself is lengthy.

I'd also argue that the key part is just as much, if not more, the "satanic" part of the panic. Though later secularized, it was the "satanic" aspect of the abuse with (as Frankfurter discusses) the images of the Other corrupting and inverting all morals of the (Christian) society that was involved that really gave it legs. The image is also one of the "black Mass", which is a key part of the historical continuity between past moral panics and this one. The moral panic over stranger-danger which happened at about the same time didn't seem to get as much attention, press and public outcry despite involving the same populations. It was the sensationalist nature of the specific abuse as well as the motivation that was alleged that really made the period and accusations stand out. For the imaginary perpetrators, it was not the sexual abuse that was supposed to be their ultimate reason, it was defilement, destruction of morals, and the religious worship that was key - just like for the witches in the woodcut.

Would we be better taking this to the talk page and inviting more contributions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will respond on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Florida template

Just curious as to why you erased the Greater Orlando metro area from Template:Florida. I'm sure there must be a good reason, just couldn't figure out what it was. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Student7! The link that was erased was a redundant Wikilink also found below in "Metropolitan areas". There is no need to link to Greater Orlando in the "Regions" section, too, is there?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of town and missed this comment. Yes, Paine is correct, Greater Orlando already appeared in "metropolitan areas" and as such didn't need to be in the "regions" section as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd

Interesting. I only ran into this editor recently, see my discussion at User talk:Enaidmawr. Looks like ideally a lot of cleanup is needed, if for no other reason than some of his sources are rubbish. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that user has a long (since 2005) history of dubious edits to articles on British history. He is thoroughly uncritical with the sources he introduces... for example, his original version of the Brut article was based entirely on a bathetic English translation of one manuscript, which was made available by fundamentalist Christian creationist websites which displayed a strange affinity for British nationalism. At other times he has used Iolo Morganwg's forged Triads as sources for history (see for example the erstwhile stub Carnoban), and thoroughly misinterpreted the words of Geoffrey Ashe in order to propagate untruths in articles related to Glastonbury Abbey. Just par for the course with this one, I'm afraid.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And most of his stuff I find a bit boring and obscure, which doesn't make me inclined to bother I'm afraid, but I will from time to time. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Hi. You had protected this article pending dispute resolution on August 28. I filed a request for dispute resolution and had apparently filed in the wrong place, so I refiled with WP:MEDCAB. It hasn't been picked up yet and the protection expired today. The second edit after expiration was vandalism. I'm wondering, since dispute resolution has not begun, is if protection can be returned. Posts by the other editor on the MEDCAB request indicates that it may still be needed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one instance of simple vandalism necessitates protecting the page for a longer period. Now, if if the edit warring starts back up, that's another matter. I'll keep an eye out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the other editor realized the protection had expired until tonight. He's asked on the article talk page if he can edit now. I refrained from answering because I don't expect he will take anything I say in good faith. He's even tried to continue arguments on the MEDCAB request, claiming I've opened a biased request - ??. I can't see this going well, he's even complained because I refuse to discuss anything pending dispute resolution. I can foresee a minor stroke on my part before this is over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that his first edit to the article tonight returned unsourced content that I removed tonight in the way of a hidden comment and his second edit [1] was to revert this revert you had made when you protected the article. Hopeless. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll tell him to stop edit warring or be blocked. I had hoped that mediation might have an effect but it looks like it's going really slow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin you should self-revert your last revert, when I try to restore my section edit, she claims I cannot revert an admin. You were taking anti-edit-war precautions that is alright. Yet, I explained why my edit was right fully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-01/Jesse_James#Various_issues_with_a_single_revert She does not participate in debates over historical facts. So either she should stop reverting me, or I need some other independent editors who has knowledge on history to evaluate my proposals. I added many more WP:RS for each case. I will add more WP:RS over other cases including Hobsbawm. 1.5 month passed, that is equal to topic ban to me in practice, just because another user chose to revert all of my additions. Kasaalan (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

My reply at User talk:MidnightBlueMan. —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Cargo cult problem

Thanks, Cuchullain, for catching that novel-as-ref in Cargo cult. I'm embarrassed to admit to having read that section several times without noting the problem. Tim Ross (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I missed it myself for quite a long time. Someone has recently tried to add it back in, but novels just can't be used for statements of fact like that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

In order to get more input regarding our dispute at 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, I opened a topic at WP:RSN#Al_Jazeera. JRSP (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over American isn't due to ambiguity

Only perhaps in Spanish would American be ambiguous, that is have an uncertain meaning leaving readers in doubt as to which sense the author intended. Under an IP (actually two), I changed "linguistic ambiguity" to "controversy" because that agrees with the reference and is more accurate. (Ambiguous means more than multisense, additionally that particular line mentions that America has multiple senses.)The objection to using American is not rooted in how confusing it is but that it is offensive or technically inaccurate. If it were sincerely rooted in linguistic ambiguity, you'd expect reformers to advocate advoiding using the word in its rarer, less practical sense rather its most common, more practical sense.Jackessler (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

Did you intend to get rid of the Jesus Camp reference? Don't really care if it's there or not, but I would have liked an explanation. Serendi^podous 18:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to remove it, I just meant to move it. But looking at it, it's just a passing quote from a documentary, it doesn't seem important enough for the section at all. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I'll put it back if you want, or you can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Change by User:Cagwinn to King Arthur

I don't know too much about the welsh background of Arthur's name, could you put forward your opinion of User:Cagwinn's edit. I think it may be original research, but if the scholarship which is referenced is not necessarily "scholarly," but popular, well, then he may be right. SADADS (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, and leave a note for Hrothgar cyning, who added most of that material. Cagwinn may be right, but I don't know if outright removal is the solution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, yes, everything good -- caught up in checking proofs atm and writing, but otherwise fine (I really hate checking proofs; I always seem to miss something until just after I've sent them back...). All ok with you? On the matter of the King Arthur article, cagwinn is well-informed etymologically. My main concern is that the additions unbalance the piece a little. The section on 'Arthur's name' is now quite lengthy and I'm not sure that the article on Arthur isn't a better place to go into depth on the etymology. There is also what might appear to be a degree of 'original research' and/or opinion creeping in to the text there and in the bit on Arcturus, as there is in cagwinn's edits to the Lucius Artorius Castus page, which is more a problem here (as the page is an FA) than it is there (I mentioned it on the talk there, but he has improved the page considerably)... On Toby Griffin, he is an academic if not a particularly widely-cited one (off-the-top of my head), and it may be worth at least referencing his dual-naming theory to avoid people keeping adding it in in less acceptable forms, arguing that he is an academic etc etc. I've posted a comment to the talk page, anyway, let me know what you think :-) All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where the Wild Things Are (disambiguation)

Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Talk:Where the Wild Things Are (disambiguation).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James mediation cabal case

Thanks for your comment - I was indeed incorrect on my understanding of WP:COI so directing them to COIN was likely wrong. I've directed them, instead, to refile at WP:RFM since they've now tried informal mediation, which I think would ultimately go nowhere if I allowed it to continue further. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous people's day

Please don't edit war in the article. You dispute that this particular source is reliable. I disagree. That is a content disagreement, which if necessary should be hashed out on the talk page. I've found second sources for every statement where you requested a citation, or else removed the information as too weakly supported or tangential - so nothing rests solely on this source. However, it is a relevant source. I'll add it back to the article but only as a secondary informational link. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no edit war, I just removed a self-published personal website that doesn't appear to be reliable source. I didn't remove any of the statements sourced to it, assuming that reliable sources could be found for most of it. If you believe the source is reliable, that's fine, but the burden of evidence is on you as the one who introduced it. I see you have added it back in yet again; this is contrary to the preferred BRD method of editing. I encourage you to remove it pending discussion or until you can demonstrate its reliability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Charbonneau

Hi Cuchullain,

congratulations on your outstanding service to Wikipedia. Administrators like you to aid others in seeking truth and accuracy for the general public. I'm concerned about rejection on 10/14/09 of my recent edits on Jean Baptiste Charbonneau.

If this was done based on history, such action may be flawed. My edit is based on research done while earning an M. A. in history, as a doctoral Fellow at UCSD and while writing Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, Man of Two Worlds.

My earlier edit of the page dealt with uncovering primary documentation from CA mission archives establishing Charbonneau's offspring at San Luis Rey de Francia.

Respecting Wiki's reputation for accuracy, I decided to correct the many errors and inadequacies of the present historical version to enhance public research.

Immodestly, no one in a scholarly or academic setting, and no historian or writer has knowledege on the subject of Charbonneau that surpasses mine.

Books recently have been published on the subject with one (Museum of Human Beings) being listed as a historical reference on Wiki when it is clearly fictional history -- as described by the author himself.

In sum, please review your decision to delete, or give me the opportunity to correct the edit. Thank you. Mritter4u (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem looks to be that you removed sources all the sources and wikilinks that were already there: it's now clear you didn't remove them per se, but your edit messed up the formatting so it looked like they were all lost. There should be no problem if you go back and add your new sources in the proper format, and remove statements not attributed to reliable sources. I can help you along if you'd like.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Charbonneau

Dear Cuchullain, thank you for your kind note. I did mess up the formatting, for which I apologize. Actually, I tried to reformat as instructed, but am simply not very capable at the task. I'd very much appreciate your help in formatting. Michael Ritter```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mritter4u (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case

Hey thanks for the help on the book and Allen Weinstein. Just out of curiosity, how do I keep running into you everywhere I edit?

Thanks againSADADS (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar interests, I guess ; ) Good work on the book article, I'd never heard of it until I started reading about the case this morning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually do much of that, I did mostly clean up stuff and organization. I was doing a lot of work on Allen Weinstein and an arguement between a couple of editors led me there. SADADS (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dildo Arm

Hey, I saw today you made a redirect of Dildo Arm to Trinity Bay. Good work! I, myself, have been researching this area of the world. I am particularly interested in the origin of the name Dildo and how it got to come to be the name of the peninsula, island, and town. Are you knowledgeable in this subject? If so, I have opened discussion at Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador. Thanks! Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really don't know anything more about this, I was reading about Paleo-Eskimos and wound up there. I just saw that the Arm was part of the Bay and redirected it there, I have no idea how it got its name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tutagual and Miracula Nyniae Episcopi

Hello Cuchullain, I've created a stub for Miracula Nyniae Episcopi — it's a different document than Vita Sancti Niniani, and so should not redirect there. Also tweaked Tutagual of Alt Clut, regarding the lifetime of Saint Ninian — as stated in the article on Ninian, it was Ussher who said Ninian was 5th century (Bede said nothing on that score), and as the references state, Ussher had no basis for making this up. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch on the Miracula, and good work. I'll comment on Tutagual on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

James

Hi. I haven't filed the mediation request yet because Kasaalan made some indication that he was interested in dropping all of this for the time being [2]. He asked if I would tell him my health issues, which I did briefly on his talk page, and noted that he was considering taking a wikibreak to work on his thesis. He's not been back on Wikipedia since the 19th, when he posted that note, to respond. That may, or may not, be the reason, but if he wants to back off of this, I'm not going to insist he not. That's sort of where it stands. I don't think I should remove the RfC template, but it's a moot point, don't you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stemming off the dispute and the ensuing disruption is the ultimate goal, so if he's willing to do that voluntarily, that's a good thing. I think the RfC ought to be ended if only because no one can understand what his request even was. Tellingly, his poor English, and his insistence that it's on everyone else to clean up his many language errors for him, have become the biggest problem the article faces.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if he realized that requesting formal mediation would bring more attention to behavior issues, I really tried to make that clear. Admittedly, I was totally frustrated by how it kept coming back to what I felt were personal attacks. It is also frustrating mostly because the page had been quite stable for quite a long time. I really don't want to be the one to remove the RfC, I think it wouldn't be taken well. Perhaps in a day or two, depending on whether he responds to my note. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding

You are right, "Anon" was wrong in blaming you rather than looking through the history. And I was wrong in this regard for believing it before going to check for myself. I was busy yesterday and checked it this morning and you didn't do it, it was two anonymous users 66.75.10.163 and 81.147.143.69. Sorry again. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no sweat. It looks like our anonymous friend was just a bit overzealous and didn't assume good faith. Cheers and happy editing, I know we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rhwng Gwy a Hafren

Also worth a look, I think! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

heat

You seem to be catching heat from people who mention you in the 3rd person and then offer that they have had disagreements with you from time to time, as if it were relevant to the topic at hand. I notice that they don't say that you were incorrect and then offer evidence of it.

You must be doing something right, so hang in there, man. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. I suppose when you have that much confidence that you are right, there is no need for mere evidence. To quote Homer Simpson, "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Déisi

Hello Cuchullain, Thanks for the kind words and the rapid clean-up of "Déisi" (I concede, there is much on the technical side that still baffles). I have considered opening a Wikipedia account, but owing to other pressures remain for the moment an intermittent dabbler. Perhaps in the new year. Regards. 88.66.160.179 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.160.179 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Boyer (2nd nomination)

I have changed my stance to a merge of the cogent information inre his being the only minority lead in Prom Queen and then a redirect for this actor to that article, where he has his greatest current notability. I do believe he meets WP:ENT and I have shown that Movietome is not WP:SPS.... but yes, I can agree that there is currently just not enough to support the article on the actor past a bare stub. And while Wikipedia accepts stubs and loves them to then grow (as well it might in the future as the actor's career progresses), a merge at this time protects the history and the GFDL in the event of a future recreation of the article. Fair enough compromise? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just as soon have the article deleted for now, and perhaps be recreated if and when the actor gains some more notability as evinced by reliable sources. I don't think redirecting a BLP's name to a production he's associated with is the way to go (though I do think that this is the only thing for which he's incontrovertibly, if weakly, notable). But go ahead and suggest it at the AfD page, and well see how it goes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did and came to give you a heads-up. While Wikipedia allows and actually encourages stubs, it seems that the AfD has attracted the interest of many who do not belive that stubs should be allowed to stay and grow... and I do believe your nomination was made with the best of good faith. If a merge is nott acceptable, I will then deault to keep... based upon a conversation I began at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#WP:ENT, where it is pointed out that meeting ENT is actually an acceptable reason for allowing a stub to stay and grow as sources become available... and another at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Isn.27t_an_actor.27s_appearance_in_a_film_enough_to_show_he_was_IN_the_film.3F where it is agreed that the film's screen credits (even if the film is not posted online to watch) is acceptable to WP:Verify an actor's career. A keep is within line of policy and giudeline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I think I've said enough over there for now. We'll see how it turns out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Road

OK, no problem; but the videogamers will probably think you're dissing their beloved artform by trimming the reference back so severely. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that ;) But seriously, I'm a fan of the game myself, but it really doesn't need its own section if a rather cursory mention in an online interview is the only source. Undue weight and all that. I think it's represented sufficiently now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arwystli

Hello! Your submission of Arwystli at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Parzival

Hello CC. Re the above, you know, the job of the lede is to rehearse the contents of the page, with a special regard to establishing reasons for notability. You haven't got a thing about RW, have you? Apart from anything else, it's important to remember the difference in spelling. You know I think you're really competent and I admire your indstry but please, in general, do not be setting yourself up in your own mind as the chief editor and the "final say". Your place in wikihistory is already secure and I think it will be visible when you and I are past contributing - when we shall have to leave all our work to the dogs. Until then, please note that you are always welcome to question my edits, but it is uncivil to cancel them without notification. Regards as always. Redheylin (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Red, please don't take this very minor disagreement to heart. Note that I did not revert your edits, I only removed that one clause about Parsifal. Notable, sure, but it hardly needs to go in the introductory sentence, does it? I have added to the intro and the influence section so that Parsifal is mentioned up front, and placed a hat note lest readers confuse the two works. Please don't think I'm out to own this (or any) article; it needs a lot of work and any improvements are wanted and desired. Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK! "Be on my side, I'll be on your side". Please just beep me when you object - I am not funny about these things (unlike a couple of jokers I just ran across in another wikiworld!) It's no big. but silently vanishing good faith edits are disheartening: we'd end up having to check them all. At least all of yours are this side of sensible. Happy editing, see you soon. Redheylin (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming article

Hi Cuchullain. Feel free to contribute to User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland, or even post the article from it if I get slow.

Right now I'm just collecting material from the last two years, which the blogs are great for. Then I'll lay out all the articles. At some point the discussion will appear. DinDraithou (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, it's about time someone started making some damn sense of this stuff. I'll do what I can to help. Everything else aside, I think it's asinine that the Oppenheimer supporters around here have put themselves in a position where they don't need to provide sources defending their material, but skeptics are expected to provide sources refuting it. It would be one thing if Oppenheimer's book was discussed, fairly, in the proper places. But it's been injected all over Wikipedia, and the message has been "if you don't like it, prove it wrong". Recently some individual tried to rewrite Britons (historical), not because it needs serious attention (it does) but because it didn't sufficiently tow the line advanced by Oppenheimer. A proper article on genetic history will hopefully provide a base for a less one-sided discussion of all the issues involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You're spot on. I come across it everywhere on Wikipedia and never know what to do. Asking for sources refuting it has proven a successful strategy because there aren't any I know of that bother. No one needs to because everyone knows what it is. All there is to do is make the argument to a largely disbelieving crowd unfamiliar with basic population genetics, which means going nowhere. I end up giving them a few wikilinks to R1b etc which are fairly up-to-date but they never investigate and get smarter. All they get is more confident!

Now that Notuncurious is on board I hope we can get a Wales project going too. I didn't know this was an issue of his. DinDraithou (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arwystli

Hello! Your submission of Arwystli at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Arwystli

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arwystli, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cantrefi

Hello Cuchullain, we seem to have some overlap in watched pages, so I've noticed some of the good work you've been doing on cantrefi and other things Welsh. And congrats on the DYK for Arwystli.

On the comment that Gwrtheyrnion was not a cantref, I think that that would also apply to Cedewain, Mechain, and Cefeliog; they seem to be referred to as such on the map of the cantrefi ... they belong somewhere, but perhaps not there; not sure what the best handling would be. The fact that Lloyd didn't provide the answer is not encouraging, since he did a pretty good job of listing and describing those that are known (he also did not list everything for Powys Fadog and Powys Wenwynwyn).

Have been absorbed elsewhere for awhile, and will continue there until finished ... I should be able to use the stuff in some articles, we'll see. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know exactly how those territories appear in the lists, but they certainly had a strong enough tradition of autonomy that they are worth pointing out. I don't think we need to draw too fine a line around it; where a region is independent and noteworthy on its own, we should discuss them in relation to other such entities, whether commote or cantref. In contrast, if a commote is not independently notable - for example, if it is only distinguished as being is or uwch something - we don't need to mention it. In the case of Gwrtheyrnion, the lists are generally clear that it's a commote, but it was autonomous enough to confuse the issue of which cantref it was part of. It certainly had its own independent existence as early as the Historia Brittonum.

The whole thing seems to epitomize Lloyd's discussion of the arbitrary nature of some of the commotes and cantrefs - in some cases, a large independent region was broken into smaller cantrefs, in others, a smaller independent region might be made into a commote and joined with others to create a synthetic cantref. I'd like to read more, and more recent, before I offer any suggestions on how to deal with this in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Source

[3] Could you provide a reference? It would probably be better if we had some direct quotes from the work or such. Could you put information on the talk page in regards to it? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how did you manage to link the Welsh/English spellings? Haha, some of them were very difficult to figure out how they ended up on Wikipedia. Some of the Celtic/Welsh naming conventions make my eyes bleed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it's not easy! Welsh is certainly one of those languages where the sounds don't match up with how the letters are used in English, but it's not so bad once you get used to it. Much like French, if you can grasp that -eau has almost every vowel except for "o". Fortunately I've been reading about the history of Owain Gwynedd and his successors, and Southey sticks pretty close to the facts for that part of the poem, so I was able to pick them out. I'll provide cites for the Muldoon material soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. My problem was that Southey's spelling was chosen before there was a standard (is there even a standard now? I'll assume there may be one :) ). I was definitely not going to bother searching for the Aztec names. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Aztecs are on their own. There is standardized spelling for Welsh now, but as you say it's more difficult in cases like this, where unstandardized, Anglicized forms are being used. Fortunately there are plenty of other clues here, as the poem is set in the definite historical framework of late-12th century Gwynedd.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, would you want to help put together a "sources" section? I will post what kinds of sources Southey had access to and it could be a discussion of what was verifiably historical. It would only be a paragraph or two, and Google Books at least had a small handful of sources on those like Gwynedd and their treatment in fiction (i.e. in Southey). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help however I can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"once Celtic land" line in Wales

The change I made was "once Celtic land" - not "once a Celtic land" as you said in your edit note. Seeing as you asked, it meant that the area now known as Wales was once Celtic. Perhaps you can phrase it better? Phrasing historical matters in current articles is actually quite hard on Wikipedia. I don't mind deleting that info as such, but it's now a bit of a hanging sentence, and when that is the case, the original edit (which actually made no logical sense as a sentence) often gets re-placed. I don't really think its right to have the only mention of 'Celtic' in the Intro link to the very unsourced Celtic nations article to be honest. I'm happy to leave the phrase and link in (along side something more 'historical'), as I know how important it is to some people, but it is a compromise with me as I'm not really a fan of it at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that it was not a "once-Celtic" land, there are still many people there who speak a Celtic language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Beunans Ke

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beunans Ke, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Boswell

Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting issue

You have reverted my disambiguation page work because of unorthodox formatting. Was the issue the introduction, with the suggestions of "did you mean?" and the statement of a more comprehensive lsit follows? I was thinking the explanations would be more user friendly than just simply offering a list, and new users to Wikipedia may feel more comfortable with the added direction than suddenly arriving to a page they were not expecting. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There were a number of issues with it. Please see MOS:DAB for the way disambiguation pages are normally formatted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the following O'Neill page more acceptable? Several of the O'Neill dynasty and family pages are being merged, and i wanted to clean up the disambiguation page for that reason. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to EotD

I'm looking forward to your upcoming article Expulsion of the Déisi and have been watching its growth. DinDraithou (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's going to need work from people with deeper knowledge than I, especially in certain sections, but I think it will be a good start. I'll try and get off my ass and get it in the mainspace this week.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uí Bairrche; Crimthann mac Énnai. Info in second. See also Vortiporius. DinDraithou (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll go through those articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can O'Dea edit history be recovered and attached to the page?

Thank you for moving the article. The edit history was lost owing to an incorrect article move performed earlier by another user using the invalid copy-and-paste technique. This left the older article edit history lost or marooned. Do you know how to re-attach the lost edit history? Thank you. odea (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond at Talk:O'Dea--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MacedonArman people

Hello Mister!! Why you cancel native names of Aromanians?? (Njirlu (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

The source you gave didn't support your changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thing you are...how is that??? Why do not support??? You are rasist?? Am am MacedoArman and in my language this means Makedonji-Armanji !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Njirlu (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

==MacedonArman people==

Do not support because you dont want????????? you are rasist????? (Njirlu (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)) For Macedo-Vlachs i gave a book written by Matilda Caragiu, macedon-arman ethnicity and for makedonji-armanji (native name) i gave our concil site, and besides if cant accept a council site you must respect self determination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please explain you attitude!!!! Thank you! (Njirlu (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Matilda Caragiu was a linguist member of Romanian Academy!!!!!!!!!!! (Njirlu (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Your invited!

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In case it's of interest

Hello Cuchullain, I seem to remember that you once wished aloud that we had a map of the rivers of Wales, to use as a reference. I've put one up, in both List of rivers of Wales and List of lakes in Wales ... it'll have to do for now, until we get something better.

Also, put up an interim map of the commotes, in Commote ... maybe it will get someone to fill out some of the missing information. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good for a start. Hopefully seeing a map of the bodies of water will encourage others to expand on the idea, and maybe eventually we'll get series of more local maps like we have for cities, counties, and other regions (this is of course something that affects all regions, but Think Globally, Act Locally is good advice).

Good work with the commotes map. I plan on resuming the work I'd been doing on the commotes and cantrefs; hopefully this will help flesh out the picture.

On another note, I've noticed the great work you've been doing with the kingdoms, regions and tribes of North Britain and the Hen Ogledd. It is highly encouraging to see this, as Wikipedia's coverage of this area has been deficient for so long. I hope all is going well with your personal research. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For maps, the stuff I've been doing is fine for history and the past since it allows easy annotation integrated with the article, but for the modern stuff, I think something like this map of Man is much preferable. But for now, at least having some kind of a picture might help spur contributions. And yes, we need to expand material on cantrefi and commotes, probably to include enhancing those 2 articles as well, and including the treatment in Welsh law. It doesn't look like we'll run out of things that need doing, at least in the near future. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Conan Meriadoc

I notice that you have made extensive changes to this article, cited to "Bromwich". Obviously this is Rachel Bromwich, but the name "Bromwich" on its own is not much help as a citiation! Could you provide the title of the publication? I am also not convinced that Bromwich's theories should be presented unchalenged, since other sources accept that a historical Conan may have existed. For example the claim that "versions of his story circulated in both Brittany and Great Britain from at least the early 12th century, and supplanted earlier legends of Brittany's foundation" is presented as undisputed fact. And yet the Conan story does not contradict Gildas's account. In fact it is easy to reconcile with it (Gildas laments the fact that "a huge number" of British citizens departed with Maximus to the continent and never returned). Furthermore the so-called "two stage" model of Brythonic presence in Armorica is supported by Fleuriot, who asserts that archaeological evidence is consistent with a two-wave settlement pattern, supporting the possibility that an initial settlement established Maximus's followers was followed by the later influx. Of course this does not prove Conan's historicity. It's possible that a mythic narratives and personas were merged with a historical figure - after all this happened with other early Breton leaders such as Gradlon and Conomor. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you added Bromwich's Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain to the references section, so I assume that's the book you are referring to. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on doing some major work on the article and got cut off, I've now added the citation. As to Bromwich's theories, they are not really specifically hers. There is no evidence for Conan Meriadoc (that is, evidence connecting someone named Conan, Cynan, etc., with Brittany) until about the early 12th century. The earliest undisputed source for him is the Life of Gurthiern, c. 1118, and possibly the Life of Goeznovius, though the date for that is disputed. Notably, neither of these connect him with Magnus Maximus. After that it's all romance and suggestion. I think Fleuriot said it best: Maximus may have had someone named Conan in his army who may be the source for this figure, but "could anyone ever prove this?" At any rate I plan on doing a good bit of work on this and related articles, which I hope to get to soon. --Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've made some alterations myself, but the article needs to be greatly improved. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions for this editor?

Someone has asked me about Early British Kingdoms (the website) here. I can't recall where we had that discussion. Do you have any suggestions for him? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond at your talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Expulsion of the Déisi

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Expulsion of the Déisi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

EMA

I see that you beat me to it. Still looks like it needs some re-working, but that's for later. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just changed some of the more egregious misinformation and overbroad characterization while I had a minute. The rest can wait until after the holidays. Speaking of which, happy holidays!--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And to you and yours, as well! Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Holiday Offer"

FYI: This topic on Gwen Gale's talk -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Proofreader77....Again --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)