Talk:Kalolaa-kumukoa

Kalolaa-kumukoa

Please move this back to Kalola-a-Kumukoa. The rationale for this move is ridiculous basing on a misspelling of Esther T. Mookini's article. Edith K. McKenzie calls her Kalola-a-Kumukoa; a Hawaiian newspaper article in the 19th century called her "Kalola a-Kumukoa." The sources also call her Kalola, daughter of Kumukoa. Also Sammy Amalu uses Kalola-a-Kumukoa in Story of Maui Royalty. "Kalolaa" is a misspelling as indicated by the fact no more than one source uses it. Will you agree to a move back or should I submit a request move?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also Esther K. Mookini was clearly writing Kalolaakumukoa not "Kalolaa-kumukoa." It only came out as

"...His first wife was Kalolaa-

kumukoa, daughter of Moloka'i chief..."

because the line ended on the page. Mookini doesn't use any hyphenated names in the main body of her article for any of the figures she speaks about; :her only use of hyphens in Hawaiian names are at the ends of lines on the page. For example, a page in a work appearing as Abra-

ham Lincoln is not a source arguing that the 16th president's name was spelled Abra-ham Lincoln. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merge to Kamehameha I, I think. It seems like both interested parties think a merge is the best outcome, but then they started bickering with each other again so buggered if I know for sure. Regardless, there is definitely not a consensus to move this article anywhere. Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Kalolaa-kumukoa → Kalola-a-Kumukoa or some other form besides the current title – Inline with the few reliable source on the subject. In the source (Esther T. Mookini "Keopuolani: Sacred Wife, Queen Mother, 1778-1823", p. 10) used to rationalized the recent move to "Kalolaa-kumukoa," a good faith edit, the author Esther T. Mookini is spelling "Kalolaakumukoa" with a break in the line on the page. I don't think this is a source in support of the spelling "Kalolaa-kumukoa." I encourage other users to look at page 10 of Mookini's article and tell me if they think differently; the pdf is in the handle net link on the page. The older title is supported by three reliable sources: Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, p. 476; Edith Kawelohea McKinzie's Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers, Vol. 2, p. 13, and Kapiikauinamoku's (Sammy Amalu) Story of Maui Royalty linked above. --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC) --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose all the names are wrong as MOS is actually clear that we should be using Hawaiian orthography and there is no hyphen in the name however, just asking for anything other than what is current is not a good faith request.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  So are you suggesting Kalolaakumukoa? My only argument is that this current name is wrong and never used in the source so it shouldn't stand. I made that statement because that is my central opposition to the recent move that it was not representative of the sources and because I wanted to demonstrated I was open to moving it any other suggested titles used by reliable sources or a move back to the original title also found in reliable source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

collapsed off-topic – czar 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use Requested Moves to illustrate a point.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Miller. Let me ask you. Would you have reverted my edit if I moved the article back to Kalola-a-Kumukoa on June 19? I think yes. Request move is the most proper procedures and neutral way for moving a page because it limits the edit-warring,z move back and forth that would occur otherwise.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) What the fuck is wrong with you? How many times do you have to be told to discuss the contribution and not the contributor? I invited you to help with these articles, you feigned disinterest and then immediately began working on the same articles I am after you stated publically you have no interest OK...then get off my back. If you wish to use Wikipedia collaboration venues to carry on some personal vendetta against me out of some misplaced perception ANI is thataway. Otherwise I stand firm that the article title not be changed at this time. Oh...and I won't change article titles you change without a long discussion and I know I have demonstrated my ability to engage you in lengthy discussion but if all you have are attacks on me, friendliness is out the door. I will be civil but when it requires such but that is all. I see you as simply a borderline POV pusher who can't seem to work well with others.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) The good faith move on June 19 was made with a misunderstanding of the source used to justified thus it was wrong. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion so I am not engaging in it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) In other words, you will make personal attacks then ignore the justified reply. You have no clue what you are talking about. You are just spouting off your POV. This move request was nothing more than you being a disruptive editor yet again, right after I tried to offer you a true olive branch and share family genealogy that, as I understand it, is very relevant to Wikipedia content. If you wish to show the size of your balls attacking me, then justify the ignorance of this proposal when you have yet to demonstrate that you have accurate information to change the title to. you don't and you don't care. As long as you can disrupt my editing you are satisfied...and then you go off in other articles with original research and absolute nonsense to attack the subjects and situations I am researching in inappropriate ways. I am keeping my eye on you. if you feel such needs to be done with me feel free to contact an admin. I am.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I will kindly ask you to stop attacking me and insulting me with false accusations of malevolent intents in disrupting your editing. These articles have been on my watchlist since 2012; you're recent move was an inappropriate use of the source thus I challenged it with the most neutral way possible this move request. I have demonstrated three sources that used Kalola-a-Kumokoa and one source that used Kalolaakumokoa. This move request was made to get something done without getting my edits reverted. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC) You made the personal attack on me. I defended myself. You should expect your edits to be reverted. Attempts to keep your edits from being reverted in this manner is NOT good faith. Try learning what that means if you do not already know.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) How is my rhetorical question "Let me ask you. Would you have reverted my edit if I moved the article back to Kalola-a-Kumukoa on June 19? I think yes." comparable to "size of your ball," "You have no clue," "What the fuck is wrong with you?" or the other profanity you have spouted off against me in the past along with that disgusting tone as you falsely speculate my malicious intents and personal inclination. Every confrontation I have had with you, I have been unable to edit or challenge your edits on the main pages. I tried editing Kamehameha's page and my and other users' many year old contributions were deleted and my attempts to edit it, to reflect what all the historical opinions were on the subject, was reverted because of your POV on what is fact and what is opinion and your POV decision on what sources are fact and which sources are opinions. I tried reversing a change of image a while back also; every attempt I made was reverted. Stop making baseless accusation that my use of request moves are ploys to undermine you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• as MOS is actually clear that we should be using Hawaiian orthography and there is no hyphen

  @Mark Miller, what part of the MOS are you referencing? – czar 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles actually covers this in a number of ways. Consensus is:

Orthography, spelling and formatting: describes what the accepted Native Hawaiian orthography is. Special characters states to "In general, follow the orthography of use for the kahakō and ʻokina wherever possible when using Hawaiian words and phrases".

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Spelling in article titles: "Article titles can be contentious. Whenever possible, the most common name should be used with the regional spelling and orthography preferred for titles and consistently used when referring to the subject in the body of the article. Sometimes, Hawaiian related articles may have titles that are not using the regional spelling and orthography. If consensus holds for spelling in the title that ignores the diacritic marks, create a redirect that does. All titles with the native orthography, in turn should have a redirect page for the normal English spelling. Spelling in the running text should be consistent with the regional spelling. Therefore, articles that have not used the diacritics in the title, will list the native language spelling as an alternative, alongside the title spelling in the lede and then repeat the alternative spelling consistently throughout the running text in the body of the article. Discussion may be needed to gain a consensus on articles where an earlier consensus has established a particular spelling in the title if the spelling in the article differs from that title.".

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Ancient names speaks directly to the use of hyphens: "As stated above, use kahakō and ʻokina in the body, but avoid them (this is actually outdated. A discussion on the talk page indicates that the use of the orthography was discouraged over misunderstanding over the MOS direction against special characters in titles. Orthography is preferred but if there is a dispute over the use of either diacritic to just not use the diacritics at all) (and apostrophes) in the article titles. The older style of using hyphens is more popular for pre-historic figures, and may be mentioned for clarification'. This basically is saying that, it was popular at one time to use them pre-historic figures, and can be mentioned in the body of the article, but all other guidelines make it clear to either use the proper orthography or non at all. This Kalola is not a prehistoric figure.

There is one other section that directly relates to names, under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Hawaiian monarchs. Basically the reign name is used with any ordinal, but we can't seem to get people to stick to that either. Charles Kanaina should actually be Kanaʻina. No need for the ordinal because the other figure who this man was named after had a name he was actually known by that was entirely different. In this case it is possible that Kalola I, Kalola II could be used but, we do not have enough sources that make use of ordinals except when trying to clarify over the two being discussed in the source (I only found one) and there are at least 4 or 5 subjects named kalola and I am not sure we have enough right now to determine the use of ordinals. These figures are almost always identified by full names, then referred to by the shortened use.

Basically the request is to change this to anything and I oppose on the basis that we don't have the correct spelling identified as yet. This happened at Pa'u riders where the editor requested a name change after I had created the article and researched the proper spelling of the tradition, but forgot about the use of the apostrophe. But because the request was for just anything, the back and forth got out of hand we are now stuck with the spelling until it can be properly changed by an admin to Paʻu riders (the rough consensus spelling based on regional dialect pronunciation that seems to be how the word is spoken) because the okina cannot be added in a "move" only in the creation of a new article. Both the requesting editor and myself believe in using proper orthography...we just can almost never decide on what the proper orthography is until a third party weighs in.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I expressed "or some other form besides the current title" in the request because I was willing to discuss other title if sources could be found to support it; similarily I expressed the same thing in the other requests (irrelevant to this discussion). The sources do not support "Kalolaa-kumukoa" or any version which spells it "Kalolaa" hence my opposition to the current title. The use of the hyphens was accepted throughout the 19th and 20th century and has only fall out of popularity today within certain circles; however, modern sources still exist which continue to use the hyphens in Hawaiian names, so Wikiproject Hawaii doesn't have any right to prohibit it. Nor does the current reading of MOS explicitly prohibits the use of hyphens in names. Modern orthography would favor Kalolaakumukoa (supported by one source) or Kalola a Kumukoa (the a between names is a common Hawaiian naming practice indicating Kalola (daughter/son (depending on the gender)) of Kumukoa) without the use of the hyphens but not "Kalolaa-kumukoa" which is neither found in secondary sources or supported by Hawaiian orthography. The older title may not be orthographically correct in certain circles today who advocate the removal of hyphens but it is supported by reliable sources. If the hyphens are the problem, I wouldn't be oppose to the moving the page to Kalolaakumukoa or Kalola a Kumukoa either or even Kalola (daughter of Kumukoa). Ordinals are Western introductions and rarely used by Hawaiians unless in the context of their monarchs, so Kalola I, II, III are just nonesense.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let's stop discussing the technicalities of the RM and find the proper title.

  I oppose on the basis that we don't have the correct spelling identified as yet ... Both the requesting editor and myself believe in using proper orthography...we just can almost never decide on what the proper orthography is until a third party weighs in.

  For the former, when or how do you propose identifying it, if you haven't already? For the latter, what are the options and what are the arguments for/against each? Or do we need to wait on this until the Hawaii MOS subpage discussion is complete? I put a notice on the main MOS talk for more participation. I also might offer that if an article subject lacks the secondary source coverage to have more than a few sentences written about her, it might make more sense to merge the subject into a parent subject where it can later spin out summary style. – czar 19:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The best way to determine the correct orthography is to disregard the sources using hyphens and look towards sources using the okina. I also strongly agree that, in this case it might be better to merge this article to Kamehameha I under the family section. That portion can surely be expanded since he had many wives and many children. While there are a number of sources that refer to the subject, how much of it is just covering the same thing or repeating an older source verbatim.

The discussion at the MOS is now stale and seems to have run its course with as much agreement as is possible at the moment. A lot of that discussion did get put into the MOS but it looks like some portions still need updating. Now, as a Native Hawaiian who has been researching both the royal lines and common lines, I can tell you, the western use of ordinals is definitely used for subjects within the scope of the Kingdom of Hawaii which was designed with a more western influence that eventually became official. In the genealogies of Hawaiian families ordinals whenever a name is repeated and names are repeated enough times that ordinals become almost vital, in records today, even when names are not exactly the same. There are several Kānekapōlei. There is a Kānekapōlei I and Kānekapōlei II even though the second was actually called Kahiwa Kānekapōlei. The Bishop Museum does it, The University of Hawaii does it as do many academics that cover the widest variety of biographies. But...that is not an argument for the ordinals here, just that it is a reasonable option and from another request it is clear we have to clarify exactly who would be Kalola I and the request for the shorter name on the other page is probably not the first or primary subject, if the be a primary subject "Kalola". Let me check a few things.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by the turn of the discussion. The Okina angle was excluded in my original request since an edit summary by Mark Miller on 14:59, June 19, 2015 made me assume he would disregard it if I did. But I am in support of the use of the okina since that was how Kamakau spelled her name and the Kamehameha Schools Press is a reliable source on the issue. Proper orthography can include the hyphen or replace it with spaces or merge into one word. Merging this article is the best because she is not a notably covered personage in Hawaiian history even as a wife of Kamehameha I. Everything known about her could be synthesized into a few sentences on Kamehameha's page if needed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of Western ordinal is tangential here. I've only mentioned it because it was mentioned. But no, Western orthography needs to disregarded as a much as possible because it is not a correct method of differentiating two people who were non-reigning figures. When reliable sources are actually reviewed, as was in Charles Kanaina's article, in most cases ordinals are hardly ever used to differentiate. Instead, often it's secondary names or familial context which are used to differentiate figures who shared the same name. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, but this is why we can't move forward. Whenever there is even a slight chance of discussion in Hawaiian related articles with the editor, this seems to be the end result. No matter how we get to a certain point, something they feel needs to be voiced is done so in what can only be seen as discussing the contributor and not the contribution, meant entirely as a personal attack for any number of reasons. Lets just move forward now please.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

These arguments always end in the bringing up of old discussion time and time again and putting up fictitious allegations of my malintent instead of addressing the principal problems of the article I had in the first place, which was the incorrect spelling "Kalolaa-kumukoa" (the contribution) which was not substantiated by the source used to validate the move. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously......your just not going to stop are you?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• " Proper orthography can include the hyphen or replace it with spaces or merge into one word." That is not from the MOS and I am not familiar with the hyphen as being an acceptable part of Hawaiian orthography. In fact that runs counter to what we know about not using the apostrophe to repalce the okina. I believe that is not accurate, but it is also not to our MOS on Hawaiian related articles. That would need a consensus to modify that portion to include, I believe. We don't even really have wording that the hyphen is to be used for prehistoric names.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Kamehameha Schools Press is a reliable source on the issue". No. Kamehameha schools press is only a publisher. They are not a "RS". The publisher is part of what makes up a reliable source and the strength of each determines how strong the reliable source is for the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Western orthography needs to disregarded as a much as possible because it is not a correct method of differentiating two people who were non-reigning figures". I don't follow the logic here. The MOS is clear to use ordinals for monarchs which is clearly westernized. Academia does use ordinals for the nobles Aliʻi chiefs. The listings of the Hawaiian Royal Family do use ordinals, but I think we know that it is a case by case basis on Wikipedia to determine such use. The MOS indicates guidance for monarchs but it lacks guidance for Ali'ʻi. There is no particular reason to see this person or these figures as I, II, III yet, but I contend the option remains. I do not think we have researched enough to exclude it at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• To identify the proper orthography we should probably start from the last name as a person we can identify as being another chiefly line. I believe the proper orthography for the Chiefly line is Kumukaʻo.[1][2][3][4][5]--Mark Miller (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Totally, agree. I left out the discussion of the okina because I assumed it would be an uphill argument based on your edit summary on 14:59, June 19, 2015.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if your assumption of me is relevant?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I believe, at the very least, we have consensus that RM is moot as we have consensus to merge the content to Kamehameha I.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Further action should be left to a neutral third-party editor or an administrator but I agree consensus is for a merge.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a neutral third party to take action, but we do need an admin to do a history merge so the merge itself should probably be left for that time.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Per, this edit I can at least assume the edtor misunderstood that there has been no consensus formed on the spelling of the name.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit seems to show acknowledgement that there was a possible merge about to occur from this discussion, about the spelling of the name they just changed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well please revert the edit if that is the case. I think consensus needs to be reached on the validity of the "Kalolaa-kumukoa" spelling, which has never been directly addressed here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe your actions do indicate bad faith and show a pattern or edit warring against the consensus of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I know my action are not in bad faith and I do not need to tire myself on repeating this...There is no consensus for the spelling "Kalolaa-kumukoa," so I am not editing against consensus; I may be editing against a lack of a consensus on the spelling. I abstained from boldly reverting the June 19, 2015 move on this page entirely because I didn't want to edit war. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a bad faith edit. It is the very definition of bad faith editing as it is not an honest edit done in good faith and is disruptive. It is edit warring in that it is a pattern you show of initiating a move or move discussion and then editing on a different article in a manner to pre-determine the result of the consensus discussion you, yourself began. Such bad faith editing can only result in a retraction of my decision to support a merge, as I formally do so now. I rescind support of a merge. I stick to my oppose of the RM and since this pattern of disruption seems aimed at edits to the Hawaiian Royal Family articles I feel an ban is needed. Since this pattern seems to be connected at this time to my edits on these articles yet none of my edits on any other unrelated articles, but can be seen to be a pattern taken with other editors as well, I request KAVEBEAR voluntarily ban himself from all articles related to the Hawaiian Royal family broadly construed (An WP:IBAN would not be appropriate since I believe this pattern can be demonstrated with the editor and others in a disruptive manner). Trying to keep content disputes separated from behavioral issues can be daunting, but I think I have seen enough to ask that this now be addressed voluntarily or formally.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Going off a useless tangent again...My behavior and edits have never been in a bad faith or disruptive or done in the name of edit warring. My recent edit on Kamehameha I may have been premature and can be reverted but it does not constitute bad faith, disruptive editing or edit warring. Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Page move war encourage talk page discussion as an alternative to edit warring on the main pages. My edits may not be to Mark Miller's liking but they are not and have never been in bad faith. A voluntary ban will not happen because I stand by the fact that I have done no wrong. I request Mark Miller ceased with these offensive allegations. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just a Request to Move this article. It may not be the best place to continue this discussion. If you refuse to revert your clearly bad faith edits, I will have no choice but to report you for the disruptive editing at WP:ANI as the next step in requesting admin intervention.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the demonstration of good faith by reverting that edit to the Kamehameha I article.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] My premature edit done in the absence of a consensus was reverted since consensus on the spelling is still being discussed here on this page. I don't seem it as a demonstration of bad or good faith. A valid point (the prematurity and lack of consensus) was made and thus the edits was reverted. Existing spelling still lack consensus or reliable source.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your perception, acting in good faith is expected of editors on Wikipedia. It is a core belief under the fifth pillar: "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". That core belief goes on to say: "Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others". I believe you are clearly demonstrating a lack of knowledge of our core principles, guidelines, and polices. I believe you are not acting in good faith here and in a number of other related articles that have to do with my edits or previous discussions where you refuse to understand the how the Hawaiian aliʻi system works and edit biographies with a specific bias concerning the kaukau aliʻi as well as a history on Wikipdia of creating articles where you admit on the talk pages to getting the Aliʻi ʻAimoku and Aliʻi nui titles mixed up even after other Native Hawaiian editors told you the Aliʻi nui was the supreme ruler and the Aliʻi ʻAimoku was a district chief your effused to correct those articles and I waited a long while before I decided to clean them up. You have the capacity to learn because your formatting of references has improved, but I still have major concerns over the way you use sources and many times in you are adding POV or narrative to the claim that does not exist in the source or should not be translated literally. "Lowly" is not encyclopedic nor accurate when describing a kaukau aliʻi. When you are writing about another culture, you don't seem to be very sensitive. You treat Native Hawaiian with "biting". I had to once complain about you making an accusation that I was "Dishonoring the memory" of a person as a personal attack. Much of the issue is from the clean up work or, just trying to expand or add to an article and suddenly, even after saying you have no interest, you are at two of the first articles I begin any work on and when there is a title move (something you have demonstrated to very concerned over) you use particularly aggressive and uncivil edits and tactics. Discussion with you are almost always heated and out of control because you refuse to follow normal Wikipedia procedures. You "game the system", "Wikilawyer" and disrupt articles and talk pages and have a long term pattern. You have been here at Wikipedia since 2/10/2008 and have 31378 edits at this time. You should know more about our policies on reliable sources, BRD, verification, BLP policies and many other guidelines.

This is not a formal ANI so I am offering no diffs. But I request that you voluntarily take an WP:IBAN from further interaction with me. Such bans can be requested to be lifted in 6 months if community IBAN so a voluntary Iban would be for that time period. Understand that this does not effect your editing any topic or even from weighing in on the same topic or talk page as me, but just not with me or about me in any way. While I am not volunteering for an Iban, by your accepting such, I also will be limited to discussing you on talk pages because it would be baiting or taking advantage of your volunteering and since it is voluntary would only mean a discussion of different options then, but I would be able to revert or alter your edits on older articles to continue cleanup. I believe I am assuming good faith by believing your actions are simply because you do not know how to properly work on Wikipedia. This is the simplest solution.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I am really not going to respond to these accusations; I see as much fault with your editing but I will not continue this any longer. I will not ban myself in anyway or form. But I will continue to limit my interactions with you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I am removing this article, Kamehameha I, Kalola Pupuka-o-Honokawailani from my watchlist as I have done months ago with Pāʻū riders and Levi Haalelea's aritcles. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You clearly know when to avoid admin intervention if given a choice. You have a clear block log, however I see a pattern of bias editing you seem very adamant about defending, yet many mistakes you refuse to correct. You say you are going to refuse a voluntary Iban, yet say you are going to drop all these articles you list. I have seen this scenario played out over the last few years myself over and over. You even have declared retirement then semi retirement, yet you keep coming back even more disruptive than before. If you cannot collaborate with me and others, just who is it you will collaborate with and what does it take to you to get over your own issues with others to get you to work together. You seem very interested in sticking around, regardless of your template. if you are, you, you are eventually going to have to face this accusation. You have so many accusations to hurl at me. Fine, but I repeat, you are aggressive in a manner that is defensive, insensitive and uncivil and you lack the experience of Wikipedia's core values and guidelines. It is time some formal venue is begun to discuss this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2024)

Kalolaa-kumukoa → Kalola-a-Kumukoa or Kalolaakumukoa or Kalola (daughter of Kumukoa) – Inline with the few reliable sources on the subject.

• In the source (Esther T. Mookini "Keopuolani: Sacred Wife, Queen Mother, 1778-1823", p. 10) used Kalolaakumukoa not Kalolaa-kumukoa, with a break in the line on the page. The hyphen is used to connect the two parts of the name. See the pdf

Kalola-a-Kumukoa in some variation is used in: Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, p. 476; Edith Kawelohea McKinzie's Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers, Vol. 2, p. 13, Kapiikauinamoku's (Sammy Amalu) Story of Maui Royalty [The story of Maui royalty — Ulukau books link], and this newspaper article by Robert W. Wilcox [Robert Wilcox sounds off, 1898. | nupepa (nupepa-hawaii.com) link]. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It appears that the consensus from the above RM to merge this article was never actually carried out. In the absence of any new consensus, I think the correct resolution to this RM would be to implement the consensus from the previous RM. Relisting to see if a new consensus can form. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)