User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 14

DYK for Tacatacuru

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Funnier than the student film bit

Look at the talk page edits by 97.106.241.66 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"More astonishing dirty tricks from Dougweller". I can only assume you were twirling your mustache villainously as you made those edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, they were way over the line with the personal comments. I left them a warning on their talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm to play along with this, right? Funny indeed. So okay, thank you for your input "Cuchullain." Now if you're done trying your best to make light of the scandalous behavior of your buddy Doug, may I ask if you have any idea of why I may have said what I did before you started trivializing the situation with your cute little comment about mustache twirling? I'm supposed to take you serious right - maybe that's the funny part? How about you look at the gross abuse of admin powers by your partner Doug, who uses his unsourced, unfounded opinions to delete valid citations from prestigious newspapers? Would you like to learn about that? Or his instigation of an edit war employing endless contrived excuses in the wiki-arsenal that I have continuously shot down only to be faced with a new excuse? Did you send him any warnings for abusing his position? Rhetorical question. This is all being documented so I suggest you drop the wisecracks because you're only making matters worse. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Will your documentation include mention of any old accounts you had? You've made it clear you aren't new. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous experience was maybe 4-5 years ago at a different location and is entirely unrelated to this topic and your current censorship activities (as far as I know). Different case, similar display of censorship of valid info, the similarities end there. Never had an account nor do I remember my IP.

Now then, Cuchullain, would you like to learn about the recent abusive activities of your friend, Dougweller? Are you going to warn him against abusing his privileges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.241.66 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it that time of year ?

Well, well, the school terms are (almost) over and little 'controversies' pop up everywhere, ignited by editors who seem utterly clueless when it comes to reliable sources and NPOV. It's probably best to wait until September and revert the hell out of. I won't be around much the next two months or so (though you'll never know), so I hope you'll enjoy the Summer. Take care, Cavila (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, when I was a student I used summer break to surf, drink beer, and work. It seems like some elements of the current crop rather prefer fighting for The Truth on the internet. Kids today! At any rate, enjoy the time off, we'll try to make sure Wikipedia is still here when you get back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We still have a hunting season newbie season? I thought Eternal September was in full effect around here... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Utina

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahatallah

Hey Djwilms, if you get a chance, could you look at the brewing fiasco at Ahatallah? It may be slightly out of your area, but as a published author on the Church of the East, combined with your knowledge of the Syriac Orthodox Church, I think your opinion would be most valuable. The talk page will show you exactly the way the debate is going.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Cuchullain.

Here's my own take on Ahatallah, from my forthcoming book:

The Saint Thomas Christians remained within the fold of the Catholic church for the next six decades, but during this period they grew increasingly restive. The Syrians quite liked the conciliatory Jesuit bishop Francis Roz (1600–24), who showed some sensitivity to their age-old traditions, but they disliked his successors Stephen Britto (1624–41) and Francis Garzia (1641–59), who did not. Under Garzia’s episcopate they began to complain that the few privileges and exemptions granted them at the synod of Diamper were being infringed. In 1650 they secretly wrote to the Mosul patriarch Eliya IX Shem‘on (1617–60) and his Kochanes counterpart Shem‘on XI (1638–56), and also to the Jacobite patriarch in Antioch and the Coptic patriarch in Alexandria, asking for a Syrian bishop to be sent to them. Two years later a Syrian bishop, Cyril Ahatallah, duly arrived. Originally a Jacobite bishop of Damascus, Ahatalla had formally converted to Catholicism in 1632 and had consequently been drummed out of the Syrian Orthodox church. In 1650 he was living in Cairo, at something of a loose end, and was shown the letter from the Saint Thomas Christians by the Coptic patriarch. Seizing his opportunity, he persuaded the Mosul patriarch Eliya IX Shem‘on to consecrate him metropolitan of India and China (his Catholicism apparently being no bar to this appointment) and sailed to India to seek his fortune. On his arrival in Meliapur in 1652 he was promptly arrested by the Portuguese as a schismatic, in that his claims infringed the pope’s authority, and was deported to Lisbon to be questioned by the Inquisition. He seems to have died in Paris in 1659 while being taken to Rome for further questioning.

As far as I can see, it agrees fairly closely with what's in the article (I've just skimmed it), but the article doesn't mention Ahatalla's consecration by the Nestorian patriarch Eliya IX (unless I've missed it somewhere).

My immediate comment is that the article is one of the best-written 'Syriac' articles I have yet seen on Wikipedia (your work, perhaps?), and that it seems to be stating the facts fairly and moderately.

Take a look at my paragraph to see if my understanding agrees with yours. If it does, I might be able to suggest some more sources for Ahatalla. I've not actually read the book that is at the centre of dispute, and I'll need to do some digging to unearth the sources I used for my paragraph. There were several, I know.

Djwilms (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, that is very helpful. Yes, the article is mostly written by me, but it was the subject of some major flak from an army of single-purpose accounts who turned out to be sockpuppets of an abusive editor. I hope it's simmered down since that's been taken care of, but I've really scaled back my work to Church of the East and Indian Christianity articles, as it's just so exhausting.

The only incongruity between your passage and my understanding is the bit you mention about Ahatallah's consecration by the Nestorian patriarch. The sources I've looked at don't include this detail; Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India says that Ahatallah left for India from Egypt, and claimed to be Patriarch of China and All India on the authority of the (Roman) Pope. Neill says that this claim is obviously untrue, and that it is also undemonstrated and unlikely that the Coptic Patriarch consecrated him either. Of course later the Portuguese were accusing him of "Nestorianism", but they accused a lot of people of a lot of things. Not to impose, but if you could give us your source for that detail, it would be very valuable to add to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now ordered Neill's book (both volumes) in order to bring myself up to speed on this issue. I have in fact read Neill's History of Christian Missions (part of the Pelican History of the Church), which covers India in some detail, and no doubt his position is the same in both books. I'll try to find the sources (a) for Ahatalla's consecration by Eliya IX and (b) for the report that he died in Paris in 1659. I know I have consulted several sources, including a couple of learned journal articles, for Ahatallah. I thought it was now common ground that he was not put to death in India, and that allegations to the contrary were just inflammatory rumours put about by the Syrians. Evidently not.

I'm not quite sure why there is all this talk about a Catholic bias. A scholarly bias, perhaps, and an interest in establishing the truth and overturning hoary old legends, but that's quite a different matter.

Djwilms (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I remember (I'm still trying to track down the sources), one of the most telling points in favour of Ahatallah's consecration by the Nestorian patriarch Eliya IX is his title 'metropolitan of India and China'. The Jacobites never had a metropolitan province for China, while the Nestorians added China to the title of the metropolitans of India some time after the collapse of the exterior provinces in the fourteenth century. The sixteenth-century Nestorian/Chaldean metropolitans of India all bore the title 'India and China'.

Djwilms (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is very interesting. For his part Neill says that Ahatallah was claiming his position on the authority of the Pope. He says that of course there was nothing to this, and there is no indication that the Coptic Patriarch commissioned him, and there's no way the Jacobite patriarch would have done so either. He does say that Ahatallah was claiming to be "Patriarch of the whole of India and of China, not metropolitan. At any rate if you can dig up those citations, or (better) once your own book is published, we can work it in to the article. If we can ever get past this sockpuppet fiasco, we might turn this article into a decent resource.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Ahatallah

In view of the bewildering diversity of particulars about Ahatallah (or is it Ahthulla), furnished from different quarters, I wish to mention that it is almost impossible to establish the true identity of this prelate, who set out to help the Saint Thomas Christians of Malabar (Kerala). As far as I know, there are six different beliefs about him.

The Wikipedia article Ahatallah expresses only one view, that of the Roman Catholic missionaries. Many of the information given in that opinion are questionable. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Neduvelilmathew, I responded at Talk:Ahatallah.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

question about revision

Hello, I was wondering why you removed my revision to the immram article. Why is C.S. Lewis' book considered notable when the many westward voyages of Tolkien's works are not? Tolkien's original idea of the Silmarillion seems very much like an immram, wherein a sailor sails west into a magical world.

Hawkwing74 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the edits to immram? If so, the material about Lewis was cited to a source discussing it; the material about Tolkien was not. Apologies if I seemed quick on the draw, but without a source, the importance of the mention in Tolkien wasn't established.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusations

You should not accusatuions so fast. It is disruptive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathenkozhencherry. You shouldnt have protection on talk page, It keeps other good faith editors like me from editing. 4747longstreet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC).

Yes, Fyodor, I'm sure you would prefer to be able to resume your sockpuppetry and disruption. Unfortunately others do not see this as particularly productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks

Please remember to use Preview (I know it's so easy not to), to preserve proper 'Contents' indentation (see here). Thanks, --Trafford09 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FSU History - Presbyterian Influence

Saw your edit and comment on the History of Florida State University page and thought I'd respond. The connection between FSU and the Presbyterian Church is evidenced in the several sources listed as references on the page. See especially the book "At First" by Barbara Rhodes, which is the early history of the Presbyterian Church in Tallahassee and the several works by Dr. Dodd.

--Sirberus (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All I removed from that paragraph was the sentence reading "As a result of this merger [of the Tallahassee Female Academy into the West Florida Academy] State University is the oldest university in Florida, with clear predecessor operations traceable to 1843, about two years before Florida became a state of the United States." It's not cited, and fairly dubious. It is true that one of FSU's predecessor institutions was absorbed into another, different predecessor institution, but neither of these were universities.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah...I missed your actual edit due to the way the text was moved. Would you prefer the sentence to say "FSU is the oldest university in Florida as direct predecessor operations may be traced to 1843, two years before Florida became a state of the United States."? The conclusion is based on facts referenced in the article, except the admission of Florida to the United States...but does such a common fact (Florida's 1845 admission to the Union) need to be referenced? The existence of the TFA, its merger with WFS and pertinent dates are cited in Dr. Dodd's works and the DeMilly Papers, at a minimum, which is referenced in the article. The only close competitor to this age is a minor predecessor of UFlorida in Gainesville (the EFS), which I discussed in the text and referenced not only as a newer school, but which also ceased to exist for a period of years during the Civil War and subsequently moved from one town to another in the restart of operations.

--Sirberus (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think FSU being the "oldest university" in Florida is an obvious conclusion to draw from the stated facts. The Tallahassee Female Academy was not a "university", and it was not absorbed into the West Florida Seminary (also not a "university" in the modern sense of the term) until 1858. Now, we could say that FSU claims to be the oldest university on the strength of the Tallahassee Female Academy connection, but the school doesn't appear to claim that. All of its promotional material traces the origin to either 1851 or 1857, both dates associated with the West Florida Seminary. Its own web page says only that it is "one of the largest and oldest of the 11 institutions of higher learning in the State University System of Florida".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So the term "university" is what bothers you? Would you agree that FSU is the oldest institution of higher education in Florida based on the stated facts? I'm not terribly concerned with what FSU officially claims, as it tends to minimize a significant amount of history.

--Sirberus (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we migrate the discussion to Talk:History of Florida State University so that other interested editors can see it? I'll start up a thread over there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unisonic (band)

With all due respect, how on earth did you decide consensus was for Delete here? 4 editors in favour of deletion, 4 in favour of keeping or merging. Another admin decided there was insufficient consensus and relisted, after which only one other opinion was expressed which was in favour of keeping the article. Your closing statement seems to be more a personal opinion rather than a summary of the consensus from the discussion, and focuses on only one aspect of the WP:MUSIC guideline.--Michig (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michig. Three of the four keep votes (all of them besides yours) were from the same user, Mpaoxi. The rest of the participants in the discussion clearly felt the article didn't pass the applicable policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BAND. It especially didn't meet the most important part of the BAND guideline, in that it didn't have multiple independent reliable sources, which is required by the verifiability policy. Without that, there's really nothing else to build on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - you're absolutely right. If I'd have spotted the three keeps from the same editor I would have struck a couple out. I still think that at least one criterion of the guideline was met, and that there wasn't a clear consensus after the first 7 days, and it was no clearer after a further 7 days. A borderline case though, so I'm not going to make an issue of it. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gidlow's Round Table

You might want to put Deva Victrix (which was substantially changed today) and Chester on your watch list if they aren't already there, please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. It looks like that bit has been placed in several other articles as well, I've just removed it from Knights of the Round Table.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

The case was just checked. wiooiw (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You have email. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shemon of Ada and the Saint Thomas Christians

Hi Cuchullain,

Nothing yet on Ahatallah, but you might be interested in a snippet I have just dug out of my yellowing files on the Chaldean metropolitan Shemon of Ada, who was sent to India in 1700 at the Vatican's behest on a mission very possibly to the prejudice of the Portuguese. I've just added it to the article India (East Syrian Ecclesiastical Province). In any discussion of the reliability of sources, it is important for the Saint Thomas Christians to recognise that 'the Catholics' did not all speak with one voice. Here endeth the lesson.

I haven't got Neill with me in the office, so I don't know offhand whether he mentions him. He probably falls neatly into the gap between the first and second volumes.

Djwilms (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read your edit to the lead paragraphs of the India article. I'll probably get back to you on that, as now that I'm getting a bit more focused on India I'm not sure whether it's entirely fair to say that the old COE province of India ceased to exist after 1599 (although that, of course, is the position that I myself have taken in my lead sentence). In the opinion of the Portuguese, certainly, but maybe not in the opinion of the Nestorian and Chaldean patriarchs, nor perhaps (after 1553) in the opinion of the Vatican. Most of the wandering East Syrian bishops who went out to India after 1599 were, I think, under the impression that they were legitimate successors of the old Nestorian metropolitans of India.

I need to do more work to sort out the titles and pedigree of these bishops. I think the first step is just to add to the factual material, as and when I get round to it, and deal with the question of interpretation later. But I think eventually we may need to mention different points of view.

Djwilms (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's not really clear cut when the province actually "ended". What is certain is that the Thomas Christians were de facto under the Goa administration after the Synod of Diamper, which totally restructured the local church. This doesn't mean that the various COE patriarchates (and Thomas Christians themselves) considered the old ties severed, any more than the Catholic Church and English Catholics considered England to have been totally severed at the start of the English Reformation.

But still, universally accepted or not, them's the breaks. Even in the time leading up to the Coonan Cross Oath, the separatist faction's stated aim was to return to the state the church had been in after Diamper. As history shows us, after the Pope finally stepped in with the Chaldean/Carmelite delegation, most of the separatists returned. And there were a number of attempts by the Malankara church to return to union with the Catholic Church which fell on deaf ears for whatever reason. Unfortunately at Wikipedia we have a lot of sectarian editors (or actually, it was mostly editor operating many accounts to avoid having to actually be right) who have a vested interest in promoting their particular sect and disparaging the others. They simply don't want to hear inconvenient facts, and don't want anyone else to hear them either.

But how does this play out at the article at hand? I suppose we should just say in the introduction that it began as a province in the 7th century. Then we can say that the last metropolitan (as far as I can recall) was Mar Jacob, and that changes in local church politics under the Portuguese prevented further significant contact with the Patriarch(s) after that point, but that still there were attempts from both sides.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph at the end of the lead which seems reasonably uncontentious to me (famous last words), and which I think does the trick for the time being. We can revisit it later, if necessary.

I have now remembered my source for India and Ahatallah. It was, I'm pretty sure, a magnificent article written by Cardinal Eugene Tisserant in 1934 in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, 'Eglise malabare'. Tisserant's 1931 article in the same journal, 'Eglise nestorienne', is still admired in scholarly circles as the best and most authoritative encyclopedia article yet written on the Church of the East (give us time, and we'll see what we can do on Wikipedia). I have just located my copy of the 1931 article, but have not yet located the 1934 one on the Saint Thomas Christians. If it turns up, we could do much worse than simply translate its 50 or so pages into English. Unfortunately, Tisserant was a Catholic, so can't be trusted on anything ...

After re-reading 'EN' last night, I was chagrined but also encouraged to find that many of the conclusions that I had independently arrived at while writing my present book had been anticipated by Tisserant 80 years earlier. I could have saved myself a lot of time by just cribbing from him. Sorry, strike that. What an unscholarly attitude!

Anyway, I'll let you know if 'EM' turns up. Tisserant was a meticulous footnoter, so anything interesting on Ahatallah will be properly sourced.

Djwilms (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most interesting indeed. This seems to be more evidence that Neill was correct in saying that a lot of this stuff is reasonably well established, even if it's not particularly widely circulated (and brusquely ignored by those with preconceived sectarian beliefs). I have no doubt that your book will do its part to inspire interest and further scholarship on this most stimulating subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: most of the facts are well established, and are only questioned by people with preconceived sectarian beliefs. Neill's first volume (I haven't yet got into the second volume) seems to me to be a very reasonable exposition of what is known and how it should be interpreted. The only point on which I disagree with him, and I am by no means confident in my opinion, is that he identifies 'Calliana', aka 'Kalnah', a Nestorian diocese which Cosmas Indicopleustes (the real one, not the sockpuppet) seems to place in northern India, near Bombay, with the town of Quilon on the Malabar Coast. But he may well be right. The names are very similar, Cosmas may have got it wrong, and I normally follow the principle of not multiplying hypotheses unnecessarily. It's one of the points on which I'm going to have to toss a coin and decide one way or another in the next couple of weeks. Everywhere else, though, Neill seemed to me to be spot on. One thing is for sure, and that is that 'Kalnah' was in India, not Malaya or Borneo (as has fancifully been claimed by one or two romantics).

I'm not quite sure why many modern Saint Thomas Christians wish to downplay their former dependence on the Church of the East. Indian nationalism, I suppose. How different from their ancestors four centuries ago, who begged for Syrian bishops to be sent to them ...

Djwilms (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Utima

Sorry for my confusion over the timing of your article. You were quite correct. A suggestion only..... if you copy your draft into a new article then it avoids the confusion and you can note with an edit where the audit trail continues if its important. Anyway thx for the article. Victuallers (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Victuallers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mississippian culture pottery

I created this page several days ago and would like to expand it further. I know you do alot of Florida related stuff about the Mississippian culture, but its an area I know almost nothing specific about the local culture variations of Mississippian, and I'm also currently on the road for the next few months working and dont have access to my own library. I would like a section about the area if your interested, maybe local tradition that was influenced by one of the larger centers? or developed a particularly unique local style?. I left a few notes on the talk page Talk:Mississippian culture pottery if you would be interested in helping expand the article further, maybe get to GA eventually? Hoping to polish it enough over the next few days to submit it to DYK. Heiro 17:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Heironymous. I've actually been doing a bit of reading about this vis a vis the pottery of the Timucua peoples in Florida (and Georgia). I'll see what I can add.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on! I'm hoping to eventually bud off the notable cultures into full fledged articles on their own, if your interested in doing a whole article about this subject and just adding a short synopsis to this page, dont know how much info you have. Got pics? I have none for your area, lol, what I do have I've made a category at commons for, linked from this article. Heiro 17:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. The thing with the Timucua is that there were actually several distinct local cultures, and thus not all the ceramic styles are particularly similar to each other. Professors at my university (University of North Florida) have been doing quite a bit of work on Mocama pottery, for instance. And there is still a lot more work to be done. I'll have to do some more reading and see what I come up with. I'll look for some decent pictures too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit here

Hi there. Your removal rationale for your edit is "Avalon Code" isn't known as only "Avalon", so the title isn't ambiguous". Is there any particular Wikipedia Guideline that you are referring to? Is it WP:PTM? If so, then according to your rationale many of the other entries on the same disambiguation page must also be removed (e.g. Avalon Series, Avalon: Web of Magic, Avalon Cemetery, Avalon Publishing Group, Avalon Group, Avalon School, Avalon Project, Avalon Theatre etc), since they all aren't known as only "Avalon". Apart from this, when you check through other disambiguation pages (e.g. Rice, Mississippi or Color), you will see that many of the entries in these disambiguation-pages are exactly the same as in the Avalon disambiguation-page. For example: Rice Middle School, Mississippi Burning, The Joker (That's What They Call Me), Avalon Code all fulfill your removal rationale. So, how are we going to solve this issue? Amsaim (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amsaim. I was thinking of WP:MOSDAB and WP:PTM, yes. PTM further says that links may be appropriate "...if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." Things like "Avalon Group", "Avalon Theatre", "Avalon series", etc, could be referred to as simply "Avalon", while Avalon: Web of Magic is titled Avalon, with a subtitle. "Code Avalon" is the only title for the game; it could not plausibly be referred to only as "Avalon". Some of the others may need to be cropped as well, I only removed the ones most obvious to me. Since you brought it up, I removed a few things from Mississippi (disambiguation) that are not only known as "Mississippi".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A good piece on GIdlow with his participation

See [1]. Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Utina

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Avalon

Did you have a reason for downgrading Riothamus from a king to a leader? The quote from Geoffrey Ashe says Riothamus too led an army of Britons into Gaul, and was the only British King who did. AJRG (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did that only because the extent of the historical Riothamus' kingship is unknown. Jordanes refers to him as "King of the Britons" but is not clear what exactly this entailed at that time. However, he certainly was at least a "leader".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ashe's theories aside, academic consensus would equate Riothamus with Ambrosius, whom the Historia Brittonum calls the great king among the kings of Britain. Which, coincidentally, is roughly what Riothamus means. AJRG (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any academic consensus identifying Riothamus to any other person. O. J. Padel, for instance, argued that "Riothamus" was probably never a title, but a personal name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See, for example, Léon Fleuriot, Les origines de la Bretagne: l’émigration, Paris, Payot, 1980, p. 170. Padel's argument suffers from the fact that Vortigern and Vortimer have a similar meaning and happily double as personal names: both appear to have used other names and this was not unusual for rulers, from the earliest times to as late as the twentieth century. An early translation of the Historia Brittonum into Irish identifies Ambrosius as king of the Franks and Bretons. AJRG (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that Fleuriot made that suggestion. That doesn't mean it's widely accepted by scholarly consensus. It is not, for example, mentioned in Koch's Celtic Culture[2] or Lacy's A History of Arthurian Scholarship,[3] to name two sources I can access in a quick Google search.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Koch and Lacy both call Riothamus a king, and both flagrantly ignore Padel's argument about the name while referring to him liberally elsewhere. AJRG (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, Padel's argument is that the name "Riothamus", "Rigotamus", etc. is a personal name and not a title. He doesn't say that Riothamus was not a king. I only brought it up because any connection between Riothamus and another figure hinges on it being a title; Padel (and others) conclude that it probably was not. Lacy and Koch don't "flagrantly ignore" this conclusion; in fact Koch's encyclopedia treats "Riothamus" being a name as the default position. Here is a source (N.J. Higham) that does mention the idea specifically, and agrees with it.[4] None of these sources even mention Fleuriot's hypothesis.

Bottom line is, there is no detectable scholarly consensus identifying Riothamus with Ambrosius or with anyone else. That isn't to say it's impossible, of course, only that it's not particularly widely accepted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You could have added Thomas Green, but not so many others. Padel is just appropriating Kenneth Jackson's argument about the name Vortigern. A study by Robert Vermaat suggests that it was the throne name of a ruler previously called Vitalinus. But to return to Riothamus, why should uncertainty about the borders of his realm affect his rank? Sidonius, a Roman senator who had been the Urban Prefect of Rome and whose father had been Prefect of Gaul, writes to him as an equal as the civic authority north of the Loire. Jordanes, the historian of the Goths, calls him king of the Brittones. That makes him at very least a king of the Bretons, whatever opinion you might hold of his exact status in Britain. AJRG (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confident there will be many others who concur with Padel, whose expertise on the subject goes far beyond "appropriating" Jackson. There are even more who simply take "Riothamus" at face value as a personal name without getting into the "title" debate at all. In fact, almost all academic history books that I've seen (that is, books on medieval British or Roman history, rather than books on Arthurian studies) that mention Riothamus do this very thing. Again, here are three revealed by a quick Google Books search.[5][6][7] None of these take up the suggestion that "Riothamus" was a title, let alone try to determine who it might be a title for.

I think describing Riothamus as a "leader" is preferable, if only because many of the modern sources, including the ones I just linked to, don't put a whole lot of stock in Jordanes' descriptption of Riothamus as king. There is also the question of what exactly such a title would mean in context, if indeed Jordanes was correct. However, it is quite safe to say Riothamus was a leader.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Appeals to authority without quoting sources? Direct quote from Padel 1995: It was to be hoped that the idea of fifth century names as titles had been conclusively dismissed by Jackson in his thorough discussion of the name Vortigern, claimed by Ashe as a parallel for his theory of Riotamus.{Kenneth Jackson, ‘Gildas and the Names of the British Princes’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 3 (Summer, 1982), 30–40 (at pp. 36–40); ‘generalissimo’ is one of the former renderings of Vortigern which Jackson specifically rejects.} AJRG (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your point?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made the case for leader over king from sources quoted. The hagiography of Padel is quite another matter. Without being able to quote his supporters, you can't be confident they exist, and he really did lift Jackson's argument on the name Vortigern, as I've quoted, however luminous his expertise may be. AJRG (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it thoroughly ironic that you accuse me of "appealing to authority" by bringing up Padel, yet you make claims like "...academic consensus would equate Riothamus with Ambrosius" with no backing whatsoever. I also fail to see how "I am confident there will be many others who concur with Padel" can be construed as "hagiography". I gave you a source that references Padel directly (you provided another), as well as several more that similarly treat "Riothamus" as a name and not a title. There are many more besides who are skeptical or critical of Ashe's theory, for other reasons.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You left out the second half of the sentence: whose expertise on the subject goes far beyond "appropriating" Jackson. AJRG (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

His expertise does go far beyond "appropriating" Jackson. He's a fellow at Cambridge and is an authority on names in his own right.[8] I don't know why you're so fixated on him; I only brought him up as one of the various scholars who don't regard "Riothamus" as a title for someone else. There are many others, as I've shown.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

cynocephali

hello, good work on fixing my confused editing on cynocephaly. i take it that cynocephali is the plural of cynocephalus, and wanted to add this to the article for clarification. am i right about this? cheers, k kisses 21:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I see I misspoke somewhat in my edit summary. "Cynocephaly" is the condition; the cyncocephali are dog-headed people specifically. The singular would be cynocephalus. I think the article puts too much stress on this name for them; they didn't really have a "proper" name and were known by a lot of local names. I would expect that cognates of "dog-headed men" or "dog-head" would be much more common in the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ibi (tribe)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album)

Hi, I've reverted this edit that you made, as that isn't using {{Album reviews}} which is what is mentioned at WP:ALBUMS#Reception. It also mentions that the reviews should be given in prose as they are in the article, which then makes the use of the template redundant. --JD554 (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't catch that... there was an album ratings template in the article previously, but I see you removed it earlier. I disagree that the template shouldn't be included if there's already a prose section; it just shouldn't be used to the exclusion of a prose section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mac Brunson

Your changes are a real improvement. A second set of eyes always helps. You saw flaws I would never have spotted. One question, not particularly important. The official bios of religious leaders often mention two key events: when they became convinced of the truth of their belief, often through some sort of revelation, and when they decided to become a preacher. I assume this would not be limited to Christian leaders. For Mac Brunson, the events are decribed in the sources for the article. Should they be included, and if so how can it be done in a neutral fashion? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so. We can certainly indicate when he decided to become a minister. We just need to avoid language that leads towards a particular point of view, I'll take a stab at it in a bit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the change, please see what you think. It would be good to have his birthdate and where he was born as well. I've also done a bit of work at First Baptist Church (Jacksonville, Florida) if you're interested; it's still in pretty bad shape.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I added birthdate to Mac Brunson, and put an infobox into First Baptist Church (Jacksonville, Florida), but it does need work. Maybe you could help with Jack Schaap, see Talk:Jack Schaap. I don't know what the right process is. Schaap is clearly notable. Controversy is a reason to protect the page, but not to exclude it from Wikipedia altogether. There should be an article giving the basic bio facts, and it probably should mention the controversy in as neutral terms as possible, e.g.: "Schaap said he did not believe that the King James translators were inspired by God, since this could imply that the Bible was subject to change and revision by God. This caused controversy with some fundamentalists who took his statement as an assertion that there could be error in the King James version."(ref). Maybe an article can be prepared and reviewed outside mainspace, with or without mention of the controversy, then slipped in and immediately protected? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you with Jack Schaap. I've looked at the two AfDs for the article, and it looks like the primary concern was with notability, not with controversial content per se. Neither version of the article included substantial reliable sources that were actually about Schaap himself, and so his notability was not established. We also evidently had him asking for the article to be deleted. Biographies of living persons who are not notable or are only marginally notable are usually deleted at the person's request. What you should do is locate sources that are actually about Schaap, and then start a new article in your user space. Once you're finished I can help you move it to the main space.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I made a stub at User:Aymatth2/Jack Schaap. I found a couple of independent sources that touch on aspects: large church, gave out Korea War medals. Otherwise I could not find truly independent sources discussing him. His church, college, book review bios etc. do not count. Several church sites have attacks on him. There is a great mass of blogs about his opinions, mostly hostile. I stuck in a couple of the more serious-sounding. I tend to be inclusionist, and if there had been no history to this subject would have put this into mainspace without thinking much about it. But as it is... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I added content from a couple of books. Maybe marginally enough to prove notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on this?

Hi again, you may have noticed we have a new user who's been creating separate articles for minor characters from the Mabinogion. Not in itself very alarming, but you may want to keep an eye on this and offer him or her some help and guidance. Especially given that much of Culhwch ac Olwen consists of bewildering catalogues of better and lesser known characters. Cavila (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that.. I'll drop him a line when I get a chance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

warning regarding machete (film)

I understood that you removed references to infowars.com.. You stated that, "Alex jones is not a reliable source for anything". Just because it's your belief, I doesn't mean you get to decide for every future visitor of the article. Use the films talk page to express and evaluate your thoughts.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhand11 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement

Hi, Thanks for your kind words. I enjoy working on Wikipedia, although still quite a novice I suppose. Hope to expand the stubs I have placed in the very near future. Also have an idea to expand the article on Perceval, perhaps aim for Good Article status. I'd like to try for that. Will have to read some translations from Old French first – I'm not too familiar with either Perlesvaus or the continuations to Chretien's story of the graal. Collaboration? Richard asr (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always refreshing to see this kind of improvement, especially coming so quickly. Collaboration on Perceval would be great. I have a couple of books on the subject, including a translation of the Continuations. There's also a great discussion of Peredur ab Efrawg in Bromwich et al's Arthur of the Welsh. I'll try to dig them all out at some point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Ballot box as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I have to put up with this?

Sww Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl - what do you advise? Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I almost wish he'd take me to ANI! Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop him a line and see what I can do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales

I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least and if it takes good intentioned amateurs to reach that then so be it. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

On the wrong page, so you've probably not seen it -- Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, no, I hadn't seen that. If they had put the complaint in the correct place, they would have been told, among other things, that I did not in fact block them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, note put on editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Immediate Mediation

Hi,
On a page called i've introduced a new controversy section(backed by very powerful sources) on All India Trinamool Congress, some users've reverted my edits claiming my sources as unreliable ones(but as per wikipedi's policy they are powerful). I've posted an RSN, which didnt suite one user Active Banana(he has roll back rights). So he had roll backed my RSN. Now I am confused what to do. Please tell me whether the following sources are OK or not:
AITC is a State Party of India, and it is very vocal of its good bondage with banned MAOIST party. Now when I've introduced this fact(backed by well cited sources), a user named kkm010 has reverted my edits claiming them as "degrading the quality of article". I assume wikipedia guarantees every user the right to expand an article if he has reliable citations.

Main Story on AITC-Maoist Nexus in Mail Today
Story in CNN IBN

Both of them are very well known Newspapers/Tv channels of India.
Please help quickly in the matter. Please reply soon.
Basuupendra (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

floruit

I just now saw your notice on the AfD for floruit, posted to the Latin project page. The discussion was closed when I visited it. If this comes up again, you might also post a notice to the Greece and Rome Project, where I think a number of people might be interested. There doesn't seem to be as much overlap as one might think between the two projects. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Missouri French

Bravo -- good work! DavidOaks (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't believe we didn't have an article on it already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Missouri French

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable Residents in Ortega

Preface: I love what you do and the effort you put into Wikipedia. Please hear me out, though, and I am just trying to explain my request below.

Cuchullain: As you are a Jax resident (and I am a native), can you please give this particular article a break? I don't even want to cite any references for proof of living in the neighborhood because some give away sensitive info. I live down the street from literally everyone mentioned (except Connie Nielsen who lived on the other side of Timucuana). Give it a break, please. If there is a Wiki article on someone and they live in the neighborhood but the only source is their address listed on Whitepages, why is that unreliable? I plan on editing Avondale, Riverside, San Marco, and San Jose, too, and I know many of the residents in those neighborhoods, too. FWIW I can go (as anyone can) onto the tax commissioner's site for Duval County and get names and addresses that way, if that's how you want verification. It doesn't get more official than that. And I'm still impressed you single handedly went through all of the references. When it comes to notable residents for any neighborhood, it's either just common knowledge or it's inside info from people who have lived there. Why don't you weed through Ponte Vedra's page? Every notable resident there is unverified (though I know personally that many of the ones listed do live there and I know at least one that's unlisted: Hurley Haywood and Martin A. Siegel).

The goal of WikiProject Jacksonville is to increase Jacksonville's presence on Wikipedia, which can be done by linking to other Wiki pages. Everyone in Jacksonville knows someone such as Preston Haskell lives in Ortega, and most people know his exact house. If you want to keep on deleting these people from individual neighborhood pages, why not create a Jacksonville Notable Residents page?

I just looked for it, and was brought to the Atlantic Beach page, which also has a notable residents section. You considered my notable residents un-reputable before (even though more than half had their own Wiki page) and yet AB has 3 notable residents including a local amateur golfer, a local radio show host, and a Cycle 10s America's Next Top Model winner. I don't care that those very unfamous residents are listed and not verified, but I do care that you seem to be picking on my neighborhood that I love so much and which actually does have lots of pretty famous characters (heck I would love to be included someday hehe). You can't play selectively like that, and I don't know why you're being so harsh on a Jacksonville page. Go pick on other cities' neighborhoods first. :-) Jsimms3 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jsimms. I hope we don't get off on the wrong foot over this. You've done some very good work with the article, and I'm thrilled to have another dedicated Jacksonville editor on board.

I'll do my best to answer your questions. First and foremost, verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. All material included in a Wikipedia article, but especially information about living people, has to be attributed to reliable sources or it is likely to be removed. I'm not picking on the Ortega article, I just saw it come up on my watchlist and decided to put some work into it. The fact that the Atlantic Beach article (and many others I'm sure) has unverified information in it is no reason unverified information should go in the Ortega article - it just means we haven't gotten around to cleaning up the Atlantic Beach article yet. Personally, I don't believe sections on famous residents are very useful. And we certainly shouldn't be going out of our way to give away peoples' personal information just so we can brag about how many famous figures live in a particular neighborhood.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources, such as academic texts, newspaper articles, etc., to show that some piece of information is important to the article subject. We should not be digging up primary sources such as someone's tax records, phone book entry, and the like just to show that they happens to live in such-and-such neighborhood. That may show where they live, but it doesn't show that that information is important (and it may be a violation of their privacy). And if there are no sources at all, if it's just "common knowledge" or "inside information" as you say, adding it to Wikipedia would be original research, which is against another core policy.

If we must have a section listing Ortega's famous residents, then what you should do is track down reliable, secondary sources establishing that people live or lived in the neighborhood. If you can't find one, then that particular person will have to stay out of the list. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or if you need anything else. Cheers and happy editing,--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I definitely understand. I'm just sad to see my neighborhood be the first to be "cleaned up" lol. I know I'm coming from a different perspective, but I think having notable residents adds a lot of inferential information about a neighborhood. (All the golfers in PVB, the artists in Soho, the actors in Beverly Hills, the heirs in Palm Beach, the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, the politicians in the Back Bay, the athletes from Pinecrest, etc). Bottom line, it's just frustrating to see my first major edit edited so much by someone who's even from the area and just noticing so many other pages with globs of information that's not even remotely verified without any notices to cite or to remove that information.--Jsimms3 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really didn't change much of what you wrote, and I moved the article to a new title as per your expansion. I'd say right now the article is improving.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For real?

Do you think that THIS is for real? Never heard of it (but then, that applies to a lot of things). Also cannot find anything about it, and cannot find the references cited, and nothing about the supposed publisher of the references. All done by 2 new single-issue editors (one of whom uploaded the map and the flag in the article). Some of their related edits suggest that they're familiar with the modern area. If it doesn't bear examination, then take no notice, just thought I'd mention it. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It's clearly a hoax; the references appear to be totally fake, and clearly most of the material is entirely dubious. I've reverted most of it, and will bring it up at WP:ANI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. That also explains two gnomish edits [9] [10] from this IP address. Cavila (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be one of those cases where someone has come up with a romantic backstory for an something recorded in one line of a historical text - in this case the line about the Battle of Deorham in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Looking around it appears that similar things have appeared on websites such as britannia.com and historyfiles.co.uk.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they put quite a lot of work into it as well. I tagged the map and flag for speedydel at Commons. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a gathering of people with an overlap of interests in one particular area. What an opportunity to mention that a New Article could probably stand a walk-through, as it's very lightly watched (but don't feel obliged). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back on track, Notuncurious. And still in the map-making business, I noticed. Cavila (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgae

There's little hope of sorting this out on the talk pages; it's yet another of J T Koch's fanatical Atlantic-Celtic minions who are spreading over Wikipedia and the rest of the Net convinced that theirs is the One True Way. Same M.O. as Jembana - delete all conflicting opinions and then add a ridiculous number of citations when others object to the censorship. Paul S (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I generally try to follow the MOS and use lowercase as appropriate, I appreciate corrections when a mistake is made, and I'm usually willing to go either way on this kind of thing when someone has a preference. However, the use of uppercase in Wales in the Roman Era was deliberate: it is consistent with the related articles (* in the Early Middle Ages, * in the Late Middle Ages, etc.) ... the idea is that "Roman Era" is intended as a descriptive entity, not as two words that happen to be adjacent. How about reconsidering the page move and doing a quick reversion to the way I had it? (and a PS ... if you think I took the issue of renaming articles lightly, have a look at the bajillion articles and templates that I individually updated from "Roman Wales" to "Wales in the Roman Era" so that a bajillion redirects would be avoided). Am hoping you will be reasonable and see it all my way :). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, our (shoddy) article on the Roman era itself uses that capitalization, as do most of our articles on "eras" or "periods", such as Elizabethan era, Meiji period, pre-Columbian era, etc. In contrast, "Middle Ages", "Early Middle Ages" are always capitalized, both on Wikipedia and off it. I guess the rational is that if it's an "Age" it's a Proper Noun, but if it's just an "era" or a "period" it's just a descriptive term, making it a common noun. I don't think it's a particularly big deal, I won't object if you want to move it back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it as-is for awhile ... as I said, I'm usually willing to go either way on this kind of thing when someone has a preference. If I change my mind later, I'll note that a reversion is done "with permission" ... and if I do and you later change your mind, you can also revert "with permission". In the meantime, let's hope that no conscientious editor notices that the lede sentence has a boldface Era rather than era. Am appalled that you have elevated the reputation of Roman era by describing it as merely "shoddy" ... then again, there are few if any of my own contributions that cannot benefit from better storytelling and copy editing, so I should tread lightly here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I just noticed that Roman period redirects to Roman Empire rather than Roman era. Even our redirects don't want to be associated with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Roman era is lonely and would like to join the party by becoming a redirect to Roman Empire? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers!--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

NFL team page disruptions

Hi, I talked with an admin about the disruptions that Doc QUintana is causing, and he recommended taking it to ANI. I don't look forward to another talkfest with him, but as his is continuing to enforce his view against consensus, I don't see another way. Any thoughts on this? - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. When tenditious editors such as DQ are allowed free reign ob certain article, it takes the joy out of editing WP. It's far easier to just let him have his way, and stay out of his way. Football is primarily a game to be played and watched, and and least he has no effect on that! - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this, I've been out of town. As long as Doc stop actively edit warring on the articles themselves, I don't think we need to go to ANI just yet. However, it is abundantly clear to everyone besides himself that there is no consensus for his changes, so if he resumes edit warring something needs to be done, and ANI is the appropriate venue. This has gotten really silly. I've already spent far more time dealing with him then I wanted, and I don't even care about sports all that much.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It has gotten really silly, and I don't understand why you two don't want to work with me rather than talking about me behind my back like this. My goal is to make the encyclopedia better, and I don't understand why you want to edit war with me on this point. If it goes much further, I may have to report it to AN/I. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to make the encyclopedia better, so why don't you stop reverting me? - BilCat (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work with me to make the encyclopedia better, i'd much rather see that than having you revert me. There's been no effort on the part of you two to try and come up with a constructive solution here. I'm not sure how to handle you two, when I tried to find more people to help build a consensus one way or the other, you accused me of "forum shopping", whatever that means, but if there's anything that you don't agree with, it's edit warring, yet it's ok for you to talk ill about me on your talk page.

I don't get why you're deadset on edit warring with me. Tell me how we can work together to fix the NPOV problem towards association football being given preference over American football articles so we can end this pointless stalemate. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to work with you, but you're not listening. There is no consensus for your changes and you're going around making them anyway. This is unproductive and it needs to stop immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How are you trying to work with me by saying things like "this needs to stop immediately" and reverting without discussion? There's no consensus for your edits either. I'm heading to AN/I, I can't reason with you two, and i'm tired of this. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(edit conflict) I'm not dead-set on edit-warring with you. You don't accept the existng consensus on the issue, so it's impossible to work with you at all. I have better things to do than argue with you at an ANI, which is why I moved on 2 days ago. In fact, I've stopped editing ALL American football related articles to avoid you completely. - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument because there is no consensus for or against anything. Per your request, i'll remove you from the AN discussion. And if there is a way to make Association football be seen equally with American football articles in terms of naming, I'll be happy to move on from this altogether. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't understand, because your view of COnsensus conflicts with that of WP in general. That's the problem. A status quo exisited. You asked to change the status quo. No one could agree on changing it, so there was no consensus to change the status quo. But you're changing it anyway, because you thing it should change, even though no one else agreed with a plab to change it. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I started another ANI report due to the recurring edit warring. Unfortunately it has gotten disruptive to the point that administrator attention is necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks liek the AN/I notifications have reignited debate at Talk:Football, so perhaps thre is a chance of getting a consesnsus on the issue formed within the next 2 years. Doc's on a wiki-break ( a good idea, and one I had to implemet myself a few weeks ago when the wiki-stress got too high), and hopefully he'll not go back to reverting again. If he does, then the ANI had recommended taking him to the 3RR notification page. (I'd do that even if he doesn't violate 3RR, but as so as he reverts, as a contuation of the revert war. I do hope that is unnecessary, and that he'll join in the continuing discussions to find a solution. I'm sorry if I gave the appearnace of bailing out on you, but as I need to watch my wiki-stress levels better than I have been. Thanks for your efforts. - BilCat (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the need to disengage. I had hoped bringing the edit warring and tendentious editing up at ANI would be enough to at least get an uninvolved administrator to ask him to stop, and we could go back to solving the problem (or even just determining that there even is a problem) rather than edit warring. He has a skewed understanding of how consensus is supposed to work, but hopefully this whole thing has taught him something. At any rate it will be interesting to go from here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St. Johns River Light

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Disranter

See Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) and File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg. Quack quack? Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, without a doubt. He's been at it a while too, there may be more.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which...--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that I can say with certainty that they are one and the same. SPI or ANI I wonder? I won't elaborate here on why his edit there gave him away. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just ANI. If we see some other username show up plugging that book, we can deal with it then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's funny, you added the bit about Joseph's son Josephus in 2006! I love the idea we should mention Ellis as a 'courtesy'. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I just like the idea of him hearing about you from "a colleague" who oddly had the same bent and MO as he did.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

More OR on Welsh articles

Not James, he and I are actually working together on an article he created. See WP:NORN#Editor arguing that he can use a book describing Welsh law to make a claim for dynastic succession Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bé Find

Hello Chuchullain. Sorry for bothering you but referring to your user name you might be the right person to address. I'm from the portal mythology of the German wikipedia and we are working on several articles about the Irish mythology. I was wondering about the redirect from Bé Find to Étaín. Obviously it was created by a bot, but in Étaín Bé Find is not mentioned. Neither in the articles nor in the presented links (as far as I can see). Do you have any idea if there is any literature we can search for? Does Bé Find have another / an additional name I don't know? Thanks a lot in advance! --Yrwyddfa (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Yrwyddfa. I did a bit of checking, and "Bé Find" is a nickname given to Étaín by Midir in The Wooing of Étaín. The story is online here and here, and presumably elsewhere. Page 34 of this book has another translation of the poem embedded in the story. If my understanding is correct, the name basically means "fair woman" or "beatiful woman", from Bé or Ben, Old Irish for "woman", and Find (later Finn), meaning "fair/white/beautiful". I also checked James MacKillop's A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, and it said that "Bé Find" is a variant of the name Bébinn, which was borne by several other figures as well. I hope that helps!--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Those were exactly the information I needed! Thank you very, very much, also for this very helpful link! Have a nice day, our day is nearly gone already :) --Yrwyddfa (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Guten Abend!--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you're speaking German? --Yrwyddfa (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's about all the German I know. (Well, okay, I guess I know gut morgen too).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not bad for a beginning ;) My english isn't the best, but if you need translation of german sources feel free to ask ;) By the way: Don't you think it would be a better idea to redirect Bé Find to Bébinn than to Étaín? --Yrwyddfa (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Yrwyddfa. As to redirecting, I thought of that, but I can't find any mentions of "Bé Find" in literature that aren't references to the Étaín story. "Bé Find" should be mentioned at the Étaín article, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bernhard Maier (ISBN 3-520-46601-5; a German scientist who is a reliable source often used in the de:WP) says, that Bé Find is the mother of Froech, main character of Táin Bó Froích. Here she is as well a sister of Boand and so a Tuatha de Danann (all three the same person). Maier does not mention Étaín there. At the moment, this all is very confusing. Is it possible, that this is indeed nothing more than some sort of title confused with a name? --Yrwyddfa (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me to be more a nickname than a title,

It's definitely an epithet or nickname in the case of Étaín, and not a personal name. Based on your source, I have redirected Bé Find to Bébinn, and added a note explaining it in in both the Étaín and Bébinn articles. How does that look?--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! Especially with your explanation about the “fair maiden”. This seems to fit. I'll pass that to Reimmichl-212 (the one who took care of the de:interwiki of both articles). He told me about this topic. I think your solution with this redirection is a good one and I think we'll do it the same way on de:WP. Again: thanks a lot for your help, it really was a pleasure :) --Yrwyddfa (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Frothing Assyrians

Hi Cuchullain,

Do you mind keeping an eye on the article I wrote on the fictitious second-century Nestorian patriarch Abris. I've just had a run in with a frothing Assyrian who believes that he was genuine, quoting that deeply-contested text, the Chronicle of Erbil. I've reverted his malicious edits and explained my reasoning on the article's discussion page, but I imagine he will strike again before long.

Djwilms (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, he's done it again. Can you please revert his latest edits and block him from touching these articles.

Djwilms (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the sourced material, and left a comment on the talk page. Perhaps you could give a fuller version of Fiey's account of how he was invented in the "sources" section? --Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Cuchullain. This really needs to be dealt with at greater length in my article Patriarchs of the Church of the East, which discusses the historicity of several dodgy Nestorian patriarchs. Abris and the other two invented early patriarchs are mentioned in this article, but I agree that more needs to be said about how we know they were fictitious. I will make the case from Fiey in more detail when I have time. Right now I've got a book deadline approaching.

Djwilms (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got the page on my watchlist, but as always I'm willing to give input wherever needed. Good luck with that deadline!--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1906 Florida football

Cuchullain, please see my comments on the Florida Gators football talk page. I'm happy to converse with you further via email. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

Cuchullain, I need a disinterested second opinion regarding athlete notability. I have been working for several months to clean up the WP bios of former Florida Gators athletes, including about 230 former Florida Gators football players. The vast majority of these former Gators clearly satisfy one or more of the notability criteria for WP inclusion, while approximately 10 to 20 of the football bios fall in what I perceive to be a "gray area of notability." And while my principal motivation is improving these articles so they reflect a common standard of formatting and at least some minimum common standard of content, I really don't want to spend a lot of time on articles that may (and perhaps should) be subject to a successful AfD. A classic example of this is the Dexter Daniels article. Daniels was an SEC first-teamer, but received no All-America honors or other SEC or national football awards, and played in a total of four NFL games in a single season, none as a starter. His professional career was brief and otherwise forgettable, and affords no interesting content to include in the article. Is this really the sort of article we want to include in WP, based on some sort of "he played in one professional game" minimum notability standard? I am not asking for you to take any official action, but I am asking for your educated WP opinion on point. Please feel free to respond at your leisure. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience in closing AfDs, I'd regard the Daniels article as a borderline case. He certainly passes the very low threshold at WP:ATHLETE about playing a game in a top-level league if he played several games in the NFL, and he's mentioned in eight sources, but I don't know that I would regard any of that coverage as "significant" (the parts I can see online, anyway), and verifiability trumps whatever the notability guidelines say. In the end, though, I'd say that as far as he played in the NFL and there are references backing that up, the article would not be deleted unless the notability standards were to change. One thing you could do is add some referenced material about his NFL career specifically, as that's the only thing he's really notable for, for instance the number of games he played, and when he was released. Google News has some articles about that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I have very mixed feelings about saving an article like this one (and several other similar cases). As a loyal Florida alumnus and Gators fan, I feel the need to preserve as much Gators history on-line as possible. Hence my work with articles like "Jack Forsythe," "Alfred L. Buser" and "Dutch Stanley," all of whom were as notable for their college playing careers as they were as coaches. On the other hand, I'm trying to be semi-objective and not be the contributor of more WP clutter, on the theory if all of the Gators articles are truly notable, by whatever standard, that makes the articles more interesting AND a better historical record for WP readers. The WP notability standard for football players has what I perceive to be a bizarre inconsistency: if an athlete plays one down of one NFL game, he's presumed to be notable, but if a different college athlete is a two-year consensus All-American, but never plays in an NFL game, there is no presumption of notability. That's a little squirrelly to my Southern football way of looking at the world. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no perfect system. FWIW though, whenever I've closed AfDs, especially on biographies of living people, I've only ever used the more specific notability guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE as a gauge of whether decent reliable sources are likely to be found. If someone played in the NFL (or the CFL, etc.), it's usually a fair bet that such sources are out there. By contrast, just having played college football does not necessarily indicate that sources are going to exist (i don't believe all Temple Owls players are notable, and they're Division I). That doesn't mean that college players who never went pro are inherently not notable; it just means the article has to have sources showing that they are. As you say there are a number of such players, especially from back in the day. I also think that a lot of the "barely notable NFL players" are actually notable college players who, as a side note, happen to have turned their youthful success into on to non-notable professional careers. The Gators have produced no shortage of guys like that ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My query on point is not entirely academic. I have no desire to populate WP with articles on every Gator who every wore orange and blue. I would, however, like to create Gators football player bios for a handful of first-team All-Americans like Charlie LaPradd, Vel Heckman, Larry Dupree, Bruce Bennett and Charles Casey, but I really don't want to get into an enormous AfD controversy in the process. To my way of thinking, big-time All-Americans like LaPradd, Bennett and Casey are far more notable and deserving of inclusion in WP than a player like Dexter Daniels (and several others) who played in a handful of NFL games as a non-starter. Moreover, significant newspaper and secondary sources exist for LaPradd et al. Maybe I should just attack the problem under WP:GNG? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly the way to go. If there's substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for LaPradd and the others (and you can cite it), their articles should be even less likely to be deleted than folks like Daniels, who ostensibly passes WP:ATHLETE but whose article doesn't really show substantial coverage by sources. But again, it depends on the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice. I may dial you up when the inevitable AfD debate begins regarding the future Charlie LaPradd and Bruce Bennett articles. FYI, I feel a special need to write a good LaPradd article; he was one of my fraternity brothers (two generations before me), the second first-team All-American for the Gators, and I knew him personally during the 1980s when he owned the Miller Beer distributorship in Gainesville. He was a paratrooper before returning to college in 1949, personally recruited several other early 1950s Gators who the coaches ignored or overlooked, and wound up being one of the two or three core players on the Gators' first bowl team in 1952. Got injured at the start of an aborted NFL career and decided life was leading him elsewhere. Good guy, great personal story, and clearly a missing piece of notable Gators football history on WP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Small grammar problem

Cuchullain, can you use your magical tools to solve a grammar problem? When the Parade High School All-American subcategories were recently created, the creator of the new subcategories omitted the apostrophe from the end of the plural possessives "boys'" and "girls'" and I can't fix the problem by moving the categories to their correct spellings as a non-administrator. Thanks, as always, for your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuch, please disregard the previous request. With some help, I believe that I have figured out how to navigate this path of least resistance in order to resolve this issue. Enjoy the Game today, big fella! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to respond (and man, what a game!) From what I can see it looks like you've done it correctly, shortly someone will come along and review the request and populate the correct category with automated tools. Cheers!--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted edits?

Cuch, is there some edit counter or other system available for viewing my deleted edits? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The feature allowing one to see a user's deleted contributions is available only for administrators. The edit counter will tell you how many edits you've had deleted, but it doesn't indicate what they are. If you're looking for something specific I can help you out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I am already a consumer of Soxred93's tool, but, of course, it only provides the totals and does not permit to view the actual deleted edits. I only have 36 deleted edits out of 20,000+ and four of them magically appeared yesterday. I was concerned that an article that I should be defending has been deleted, but I have no way of determining what it might be. Given the relative brevity of my deleted edits list, can you email me the list? (I have WP email forwarding enabled.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The only things you've edited that were deleted over the past few days are those Parade High School All-Americans categories and their talk pages. Categories like Category:Parade High School All-Americans (boys basketball) have to be deleted because they can't be moved like articles can, the articles have to be individually added to the new category by hand or with an automated tool, leaving the old category depopulated. You'll see a few more deleted edits in your count when Category:Parade High School All-Americans (girls basketball), Category:Parade High School All-Americans (boys soccer), and any others you may have tagged get deleted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Skirt reference

Hello. apologies but it seems I forgot to add a note to the edit summary when I first removed the link to Skirt. I had checked the page in question, and it does not seem to fit what we expect of a reliable source. not to make an issue of it, for sure, but the site has been spammed by a single-purpose editor and the use as a ref appears to have been a well-meaning attempt to use the link. (Note that the use as a ref for his sisters is based on a quip in response to a question about his having "great hair".) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found a better source, will add it in shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You Reverted Me

With no explanation, which is rude. Also the template I removed states "For other uses, see Wendigo (disambiguation) whereas the template right above it says "For other uses, see Wendigo (disambiguation). Is it all becoming clear as to why it was removed? I am happy to go into more detail, as obviously the first time round you couldn't quite grasp it. Either way I have reverted you, with an explanation as to why. Oh my gosh, it's a S N A I S Y ! ^{What's a Snaisy?} 08:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

HI Snaisybelle. Please look again. There are two separate templates, one for Windigo (disambiguation) and the other for Wendigo (disambiguation). See the differences? Cavila (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• LOL fair play Oh my gosh, it's a S N A I S Y ! ^{What's a Snaisy?} —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Glad that was cleared up ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User Bakulan

Hi Bill, on Talk:Halloween the user Bakulan has just deleted my comment. Now i have no interest in pursuing anything with him or getting involved in his edit wars/reverts/comments with the other users, so i brought this to your attention. Thanks.Bostonian Mike (talk) 02:21, 09 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored your comment. As it wasn't a personal attack it should not have been removed (especially by him). I don't know the background of the situation, so I can't really comment on what's going on. However, he's obviously bothered by what you said; you may want to tone it down in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Auburn Tigers football vandalism

Cooch, could you apply some form of protection to the "2010 Auburn Tigers football team" page? It has been under attack by multiple IP and SPA users since midnight last night. This is the week of the Auburn-Georgia game and the controversy surrounding Cam Newton seems to have inspired a lot of this crap. Probably needs to be protected through the end of the season. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)