User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 28

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your copy editing on the Interstella plot summary. I've run into a lot of disputes in recent weeks and the quality of copy editing from some editors has caused me to despair - people insisting that "marks a departure from" is better than "departs from", that sort of thing - so it's nice to see someone who's got a clue in that area. Popcornduff (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Popcornduff. Unfortunately that's the fate of articles on subjects recently in the public attention, like newly released movies. Things will calm down after a while, for now we just do what we can and try to keep the sections from unnecessary bloating.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job mate, loved your article on Interstellar, couldn't understood the movie, but your explanation came in handy. Santhuwiki (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to say thanks for your interstellar article, frankly speaking i couldn't understand the movie as a whole, your article helped a great deal. Thanks mate.

Santhuwiki: Thanks so much! Glad you found it useful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar

I'm not going to spend any more time on the Interstellar article, as it's clearly not worth it (I can tell from the edit history that all the edits I made to the plot have almost certainly been undone already). I did just want to comment to you that the reason I had changed "collapse" to "extinction" is that the plot summary said (I think) society was on the brink of collapse, which to me implies that, like, people are rioting and martial law is declared, that kind of thing. The film seemed to show a perfectly functioning society, but the problem was that everyone was about to die. Anyway, the article probably says something completely different by now, I just wanted to point out my reasoning for that change. Have a nice day. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And please don't be discouraged; it's a new film that receives lots of edits, so things change rather quickly if we don't stay on top of it. Most of your changes were fine, and I left them in the last edit I made. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ever get tired of batting against nonsense?

See also, Anita. I kinda wonder how you keep your head over all this...nonsense flinging stuff against a wall hoping it sticks. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity: of course, and when I do, I take a break, have a beer, and come back later when I have a clearer head. I highly recommend that when you get discouraged or aggravated, nothing on Wikipedia is worth losing sleep over. Not that I'm always able to follow my own advice, but just know that losing your cool plays into the hands of the disruptive editors. It helps in this case that there are (finally) editors and admins keeping things in order, and hopefully this Arbcom case will result in some effective sanctions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What's most frustrating is how the system seems almost designed to be easily gamed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the worse problem here is we've made it too difficult to deal with obvious problems, while creating huge byzantine procedures for people trying to do right. With this environment it's no wonder we're losing editors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has visited the wikibreak queue recently, I agree that distance helps me as an editor. I want to be sure, however that the pressure of a million little trolls doesn't have a chilling effect on my online behavior. I had the personal experience (not surprisingly, in the gaming business) of being bombed by thousands of trolls in the 90's, so none of what Sarkeesian and the #gamergatevictims are experiencing is new or unexpected to me. I dropped by this page to say what a nice source the Bloomberg Businessweek link could be. We're actually starting to get some very high quality source material for this subject, and all thanks to... Online Trolling. This subject would be invisible except for the efforts her detractors. What I'm seeing here is cultural jiu jitsu of a remarkable scale. We're almost in the enviable position of having to select the best sources from a long list. When the inevitable cultural critique does finally appear in RS, we'll have the material for a vast improvement in pagespace. That's something to look forward to. BusterD (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WJCT

Friendly question, if you don't mind — just wondering if you could help me understand the rationale for merging the two separate articles on the TV and radio stations together into one. I get that they're sister stations, but it's an unconventional approach. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. WJCT is really one organization with radio, TV and online divisions. I don't really see a benefit in discussing them in distinct articles. I got thinking about this when I noticed links to WJCT were just going to a dab page, and many links (especially in citations) aren't really intending the TV or radio articles. I contemplated creating a WP:CONCEPTDAB, but that created redundancy, and neither article was so long or detailed that it needed its own article.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool — thanks! I spend a lot of time with radio and TV station articles, and situations like this are always tricky, so I find it really helpful to understand other peoples' though processes. Mlaffs (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, any time. I know it's kind of unconventional, but sometimes the convention isn't really the best presentation of the material for readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold on to your pants

That guy just made another Anti-Anita video and referenced how Wiki has no criticism again. Expect a torrent of these guys showing up again. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose "that guy" refers to Thunderf00t, who released a 19 minute rant a few hours ago, and (in the midst of a bunch of oft repeated material) spends all of 33 seconds reiterating the same arguments we've been seeing on talk: that Sarkeesian raised 25x what she intended (true and documented), that she hasn't put out half of the videos yet (true and documented), and this all proves she was dishonest in her Kickstarter campaign (not supported by reliable sources, therefore synthesis). The relevant (and only Wikipedia-related) material starts at 6:58 and ends at 7:31. Nothing substantial offered. BusterD (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My point being is that these videos when he mentions the wiki articles always seem to foretell the arrival of a bunch of Anons with an agenda. Since we're drifting into forum territory, allow me a bit of fun. He mentions how Anita is Transphobic and Homophobic. Rebuttal: Flawless Victory. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Zero Serenity and BusterD. I believe this happened once be for (at least). Looks like the current level of protection is holding up for now, but if we see an onslaught we'll go straight for RFPP.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

"evidence" has been entered about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Cuchullain_is_involved_and_has_used_the_tools-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up, TheRedPenOfDoom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Global account

Hi Cuchullain! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Church of the East

Hello, I would like to invite your participation at Talk:Church_of_the_East#Intro. Chrislamic.State (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cúchullain. I also responded to you there and on my wall. Is there an acceptable abbreviation of Cúchullain you don't mind being call by? Is there a way to automatically notify someone like a sort of #tag system on wiki? So that I can make sure relevant people always know where their attentions are would be appropriate? Chrislamic.State (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You can tag someone by linking their name (ie, Chrislamic.State). You can also use the User link template, by posting it like this: {{u|Chrislamic.State}}.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus?

I'm confused by your close at Talk:Pottawatomie_Massacre#Requested_move. The only two opposers had absolutely nothing based in policy, guidelines, or sources to oppose with, yet you let them disrupt the clear consensus of people who respect guidelines and sources. Can you take a look, read what they wrote, and tell me if you got it wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon: By my count there were 4 supports and 2 opposes who made about equal arguments in terms of the policies and guidelines. The evidence also appeared contradictory on the issue and was used to support either name. I don't see a strong consensus to change the title. I suppose it could have been relisted, but it had already been open for nearly a month.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How does the evidence appear contradictory? RGloucester cited one web page that did it with caps. That's all; the other guy showed no data at all. Neither of them mentioned any relevant policy or guideline that suggested capitalization. Everyone else agreed that the book usage stats and guidelines were unambiguous. RGloucester subsequently agreed to stay out of capitalization issues, since he was on the losing side of every one he participated in, but this one was left hanging around for a month waiting for a close. This was not a sensible close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As was mentioned in the discussion, your own Ngram showed "Massacre" to be more common in more recent works.[1]. You did well analyzing some of the results, but it's hardly conclusive. WP:MOSCAPS suggests we go with lower case unless it's a proper name or the the common name uses upper case, and the case was made that this title could qualify. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a consensus here after a month.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Hello! I noticed that you assessed an earlier requested move for Wonder Pets! and was wondering if, in a week on the 17th or so, you could review the results of this next one created by me. You can view it here: Talk:Wonder Pets#Requested move 2. Thanks! Squiddaddy (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Squiddaddy: I'll keep an eye on it. FYI, it wasn't added to the actual requested moves list, as you didn't add the template. I've added it now. I or another RM will close it when it's time.

On a more serious note, I see you've been told that your requests to other editors[2][3][4] violate our canvassing rules; that will have to be taken into consideration when deciding how to close. You all seem to have the same interests on Wikipedia, are the other accounts people you know?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the template! Also, I see there has been somewhat of a misconception. The messages I sent to the two supporters (I did edit them, but just so more people wouldn't read them incorrectly) "User:Derbundeskanzler" and "User:Julian & Juan - From Julian Spencer" were taken the wrong way. They said they supported the move on a Wikia Chat (I don't know them personally, but I do know them there) when I mentioned it along with the Oobi at Work move, and I was simply asking them to comment on the talk page itself, but I can clearly see how it could be read as me asking them to support it altogether. Please understand this when closing it. There is no opposition (the move was going to be done by Acalamari but because of the first requested move, a second had to be created), but I wanted to clear this up so that you could close it correctly. Again, thank you for adding the template! Squiddaddy (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to confirm my appearance on Wikia. However, I understand Cuchullain's mistake and just wanted to remind you that even though talk pages are directed towards one person, they can be read by all. Most won't know the background information. Also, even though your first language wasn't English (according to Wikia user pages) you should try to add all details. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel like you're being bombarded with messages, Cuchullain! I was in a similar boat once on Wikia, it wasn't fun. Anyway, there's not much to be cleared up here except that I was on Wikia as well. Even though Squiddaddy's messages were following Wikipedia guidelines in this case, I would like to tell Squiddaddy that Wikipedia relies heavily on rules and if me and Derbundeskanzler weren't around to affirm, this whole thing would be a big mess. I really appreciate all of the research Cuchullain did on this RM, though! Julian & Juan - From Julian Spencer (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wonder Pets

Hey Cuchullain, re: your recent comment at Talk:Wonder Pets it also strikes me as odd that Momsandy has been on a 2 month hiatus from editing, but is back in time for this discussion, which she once participated in. On the other hand, she did start editing a few days before the discussion began, but I wonder if this isn't a coordinated effort. I don't have any dogs in this fight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Momsandy has posted a reasonable explanation on my talk page. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching)

Hello, Cuch. Just to let you know that you have been included as a party in the following dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan You're welcome :) 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, I will respond there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;
(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;
(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.
9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.
13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Joan

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Love to Love You Baby (song)

I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Excalibur

Greetings, I have written what you have asked me on the discussion page of "Excalibur".--151.44.138.159 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Excalibur (2)

The Talk page is very precise. Why your rollback?--151.47.223.109 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've explained the issue there already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm Bill, alias Cuchullain here on Wikipedia. I've been editing since February 2005, and was made an administrator on February 14, 2007. My interests are broad, but my primary focus is on medieval literature, particularly Irish and Welsh, and I frequently work on articles on the Arthurian legend."

WIKIPEDIA IS BASED ON SOURCES. There is a strange connection between these three actions: Entering "first = Welsh legend"; to foreground the etymology welsh; and elimination Latin etymology. All this is very very curious. Someone used wikipedia to pursue certain claims baseless. WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND NOT BLOG. EVERYTHING IS UNDER THE EYES OF ALL.--151.18.196.137 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This user is edit warring on the Excalibur article again - please consider protecting the article. Cagwinn (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for page protection so another admin will take care of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Take me to Church

Since you moved the page, you should probably close the RM at Talk:Take_Me_to_Church. Thanks. -- Calidum 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, look like my close didn't save.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Take Me to Church

As you chose to ignore the ongoing EM discussion, perhaps you'd like to close it. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

History of Florida State University

Hey, Cooch. I hope you're doing well. When you have a few minutes to kill, I would be grateful if you would take a look at this Talk:History of Florida State University#Edit request. As someone who is openly associated with the University of Florida on-wiki, I hesitate to start making corrective edits to the FSU history article for obvious reasons. That being said, the quoted passage perpetuates several urban myths about the origins of the modern University of Florida, and its relationship to the pre-Buckman Act Florida State College, none of which can be credibly sourced. It should be corrected. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That article has had problems with inaccurate information. I'll take a look.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing help

Hello, Cuchullain - I've seen your edits to articles on religion in the past. I like to read articles on religious topics such as Society of Jesus, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola (I'm interested in the history of religion, along with general history), and as I read I make minor corrections and copy-edits. Occasionally, I come across unclear sentences or other small problems, and I need to find someone who knows the subject or can look things up and figure out what is correct. I used to ask two editors, but one has just been site-banned. Would you mind if I occasionally asked you for help with small problems I come across? I have some questions about an article I read about two weeks ago. CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, sure, I'll try to help as much as I'm able. What is the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I had problems with my computer for a few days. The article is the one on the Sylvestrines. Here is the comment I left on another editor's page on 7 February 2015 but never received any reply, and the article has not been edited since my edits on that day:

I just finished reading the article on Sylvestrines, and I made a few copy-edits. I have a few concerns about the section Sylvestrines#Expansion:

1) In the first paragraph:

(a) In the third sentence, I changed "They" to "The Sylvestrines" to make it clearer. I just want to be sure that that is correct.

(b) The fourth sentence reads:

Additionally, they have monasteries in the United States, the first being established in Atchison, Kansas, where two intrepid monks arrived in 1910 and served the spiritual needs of the many workers in the coal industry there. [italics added]

The sixth sentence reads:

They were welcomed into the Archdiocese of Detroit in 1928, where they built their first monastery in the country in 1938, now called St. Benedict of Oxford Priory. [italics added]

How can the first Sylvestrine monastery be in Atchison, Kansas, and also in Detroit, Michigan?

3) In the second paragraph:

The second sentence in the second paragraph now reads:

In the late 20th century, a foundation was set up in the Philippines and, more recently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

You will see in the Revision History that I changed "has also been made" to "was set up". The verb has to be in past tense, but I didn't think the verb "made" was the best writing. I don't know if "was set up" is accurate. If you think another verb (perhaps "was established"?) is better, feel free to change it.

4) In the third paragraph, I changed "serves" to "has served" (because it says, "for twelve years", and it seems as if Dom Michael Kelly is still in that position), but I'm wondering about that phrase "for twelve years". First of all, 2007 plus twelve years is 2019, and it's only 2015 now. Second, as the time goes by, "twelve years" will become inaccurate. What would you think of changing the sentence to say, "Since then (ie., since 2007) he has served in that position..."? CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD: At a glance everything looks good to me. I'll take a closer look as I have time and update accordingly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Complex

Thanks so much for moving Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker. Somehow, the name has an inadvertent "t" at the end of Cheyenne Mountain Complext. If I did that in the request, I am so sorry, is is possible to have it moved to Cheyenne Mountain Complex? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, thanks for the catch. It should be fixed now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, quick work! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential Source for Anita Sarkeesiean

Since you seem to be collecting them.

Chess, Shira; Shaw, Adrienne (2015). "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 59 (1): 208–220. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.999917.

Might be useful to talk about the harassment and "feminist conspiracy" claims around GG. I'm not sure we really need more sources for that on her biography though. Regardless, I thought I'd let you know in case you were interested. — Strongjam (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Strongjam, that's a great source. Please do bring up other sources you come across, as it helps us determine what the best available sources are saying about the subject, and in many cases help us determine which points we really need to cover.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

FSU - 1905 men's sports transfer to Gainesville

Hi Cuch,

I noticed your change to the FSU main article reference the 1905 movement of the football team and frats to what became UF. What are your sources for disputing this claim? A note of this (supposed) event appears in the official FSU history here: http://www.fsu.edu/about/history.html I agree the claim, if accurate, could be better written that what you deleted.

Thanks and cheers,

Sirberus (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirberus, the claim about the "transfer" of the FSC fraternities and football team is an urban legend that someone incorporated into the FSU website without doing any fact-checking. All of the original UF fraternity chapters (ATO, PKA, SAE) were chartered/founded in Lake City in 1884-85 at the inception of Florida Agricultural College, not in Tallahassee. Moreover, transferring chapters is not the way the national fraternities operate; chapter charters are issued for specific colleges and universities. Chapters chartered for Institution A don't transfer to Institution B; the national fraternities simply charter a new chapter at Institution B. Bottom line: the new university traced its Greek-letter traditions to Lake City in 1884-85, not Tallahassee in 1904.

As for the "transfer" of members the FSC football to the new University of the State of Florida, it never happened. The new USF had a football team in fall of 1905 in Lake City, but it did not play any officially recognized intercollegiate games. Between fall '05 and fall '06, the new university moved from the old FAC campus in Lake City to the new campus in Gainesville. The new university football team played its first intercollegiate schedule in 1906. It is well-documented by former Tampa Tribune sports editor Tom McEwen that only one member of the 1905 team (who can be identified by name) was also member of the 1906 team. The origin of this urban legend seems to be the fact that Jack Forsythe was the last coach of the old FSC football team in 1904, and the first coach of the new university team in 1906. Just so everyone understands the discontinuity of the two programs, Forsythe coached at a high school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, in 1905, following his single season as the last FSC coach in 1904. Please note that there was a two-year interlude between the last FSC team in 1904 and the first recognized university team in 1906. Clearly, the FSU "transfer" story is ephermeral and unsubstantiated. If you believe otherwise, I suggest (a) you find a scholarly source that says otherwise, or (b) provide the name of at least one 1904 FSC football player who played for the new university in 1906. One unsourced sentence from the FSU website is flatly contradicted by the facts. ~~Furthermore, the linked text from the FSU website seems to be a mirror article of the Wikipedia article, presenting its own set of chicken-and-egg reliable sourcing problems.~~ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I did some checking using the Wayback Machine internet archive and the Wikipedia article histories. The oldest version of the linked FSU history webpage archived by the Wayback Machine dates to November 25, 2005 [5]; the present History of Florida State University dates from July 5, 2007, when the history text from the parent Florida State University article was cut and pasted to form the history spinoff article. Here's how the parent FSU article appeared in November 2005: [6]. A quick comparison of the evolution of the Wikipedia FSU articles relative to the FSU history webpage suggests that the FSU webpage was one of the primary sources for the Wikipedia articles, not the other way round. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirberus: More or less what Dirtlawyer1 said. This detail appears to just be an error; no sources that go into any detail on the matter say that FSC football players, let alone the team, made the switch over to what is now UF. I'm not sure about frats, but I suspect it's similar. For one relevant source, Ric A Kabat's excellent article about pre-FSU football, "Before the Seminoles: Football at Florida State College, 1902-1904", discusses the end of the "Florida State College Eleven". He notes that a number FSC players transferred to Grant University and five played for the Grant team, and that several veterans formed a new city team named the Tallahassee Athletics. Kabat makes no mention of any of them attending or playing football for UF, and he certainly would have included such an interesting detail if it were true.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK; that's good enough a response for me to accept for now. As more sources become available and accessible through the Internet we'll correct a lot of the rivalry lore in this area. I have been surprised over the years just how many excellent sources are becoming available online. Sirberus (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts on this issue. I don't have time right now to cover all of it, but these questions need to be answered: 1. Dirtlawyer1 asserts college fraternities don't transfer chapters from school to school. If that is true, then how could Florida Agricultural College (FAC) (a different school in a different town) transfer their chapters from an existing Lake City school to a new school in Gainesville? By his logic the new University of the State of Florida would have to have fresh, original chapters, not transfers from collapsed schools, of which Florida State College (FSC) would be an equal at a minimum to FAC. I recall in earlier discussion it was someone, perhaps even Dirtlawyer1, who asserted the Buckman Act technically collapsed all schools and the fungible remains used to build the three new state schools. 2. If Dirtlawyer1 is incorrect on his fraternity transfer claim, then are ALL fraternities accounted for and are ALL social organizations which could have been considered "fraternities" and thus transferred from Florida State College in Tallahassee included? Aren't there social organizations, service organizations and academic honorary organizations all of which use the Greek alphabet to spell their names? 3. None of Dirtlawer1's claims, except that of the development of the History of FSU article is sourced, while the FSU claim (undeniably a pained and passionate claim which has been around for decades as the FSC folks sincerely opposed the Buckman Act. See the lawsuit by the executors/administrators of the Westcott Estate against the effect of the Buckman Act, for example, which had to be decided by the Florida Supreme Court) is readily available at the link I posted above and such original research by Dirtlawyer1 to overturn a clear reference in the official FSU History is not allowed on Wikipedia, even if the claim by FSU makes UF folks squirm. We must assume through the years that lots of UF Gator folks like Dirtlawyer1 have registered disputes with FSU officials and still the claim remains in the official history of the university. In incomplete summary (for now) I assert that the claim by FSU be accurately represented in Wikipedia as-is, due to the fact this claim by an extremely reputable source (Florida State University) which has the ultimate facility to competently sort between lore and fact deserves deference from later original research by advocates of the rival school, especially since the claim is longstanding and likely subject to periodic review. Like I wrote earlier we could rewrite it and properly source it. Sirberus (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dirtlawyer1 asserts college fraternities don't transfer chapters from school to school. If that is true, then how could Florida Agricultural College (FAC) (a different school in a different town) transfer their chapters from an existing Lake City school to a new school in Gainesville?"

Simple. Nothing about this makes me "squirm": I wrote 85 to 95% of the Albert A. Murphree and Andrew Sledd articles, which are 100% reliably sourced Good Articles. I know the pre-1905 history pretty damn well. In addition to the published sources cited in those articles, I also had access to the University of Florida and Emory University archives at the time. At the time of the Buckman Act in 1905, everyone treated the new University of the State of Florida as the de facto and de jure successor of Florida Agricultural College, which for its last two years of existence (1903-1905) was known as the "University of Florida" by act of the legislature. As far as the national fraternities were concerned, Florida Agricultural College in Lake City was the same entity as the University of Florida in Lake City -- which was a simple name change -- and the same entity as the post-Buckman Act University of the State of Florida. Fraternity charters are granted for the specific institution, and FAC (1884-1903), the University of Florida (1903-1905), the University of the State of Florida (1905-present), renamed the University of Florida (1909), are the same entity or the legal successor by merger. Also keep in mind that the new University of the State of Florida operated on the existing Lake City campus during the 1905-06 school year, before moving to the new Gainesville campus in September 1906.

Here are some links you may find helpful:

University of Florida Intrafraternity Council, Sigma Alpha Epsilon webpage: [7]. Founding date: February 11, 1884.

Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Florida Upsilon Chapter home page: [8]. Founding date: February 11, 1884.

University of Florida Intrafraternity Council, Alpha Tau Omega webpage: [9]. Founding date: 1884.

Alpha Tau Omega, Alpha Omega Chapter, chapter history webpage: [10]. Founding date: February 26, 1884.

Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, Chapter by State webpage: [11]. Founding date: 1884.

University of Florida Intrafraternity Council, Pi Kappa Alpha webpage: [12]. Founding date: 1904.

Pi Kappa Alpha, Alpha Eta Chapter website - not currently working.

Please note that SAE and ATO chapters were founded at FAC in Lake City in 1884. West Florida Seminary did not award its first diplomas until 1884, and its first bachelor degrees until 1891, and would have been ineligible to host a national fraternity before then. Prior to 1884, West Florida Seminary, like East Florida Seminary wasn't really a college- or university-level institution. Both seminaries were really something more like a public high school, prep school or finishing school. Hence why both seminaries avoided calling themselves "university" or "college" -- because they weren't yet degree-granting institutions. I won't even get into the recent silliness of claiming a "new" university founding date of 1851 for what was really a secondary school that did not exist until 1857. Higher education in Florida did not really exist until the 1880s; and the University of Florida's claim of an 1853 founding date traces to the first secondary-level classes at East Florida Seminary. The honest history is that EFS and WFS were both authorized by the legislature in 1851; EFS held its first classes in 1853, and WFS in 1857. Neither was a degree-granting institution at their founding. WFS awarded its first bachelor's degree (not a diploma) in 1891, seven years after FAC opened as a degree-granting Morrill Act land-grant college in Lake City. Given the real history of the two modern institutions, the recent one-ups-man-ship regarding founding dates and claims to being the "oldest university" should be embarrassing to everyone concerned.

The PKA chapter was founded at the old University of Florida at Lake City (the renamed FAC) in 1904. SAE, ATO and PKA are the three oldest fraternity chapters at the university of Florida, all of whose foundings predate the 1905 Buckman Act. I really don't want to be facetious, but I'm pretty sure the national SAE, ATO and PKA fraternities (and the University of Florida) know their own histories better than an anonymous web guy at FSU.

So here's the question for you, Sirberus: Can you name any of these purported Greek-letter fraternity chapters that supposedly "transferred" from the old FSC to the new university in 1905? In fact, can you name any of the Greek-letter fraternities that existed at the old FSC before the Buckman Act? This is the core problem for the unsourced claims regarding FSC fraternities and its football team: there is no back-up documentation for such claims and they are contradicted by historical facts sourced to other organizations. This should not be some silly UF vs. FSU thing; frankly, I have very little patience for that kind of nonsense. If 1904 FSC football players transferred to the new university and played for its first football team in 1906, please provide their names and a reliable source. If there were FSC Greek-letter fraternities that existed at FSC in 1905 and subsequently "transferred" to the new university in 1905-06, please name them and provide a reliable source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, Sirberus, if you're asking whether the material on fraternities should be restored, my inclination would be no unless we can a stronger source for the claim. The reason is that the only source for the claim (where it's sourced at all) is a passing mention in a section of FSU's webpage, in the same sentence that includes the material about football, which seems to be an error. It seems probable that the bit about the frats is an error as well. If you find another reliable source that makes the claim (or the other claim about football), of course we can discuss including it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, here's another online source that calls into question the "transfer" of fraternity chapters from the old FSC to the new university: The Seminole 1910 yearbook of the University of Florida. Please note the three fraternities listed on pages 109 through 115: Pi Kappa Alpha (chartered November 17, 1904); Kappa Alpha Order (chartered October 4, 1904); Alpha Tau Omega (chartered 1884). Apparently, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter was taking a "time-out" during the 1909-10 school year, and was not active. So, that's the three-chapter list of Greek-letter fraternities at the University of Florida in 1909-10, in the fifth academic year following the Buckman Act consolidation. All three active fraternities (ATO, KA, PKA), plus the fourth inactive fraternity (SAE), were chartered at FAC or the old UF in Lake City in 1884 or 1904. As of spring 1910, there were no fraternity chapters at the University of Florida imported from the old FSC. Thus the 1910 yearbook is completely consistent with the previous information provided from the UF Intrafraternity Council, the national fraternities and their local chapters. Based on multiple sources, it seems pretty clear that the University of Florida Greek system was not created by the wholesale "transfer" of whatever fraternity chapters may have existed at the old FSC in the spring of 1905. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked through the sources and agree those organizations show the dates Dirtlawyer1 states. So far, I cannot find any evidence through cursory search which shows the FSU claim is even the slightest bit accurate. I also looked for Greek letter organizations at FSC and so far have found none. The earliest I find at this point is a sorority (Chi Omega) from 1908. I'll keep looking; but it appears bleak at this point. I was going to argue for inclusion of the claim based on scant evidence; but first we must have some corroboration to even rate the word scant. There are a number of FSC year books (the Argo) which could address this point. I searched through the 1902 Argo so far and found nothing. In sum, I agree the FSC transfer reference is at best dubious and should not be included at this time absent corroborative evidence. I do have considerable historical materials on the pre-1905 history of FSC at my disposal. I can search through those in due course.

Dirtlawyer1 - As to the university establishment date issue there is no single best way to reflect the dates of schools and the FSU interpretation is as good as the UF one. Were we to be fully consistent both (and FAMU) would show the Buckman Act date of 1905. Many schools have equally spasmodic origins. Embarrassed is probably too strong a word for this contest of little note, most don't care at all. I think it is a political and historical curiosity. It's kind of hard to focus on higher education when dueling still occurs and yellow fever epidemics kill your neighbors. Personally, I am fascinated by the history of these schools. Sirberus (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 - I have a source - a collection at the FSU Libraries - and it conflicts with your fraternity date references. It says: When in January 1903, the Alpha Psi chapter of Kappa Alpha fraternity was installed at Florida State College, it was the first Greek letter fraternity formally established at any college or university in the state of Florida. That is quite interesting as it excludes any formal establishment of other fraternities at FAC. Perhaps those organizations were not formally established? Here's the link: http://guides.lib.fsu.edu/content.php?pid=359827&sid=2942597 As a result, The reference and citation should be restored to the FSU articles. I will travel to the FSU Libraries in Tallahassee over time and perform further research. But I think we can agree this is a non-trivial reference from an academic source. If you, Dirtlawyer1, can provide an equally authoritative reference for your sources (let's assume the fraternity references were installed by a web guy, and thus may be considered less authoritative) then we have an interesting conflict. Otherwise, we have a dispassionate academic source conflicting with non-academic sources of perhaps dubious quality. Thoughts? Sirberus (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirberus: without commenting on the reliability of the source, it doesn't indicate that the fraternity system transferred to UF, so far as I see. That claim should not be restored for the reasons above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We can rewrite the new information based on the new source. Sirberus (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like we could include something about Kappa Alpha being the first Greek fraternity being to be established in Florida. My only qualm is about how accurate it is. The web page is just a guide to what's in the library's collections. The info on Kappa Alpha seems to come from this 1903 issue of Kappa Alpha Journal, which does say it was the first in Florida, but it seems to contradict sources saying that there were frats at Florida Agricultural University before that. What we need here are good secondary sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirberus and Dirtlawyer1: I see the conversation has continued at History of Florida State University. I'll head over there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Society of Jesus

Would you mind taking a look at this edit [13] to Society of Jesus? I don't know about the "nickname", but the added sentence is already there at the beginning of that paragraph. The word "accordingly" indicates that the first sentence is the reason for everything that follows "accordingly", so I don't think it needs to be repeated. I would just undo the edit, but I don't know about the "nickname" that was removed. CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The line did follow the source, but it uses most of the exact wording so I've rephrased it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Prester John

Hi there,
Can you just help me to bring Prester John for FA? I found it interesting and you are the lead editor (I presume). I have made some tweaks and cleanup and some fixes in the lead.-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald: Sure, I'd love to help. I only really have access to Silverberg's book, though, and I'll have to dig up my copy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have for Oxford and could get some info at OUP and OI.. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The Herald, I'm not sure the article is quite ready for an FA push, and I don't know how much time I'll have this month to respond quickly to comments and requests. As I said, I'm not even sure where my copy of Silverberg is right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lemme try then. I'll reply the comments and ping you...:-)..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Color graphics for Infobox college football player

Cooch, here's a sneak peel at how the revamped infobox is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Joe Cool (typical example). What do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design? In particular, how do you like the "college varsity stripe graphics?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I like them a lot. Well done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not final yet; there are some folks out there who are determined to make the CFB player infobox look like the Plain Jane graphics of Infobox person. Once the sports guys see the new version, I seriously doubt that will happen, though. I think this is a real step forward in terms of making our college sports graphics look more professional, and I believe there may be an opportunity in the near future to upgrade our college sports team articles using the same graphics. Too many of our existing graphics looks they were done by a 12-year-old on a Commodore 64. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul Hunter

Apologies, I did not know about the RM - in fact, judging from the discussion, nobody from WP:FOOTBALL did. Why was there no notification to, and therefore input from, the relevant WikiProject? I find this especially concerning when anonymous IPs are mass-suggesting page moves against long-established community consensus and naming standards. Giant Snowman 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: No problem, that's what I figured. As for WP:FOOTBALL, I don't know, I'm just the closer. I assume that no one from the project noticed and added it to the list of discussions. But I don't see a problem; we can't expect every user to know about every relevant project, and the proposal was in line with the naming conventions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burlington station (North Carolina), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amtrack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)