User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 5

Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (61/1/1). I'll do my best to be a helpful and effective administrator. If there is anything you need, just ask.Cúchullain t/c 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lanval

Hello, I noticed that you had removed the bullets from the "Allusions" section of Lanval. Is there some sort of recommended format that I should be following with these articles about the various Lais of Marie de France that I've slowly been writing? I wrote the ones about Guigemar and Equitan, and contributed a little to the others, but so far I've been making up the format as I go along. Thanks. --Kyoko 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job by the way. The bulleted format is fine for (embedded) lists, in cases where those are appropriate, but generally prose is preferable. In this case I don't think the allusions are really a list, but rather a discussion of content, and as such prose works much better. Otherwise I think your format is working fine so far.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Susanna Drury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Melusine

On 23 March, you edited out the story of Elizabeth Woodville and Jean de Luxembourg from the Melusine‎ article. The incident is a rather famous one, and the editor who added it did relate that it is mentioned in the annals of parliament, so it wasn't entirely unsourced, just not properly sourced. However, I can understand your reluctance to believe it coming upon it for the first time. Elizabeth Woodville was in fact tried, in 1483, by an ecclesiastical court for sorcery for alleged harm to Richard III. The historical novel The King's Grey Mare by Rosemary Hawley Jarman was based upon this story. See, e.g., this 1973 review. Maybe it should just be marked as needing better references. --Bejnar 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that. That same editor had been adding very dubious passages into other articles, and in this case he added lines like this: "she was a late medieval version of Aphrodite and associated with fish-tailed Venus or the Roman goddess of light, Lusinia (Juno Lucina="light") and therefore associated with Shamuramat or Semiramis, worshipped at the goddess cult center of Avalon identified with Glastonbury in Somerset." This, and the entire paragraph it's from, is bull. Not knowing what of the new material was good and what was false (it was all unsourced), I thought it best to remove it all, lest the whole article be damned. If you want to add the good material back in with proper sources (or at least cite needed tags), please do. If you have the inclination, you might check over that users contributions and see if anything is worth keeping; I've reverted most of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Trivia" section from Apocalypto

On March 25, 2007 you removed the Trivia & Goofs (discontinuity in the movie) section from the Wikipedia entry for Apocalypto. I understand that you took a bold step and the reason for removal of the section was that having a Trivia section is not encouraged. I also understand your reluctance in believing the Waldo frame. However, if it was true, don't you agree it is an important fact about the movie and it should be included? I encourage you to rent the DVD and please check for yourself if it exists or not. The guidelines in WP:TRIV asks to incorporate the trivia into the main story, or more targeted sections. Should we therefore not reinstate the facts in the Trivia section, probably putting some of them in more targeted sections like Easter Egg Frames or Discontinuities in the Movie? --Hirak 99 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I think it's important enough to include in the entry, but if it really is easily verifiable then my objection to including the Waldo trivia becomes much less strident. I'd personally prefer it was referenced with a mention in some secondary source, rather than simply instructions on where to view the frame, however. If it or any of the other trivia is included, it should be in another section, preferable one that already exists, rather than simply creating a new one with a title like "easter egg frames" or "discontinuities"; these would be essentially a trivia section under a new name. I'd suggest putting in the production section, perhaps with a sentance like, "The producers included a few humorous references to popular culture; such-and-such a character says "I'm walking here", a famous quote from Midnight Cowboy[source], while in such-and-such a scene, a single frame of a man dressed like Where's Waldo apears[source]..." As I said, though, I'd greatly prefer it if the facts were referenced to reliable secondary sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, just after I wrote the message to you it came to my mind that the most suitable place to put presence of such frames would be in the production. It is however, rather unfortunate that there is no secondary source yet which indicates the presence of the frame (or, Mel's appearance in the trailer for that matter). I can understand because I myself will also feel reluctant in believing such a claim unless I verified it personally. Hopefully a reliable source will come out soon in the form of an interview regarding the movie.--Hirak 99 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia from Caladbolg

Maybe instead of deleting and sending a link to a regulation, you could maybe follow that regulation and incorporate it into the article. Slayerofangels 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have if it was sourced, but I'm not going to incorporate further unsourced material into the article. The burden's on the one adding it; if you want the Final Fantasy mention in there so badly, source it and then incorporate it (not in its own section). However, the mention in Phantasy Star Online claims it is rarely seen in the game, so I don't think it's notable enough to be included anyway (imagine if we had to list every singe mention of Excalibur that has ever appeared in pop culture).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excalibur

That is a fair use image that shouldn't have been removed. Also, why is it that you delete the Trivia sections in other articles but not in the Excalibur article? Is there something different about it? Also, I realized that I tagged the image wrong. It is fair use and is used in an article that would constitute fair use. Slayerofangels 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the tag, if it's fair use, it can only be used to illustrate to object in question. The sword in the picture is not really Excalibur, it is a product supposed to look like it. If the article was about the product, we'd have a case for using it, but it's not. Thanks for removing it from my talk page. As to the trivia in Excalibur, basically I haven't gotten around to it yet (and neither has anyone else). The page needs a good round of general cleanup. But the section also is in a perferred format; it is arranged in prose rather than a bulleted list, so as to look less like a trivia section and more like a real paragraph.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tír na nÓg

Not trying to start any kind of wikipedia war with you, but why do you feel that the trivia I placed in the Tír na nÓg article shouldn't be included? -TheQuaker 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't take it personally. To answer your question, for one thing, trivia sections in articles should be avoided. Second, the material wasn't sourced, and didn't think it was notable enough to be included, since neither the song nor the album it's on have an article. Nothing against the band, but almost invariably whenever we have sections devoted to trivia or popular culture in articles like this they fill up with references from modern times, even if the subject is hundreds of years old. This doesn't make for a good encylopedia article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reckless deletion of facts

Cúchullain,

I do not understand your resentment. I will speak in reference to questions that you raised in Trivia: Where's Waldo or Wally. I have made these points in the Apocalypto talk page, but for the benefit of other users I have decided to write it here also. By looking at your talk page I have a feeling that this will relate to most of the work that you generally seem to do in Wikipedia.

0) I have mentioned it before, but to make the list complete I will say this again. The Wikipedia trivia policies say that the facts mentioned in trivia should be integrated to the main article, and only then should the trivia section be removed. The document goes ahead to state, if someone puts more facts in a new trivia section then the process of integration should start all over again. Nowhere does it say you should take the onus upon yourself to recklessly remove facts, which you do not feel is important.

1) All the points in that section have a source, namely the primary source. It is the same source that we use for 99% of any story related material, including the synopsis. As far as I understand, the initial doubts regarding the hidden frames were there because the statement was made here even before the movie was released, and hence the sources were questionable. Now that the DVD has been released those doubts should be cleared. On a second note, it is completely beyond my understanding how you can reject other obviously verifiable but important facts, for example that the movie has no opening credits.

2) A secondary source is not a compulsory requirement. Hence there should be no obligation to produce a secondary source. Having said that, it should be noted that they do enhance the quality of the article, so they should be cited whenever they are applicable.

3) What you find interesting, half the world may not. What you do not find interesting, the rest of the world might. In any case, interesting is a subjective term. Criteria for inclusion of a fact should not be judged by "how interesting the fact is", when the importance is assigned by a single individual.

4) Allow me to clear a point if it is causing confusion... this article is not about Mesoamerica, nor about North American history. It is regarding a movie. And the facts like the producer putting in hidden frames are in reality very important facts relating to the movie.

5) Please do not keep using the phrase that "I am being bold". To be bold is a phrase to encourage new users to update articles. If you have to come to "being bold" as a justification for removing facts from an article, then probably you should not do it. Remember, at times being boldness is synonymous with utter foolishness. Be bold, but please do not be reckless.

Please read WP:TRIV and WP:ATTR policies. Also please read about WP:BOLD. I am putting the section back. 193.108.73.47 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I feel that the section, and most of the innane facts in it, do not in any way improve the article. I also feel that if you are so desparate for the material to be kept, you should take the extra step of incorporating it into the rest of the article. However, I have no interest in continuing this edit war with you. As for the policies (and guidelines) you mention, I've read them all, and will continue referring to WP:BOLD whenever I take bold steps to improve articles. Finally, while I wish you would not generalize the work I do here by the last few comments on my talk page, you are of course entitled to your opinion. --Cúchullain ^t/c 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi's views on race

Gandhi's views on race An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gandhi's views on race. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs)

Impolite behavior

You reverted my edit of Merlin, calling it vandalism to include the original name of the character. A large number of articles on both mythological and historical persons include the name in the original language, and often in a number of languages. See Zeus, Odin, Roland and Sigurd for just a few examples. Editing the article of Merlin to conform to similar articles is completely justified, and I don't understand your reverting my edit. That, however, is of course a difference of opinion and something that could be discussed on the talk page. What I find insulting is your calling it vandalism to insert the name of the mythological person in the same way as in many other articles. That is nothing but impolite and brutish behavior. As a moderator of Wikipedia, you could be expected to show better judgement. MartinTremblay 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant! I wasn't calling your edit vandalism. I was reverting back aways because of some vandalism that occured before your edit. However, I didn't restore your addition because I felt that while Myrddin is the Welsh name for Merlin, the modern concept of Merlin is actually a composite figure deriving from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who combined some characteristics of the figure Myrddin with stories of Aurelius Ambrosius. This confuses a lot of people, and I didn't want readers to get the impression that the later medieval character and the 6th century Welsh bard were explicitly the same. If you disagree, please bring it up at Talk:Merlin, I'm sure we can work it out.

Again, my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding. If there's anything at all you need, don't hesitate to ask.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Pluto

Hi, the page has been redirected without discussion after the end of the AFD you closed as without consensus - this seems wrong, what do you think? Kind regards, sbandrews (t) 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Another user stepped in and sorted it, :) sbandrews (t) 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) The article has again been put up for AFD after surviving once - I don't have the energy to fight for it again, so I'll back out - is this how wiki works? Those who want to delete can just repeatedly nominate an article till others give up, it seems like a form of bullying. :( regards, sbandrews (t) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like proper process was followed in nominating a group of article. And I don't think he should have renominated it the morning after I closed it, if his only suggestion is to transwiki it without naming what wiki he wants it moved to. But it does appear that some issues have been raised on the page for some time. If you want them to be kept, you could try to improve them according to the problems addressed on the talk pages and AfDs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel the page stands in it's own right, there are no improvments I can make to overcome the deficiencies others see in the page. Indeed the comments on the talk page, they were made by me, no-one else has bothered. I took a look at the AFD guidelines, on one page it says that after a closure without consensus the proper process is to discuss on the talk page what is to be done, it says 'no further AFD is required'. There is no discussion of how to handle repeated nominations, I am assuming that this is because repeated nominations (for the same reasons) are not supposed to happen. There does not seem anywhere for me to turn, sbandrews (t) 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Make a comment on the current AfD, and you can also bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. There were, however, many issues brought up at the first AfD that need to be taken care of; if they are not I can see the article being deleted in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, as has the original nominator of the first AfD, but nothing is being done - this new AfD will continue unless you do something, sbandrews (t) 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to do. I don't have any opinions about whether the articles should be kept. I don't think it should have been relisted so soon after the first AfD closed, but it looks like he was trying to bundle it with the other articles so they could be discussed together. If the concerns given at the first AfD weren't addressed, notably that it wasn't really an article, then it was likely to have been relisted eventually anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They were bundled in the first AfD, they were discussed together then? I don't understand what you mean. What I am asking you to do is either close the AfD or tell me to go away and stop wasting your time :) BTW, as I understand, as a sysop you are not supposed to express an opinion in an afd, you are supposed to carry out the will of the community. If you have not been doing that you need to rethink, regards sbandrews (t) 11:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They were not WP:BUNDLEd in the first AfD, the other articles were only prodded, as far as I can tell. I also don't see any grounds for a speedy keep on this one, since he's clearly not the only one who wants to delete, and an improper nomination is grounds for just doing it properly, not for throwing out the discussion. The reason I said I had no opinion on deleting is because I thought you were asking me to weigh in at the AfD, which I felt no need to do. The whole thing currently looks like a mess, I'll leave a comment at the AfD, but I don't think a speedy close is justified. And just to tell you, I'm not going to have much time this weekend, so I may not be able to respond very quickly to queries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to scroll down the page to see the WP:BUNDLE, anyway, thanks for your time, your note on the page will help, what a pain I am! :) regards, sbandrews

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second nomination)

Could you explain your judgement on this a bit more? It is true that there are more "keep" votes, but it also seems to me that they aren't all that well justified. Mangoe 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be a clear consensus not to delete. And I think (many of) the keeps were justified; AfD isn't cleanup, and that some or much of it was unreferenced crap doesn't mean it all was. Personally I hate articles like that, they are unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. If I were to have voted, it would have been delete. But I closed by consensus, and there were twice as many "keeps" as "deletes".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

I noticed that you closed the debate for deletion of this article, but you gave no explanation of your decision. Could you please explain what you felt was the conclusion of the debate? As far as I could see the only ground for deletion of the article from the proposer was wp:not for plot summaries, though other grounds were discussed in passing. The issue of in and out universe seemed entirely a red herring, and nothing to do with the merits of a deletion. Did you consider that the proposer had established his case, or felt deletion was justified for some other reason? Sandpiper 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There seemed a clear consensus to delete, and I felt the nominator proved his case - there were just no, or far too few, reliable sources used, and it seemed likely they didn't exist at all. The fact that the creation of a timeline for the series was a fan undertaking also seriously undercut any claims to notability. But my primary reason for deletion was based on consensus, and the delete voters made their case pretty well. I would not have objected to transwiki-ing it somewhere, but no one suggested that and I'd imagine that if there's a Harry Potter wiki they'd have the same info already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of people voting to delete, yes, but my question would be not that they wished the article deleted, but whether valid grounds for deletion had been demonstrated. The initial request argued that this was a plot summary, and hence deleteable. I don't think anyone argued that the article was inaccurate, so if it was deleted because it was a plot summary, then I don't see where the issue of sourcing comes into it. On the other hand, if you had dismissed the argument to delete on the grounds of being simply a plot summary, then it might be that accuracy would be an issue. However again, I am still confused as to where a demonstrable case for deletion had been made. Lack of sources firstly suggests that an article should be culled of non sourced material, not deleted. The information re dates/happening is largely unimpeachable as to source, coming either directly from the books or from Warner bros published with the films. The other half of the article, discussing how specific reference dates were arrived at might be rewritten, but again is a documented claim by a website recommended as a reference source by the writer of the books, which continues to host their claim re how they derived their own reference dates, and that Warner nicked their info. This was not stated as clearly in the article as it might have been, but this was in part due to the low key stance taken by Lexicon over the issue. So, while you say they made their case well, what case exactly did they make which was grounds for deletion, rather than that they personally did not approve of that kind of article? Sandpiper 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I interpreted that there was clear consensus to get rid of it. The primary reason I deleted was verifiability, no one had established that the info could be adequately verified. I also considered the arguements that it was OR/a synthesis of published material drawing its own conclusions, and that it wasn't notable. The plot summary argument was somewhat less convincing to me. If you disagree with my decision you are free to take it up at WP:DRV.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, are you saying that if the article were more precisely referenced to the sources of each fact, and that if it were, yes, a synthesis of published material, but not drawing its own conclusions, then your decision would have been different? It was an issue within the debate whether or not it was a synthesis advancing an argument, or whether it was presenting the identical argument outlined on the originating website, Hp-Lexicon. I would have to say that I have no idea whether the relevant Lexicon pages are actually referenced, or not. I have re-read the debate and I would absolutely agree the argument was very muddled and confusing. Sandpiper 11:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First, it depends on what the conensus was. If most participants thought this hypothetical article was non-notable, original research, fancruft, a plot summary, etc., and their claims were valid, I still would have deleted. Second, it doesn't sound like your suggestion would necessarily solve the verifiability issues. It's one thing to just give whatever few dates appear in the series, but it's no good if the only way to verify the bulk of the material is with fansites, even good ones. Even if it was only referenced to the mentions in the books themselves, or statements by Rowling or whatever, it still leaves the issues of notability addressed at the AfD, and probably separate issues of whether such an article is even useful, given the dearth of dates mentioned in the series. So no, I can't say my decision would have been different, unless the consensus was different.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the dates in the list of dates has been invented. They are all either items which rowling has specifically mentioned outside of the books in spinoffs, or are based upon references in the books (eg 'I started teaching 30 years ago') The only research element is to pin the year Harry potter started school, and the other when his parents started school. Generally, the remaining dates are relative to these from straightforward relative references which could be listed. The books in general date things relative to each other, for probably sensible writing reasons to avoid their becoming old. However a few absolute references have crept in, and these are, I thought, what is being argued about. One could reference this stuff by fansite, which has the benfit of demonstrating similar tables drawn up which shows it is not simply an invention of WP, or at greater length from the books. Having read WP:OR it remains clear that cataloging and collating data, such as dates, from a primary source is entirely proper. This being the case, I don't see how the article could simply be deleted, when half of it is entirely proper content as a collection of dating references. As to noteability, I would observe that an understanding of when various things happened within the story is essential to unravelling the mystery, and thus of great interest to readers of an encyclopedia, and presenting events in chronological order obviously helps. From a practical point, it is also useful that whenever a date comes up in any of the numerous HP articles, it was linked to this article for further explanation. This was a significant aid in preventing people arguing about it on every page. In fact, I don't recall the issue of noteability being raised significantly in the debate. This is just one of a whole suite of HP articles which are designed to be read together, and should realy be considered as a collection. Rather, one should ask whether harry Potter is noteable. I suspect that a number of those voting felt that it is not, and this specifically was their reason for voting to delete. However, in the real world it is pretty laughable to argue that HP is not noteable. The final book has advance orders of half a million on amazon, and some statistics here suggest 13,000 hits a day on its article. This is kinda unprecedented.

The original poster argued that the article violated WP:not a plot summary. This kinda annoys me, because I tend to agree that articles should not simply be re-tellings of the story. That is pointless, say beyond enough to give someone an idea of the book. BUt I do support re-telling the story where there is an objective of explaining more than was apparent simply from reading it. The story as written was designed to confuse, and things such as the timeline present information in a way which is more useful to the reader than simply reading the book, or indeed reading an abridged version in a plot summary. However, the tendency in my experience is that any attempt to present storyline in a way which analyses and explains it is resisted, when simple re-telling is actually left alone or even encouraged. Wiki has a problem here.

As to the noteability of the process of deriving the absolute dates, as discussed in the other half of the article. Lexicon has made a claim that their material was used by Warner brothers, based on the fact that a 'mistake' in their published information was reproduced exactly on the information in the DVDs issued by Warner. This claim has been posted on their website for a number of years, and in correspondence with them (because I was also doubtfull in the past about what should be in the article), they confirmed that privately warner had sent them a thank you present, and that someone from warner had privately acknowledged they were correct. I did not see this as sensible to include in the article, as that would be making an issue of it. However, the publically posted information, on a website recommended by Rowling as a good source of information about her books, seems to me acceptable sourcing. The accuracy of the resulting dates is in any event confirmed by the appearance of identical dates on the material published by Warner, whose sourcing is essentially impeccable as originators of the films. The process of conjecture outlined by Lexicon is of interest to readers, whatever the outcome or whether you agree with their conclusions. It does outline the principle points, which again are all taken from primary sources, which make absolute dating possible.

I agree with you that there were more people arguing to delet than keep, but I do not agree that they managed to establish legitimate grounds for deletion. I felt the argument was very muddled, and your reply still leaves me with no clear idea which specific rule the article violated. Did it violate many, or just one? Was an impression established that it could be violating several, but not precisely which? That is how rumours get about, and people end up going off on pointless foreign wars. Unless it is possible to specifically show where a rule has been violated, then it should not be deleted. Of course, if it can be shown, then it is correct to do so. Sandpiper 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say to make this clearer to you. As I said before there was a clear CONSENSUS to delete, and several compelling reasons were given. Also as I've said before, the reason I found most convincing was verifiability - many of the claims were not attributed to reliable sources, and despite ample time to attribute them (the AfD closed several days late) it was not done. This suggests that there were no reliable sources to use at all, that the only sources were going to be fan websites. It's one thing to forge a chronology out of whatever random dates do appear in the books (and hopefully citing them to their source therein), but that article had an elaborate and thoroughly unattributed timeline. On top of this, there was the notability issue - very many editors felt the article's subject wasn't notable, that it wasn't an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, that it was only of interest to hardcore fans out of proportion to its importance, etc. It certainly has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. You may have thought the notability guidelines were satisfied, but most participants didn't, and Wikipedia works by consensus. I really have nothing more to say on this matter that I haven't said already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for James Earl Salisbury

I noticed you closed the AfD for James Earl Salisbury with a result of "Merge", and I don't see how WP:CONSENSUS said that merge is the appropriate action. Here were the votes:

Deletes:

• User:Arkyan, nominate, never mentioned merge per se, but his vote could be interpreted as merge. His specific qualm was that of notability, particularly that of "trivial" mentioning, except he used a different word of "secondary". Personally, I think secondary mentioning is not trivial, but that's his opinion and Wikipedia policies are a little weak. He specifically commented on two cases on my lack of bias with regards to WP:COI, and admitted that
• User:Leebo, weak delete, his qualm had nothing to do with notability, but that of WP:COI, and while there is a potential for a conflict of interest, no one could even mention any bias on my part, so his vote is effectively unsubstantiated by policy.

Update:

• User:Baccyak4H, abstain, with regards to notability, his belief it is on the cusp of notability, which I've mentioned above under Arkyan, that the policy is ambiguous on this matter. He mentioned WP:COI, but like I said above, couldn't find a problem with any bias.

Keep:

• User:mckaysalisbury, article creator and primary contributor. I believe the article is notable, as evidenced by its numerous, non-trivial, reliable, independant sources. Potential for WP:COI, but no bias has even been mentioned.
• User:AKMask, I'm going to reference this as obviously a great reference, because he and I have butted heads in the past, but felt that policy was clearly on my side [1].
• User:RFerreira, random AfDer. Votes keep, beacuse it "weak"ly passes WP:BIO.

Looking solely at votes, one would have to decide "Keep", but wikipedia isn't a democracy, so you have to look at the strength of the positions, even still, you have to vote keep, because the deletes are weak (by their own admission). Yes, two people (Leebo and Baccyak4H) did say that a merge might be a good option, but never actually voted for that, also, since there was a reply, specifically saying that that choice wasn't in line with policy, WP:CONSENSUS, says that that *shouldn't* be the designated course of action. I don't mean to make a personal attack, but an observation when I say that it appears to me, as if you decided to ignore WP:CONSENSUS, and execute the decision that you personally thought was best. Am I speaking out of line? McKay 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't think that your point of view (that merge is the appropriate action) is a horrible one, I disagree with it, but it's mostly intricacies of policy. What I'm saying is that as an administrator, you shouldn't be executing your own policy, but the result of consensus. If you wanted to vote (with a vote of merge), then you could have, but then you couldn't (or at least shouldn't) have been the closing administrator.

If you want to discuss either of these points:

1. a "merge" vote is in line with policy
2. administrators should look at consensus, and not what they think is right

feel free to leave a message on my talk page. McKay 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It was an executive decision. Consensus is the deciding factor, but as you say this isn't a vote - some suggestions are more compelling than others. I didn't find the "keep" votes very compelling, many of the references were generally about deaths from SARS and not on him specifically, for instance. But deletion was inappropriate. It seemed that the consensus was that at least part of the material was notable, but there was no consensus that it should remain in its own article. The most sensible solution seemed Leebo's suggestion of the useful material over. I'm sorry that you disagree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. I feel I should have explained my thought process in this better than I did above. First I think we disagree about the idea AfD "votes" (at least in this circumstance). I try to look less at the bolded words people type at the beginning of their sentences than at the argument that follows, and use that to try and figure out what everyone is thinking. For instance, Leebo voted "delete" and then changed it to "weak delete", but his subsequent statements made it clear he didn't want the whole of the article deleted; he thought your father's death was notable in the context of the epidemic, and should be discussed in the article on that. I felt that the spirit of both his and Arkayan's statements could best be interpreted as a merge to a more appropriate article. Then there were two keeps, one claiming the subject was notable, the other claiming the sources passed WP:BIO, "albeit in a weak fashion". Baccyak4H changed his vote from "delete" to "abstain"; his concerns were based on the notability issue and on the COI issue also addressed by Leebo. Below, Baccyak4H also expressed approval of the merge suggested by Leebo. Finally, there was you. While I don't have a problem with the fact that you edited an article on your father, I was concerned that the only strong keep opinion in the AfD was coming from someone with such a vested interest. But more than that I didn't agree that the article really passed WP:BIO; yes some credible media published stories specifically about him, but they were largely in the context of how his death was prominent in the SARS epidemic. This weakens the keep arguments. So my final analysis is that most participants had some qualms about the article's independant existance, if not an outright objection, while there were only two unqualified keep votes. However, no one wanted all the material deleted, and at least three explicitly expressed that merging the content was a decent idea, and the problems people had with notability and conflict of interest disappear with a merge.

So this is why I closed the way I did. I don't believe I was out of line or ruling against consensus. You are of course entitled to disagree, and if you think I was working improperly we can either discuss this further or you can bring it up at WP:DRV.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I respect the decision you made, though I personally disagree with it. Also, I believe that there was much more than just me that felt that the article should be kept. I think you're ignoring part of the community. I have a few questions that I would like discussed in further detail.

1. Could you be more specific as to why you think the article violates WP:BIO?
2. Can you please state where you think there is a violation of WP:COI?
3. I would also like more of your description of consensus. I've read WP:CONSENSUS several times, and I currently believe that most of the wikipedia population has a different understanding of that article than I do. I admit that I could be in the wrong here, but though I've asked on several occasions, no one has even tried correcting my view.
4. 6 votes. You used the argument that 2 people wanted it deleted, two kinda supported a merge, and two had unqualified keep. So, going against the wishes of two of them (those who wanted keep) you merged the article, trying to remove 2 problems (which haven't been identified as actual problems). Couldn't it just as equally have been said "2 people wanted the article deleted, beacuse they expressed a notability concern, we'll only go against those two and keep the article but request more notable sources get placed on the article."? With two diametrically opposed decisions coming with approximate strength, isn't this a classic case of "No consensus"? Let me re classify the votes in a different manner, I don't think this is extremely accurate, but the differences are designations you've placed:
   1. Strong Delete -- Arkyan
   2. Weak Delete -- Leebo
   3. Abstain -- Baccyak4H
   4. Weak Keep -- RFerriera
   5. Keep -- AKMask
   6. Strong Keep -- mckaysalisbury

Can you please show me where the "consensus" was on those votes? No two people really had the same idea about the article. This seems clearly like a case of "No consensus". Am I missing something? McKay 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, Leebo, and Baccyak all made statements supporting the relevant info being placed at another article; Leebo specifically suggested it be "merged" to Progress of the SARS outbreak, and Baccyak4H said this was a "good suggestion". I think they are basically 3 votes in favor of the same outcome (while Leebo voted "weak delete", his later statements make it clear he didn't really want the article deleted in its entirety). As for your question on WP:BIO, the issue was whether there were really multiple features in credible news media. Some of the references provided are not feature stories, but "news in brief" blurbs, a mention on the LDS website, etc. One reference is from the student paper at Harvard, where he attended, while others more are primarily about the SARS outbreak rather than him. All the sources besides the Chinese article discuss the subject in terms of his death in the SARS outbreak, and the only two I think inarguably focus on him (or your family) are the Chinese article and the CBS article. This is the position maintained by Arkyan throughout the discussion, this combined with the fact that no one else was explaining why they felt the article passed WP:BIO, weakens the claims of notability in the keep votes. And as to your question about WP:COI, I don't think there is any violation after your later rewrite. Like I said I don't care if you edit an article on your father, as long as you don't violate any policies or guidelines.

To reiterate, I think the keep votes were severely weakened by the fact that notability wasn't clearly established by the time the AfD closed (and it closed late). I also feel that the two delete votes and the abstain could better be interpreted as a merge. I understood there to be a rough consensus that some of the material was notable, but that there were issues with keeping it in a separate article. The best remedy for this was the one suggested in the comments of half the participants, a merge to a more appropriate article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that there are two discussions going on, is he notable, and what did consensus say:

1. With regards to WP:BIO and WP:RS, I thought I made it clear that the sources abounded in several different media. I asked if I should put more / more-reliable sources, and no one requested that. People have commented that many of the articles that also talk about the outbreak, It's definitely a blurry line, but as you mention yourself, he "has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works" specifically, you mentioned the chinese one, and the CBS one. Note that the CBS one was also televised nationally. I claim that there are more, but you yourself claim at least those two. That is notable.
2. You mention that 3 people expressed interest in a merge. When 6 people are voting, 3 does not a rough consensus make. McKay 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I felt the keep votes were weakened by the weakness of the sources establishing notability. One was a weak keep already, and one was from the article's creator and primary contributor (and the son of the subject). I have a question: if you thought you could better establish notability, why didn't you do it by the time the AfD closed? Lack of notability was the main reason to get rid of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted, I think some of them are weaker than others, but I thought it was clear that at least some of them were good enough for the non-trivial coverage required by the primary notability criterion. I also mentioned several other reasons how he passes WP:BIO, and no one contradicted them. I specifically asked if I should provide more articles, and no one said to do so. Also, again, you're accusing me of being biased. This time specifically because I was the article's contributor (but also because I'm the son of the subject). If you think that I am or have been biased in any way. Please give me examples so I can be corrected. I think that discounting such a vote (even in part) because I was the article's creator is either a personal attack or implying bias. For the record, I created the article for Canyonlands Desert, but I wouldn't vote for it's keeping in an AfD. I don't even remember where I got the name of the article from. I think it might be correct, but I can't provide sources, maybe someone else can. I would have to admit that the article isn't notable enough for inclusion. Does my vote count or not. Yes some (well 1) of the keep votes were "weak". You've also talked about the strength of my arguments, and I've been discussing them for the past couple weeks, but no one has really countered any of my arguments. Again, I think you're discounting my votes because of some ad homininem reason in your head.

Also, I think you're skirting about a couple of other issues that I've brought up: Aren't at least two of those good enough for inclusion? Yes, you yourself have said that at least two of them are good enough to satisfy the primary notablity criterion. I ask again, "What is the article lacking?" Can you quote a specific piece of policy or guideline that the article fails? You also mentioned Wikipedia:Consensus and Rough consensus, can you please show me where you think that the AfDs consensus showed that that's what should occur? McKay 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insult you. But obviously you think it's notable, or you wouldn't have created and maintained it. As for the two sources I considered the best establishing notability, they are non trivial sure, but are they credible? I'm sure the CBS one is, but it's still an article on the website of a TV station. I have no idea if the Chinese source is, but China isn't known for the quality of its media. But on top of this, those are the best two sources you gave by the time the AfD closed, several days late. This implies there aren't better sources to be found. If there are, I don't know why you didn't add them, there would be no reason to delete if the article clearly passed WP:BIO. In its final state, I don't think notability was established, which undermines the keep votes. However, the sources are more than enough to establish notability in terms of the SARS epidemic, so a merge was the best option.

Clearly you disagree with my reasoning and my judgement on the issue of notability, and my decision to redirect. At this point I'm very ready to let this go, I can't explain or defend my position any better than I have already. What do you want to do? If you want to un-redirect the article, I won't stop you, though I'd ask you to try and find some additional credible and non-trivial sources, if they exist. Barring that, you can either move on or take it to WP:DRV. But I'm getting back to editing articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I think the article is notable, beacuse I'm defending it, that doesn't make my vote any less valid. Arkyan didn't actually vote himself, he just nominated it for deletion, should we just drop his vote because he obviously doesn't think the article should exist. The argument is faulty there. My vote and opinion is just as valid as everyone elses. Also, those articles were added substantially before the AfD closed. Yes, I'm disagreeing with your reasoning, because I believe it's faulty. You mention "rough consensus" then later discount votes that you think are invalid. Though I've asked several times, you haven't even explained what you think consensus means. 50% of the population agreed with the merge action. I don't think that's consensus, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find policy that would say that it is. I stopped finding sources, because I had grabbed the low-hanging fruit, and it's a lot more work to dig deeper. Also, it appeared as if I was making a difference. Sure there were a couple stubborn people who were set in their ways, but newcomers to the scene all thought that the article passedWP:BIO even if weakly. Yes, there's some disagreement as to whether or not the references are trivial. None are "clearly trivial" but some (not all) would be in the grey area mentioned under WP:N. For the first time, you are now bringing up "new information" that now the sources may not be reliable. Do we throw out all Chinese Newspapers? His death occured in China, so do we throw out all Chinese sources? There's a lot of content that is no longer reliable for the SARS article, or are you prepared to define what is and isn't reliable news media in China? It appears as if you have to constantly find new arguments to defend your position.

so, you disagree with my claim, do you admit that my claim has ground? Or are you adamant that there is no possible way that the decision you made could have been the wrong one? I just need to know where you're at. McKay 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said since the beginning I don't think notability was established. That's why I closed the way I did. The problem is the sources. I explained why I don't think the sources adequately establish notability, in detail, because you asked. I explained that I felt some arguments outweighed others (arguments overriding others are discussed briefly in our (deletion guidelines under "rough consensus".) What I was left with I interpreted as three merges and three keeps that I didn't buy, with no one saying the info didn't belong at the SARS outbreak page. Could I be wrong? Yes. I don't think I was, but you make a strong case, enough to make me seriously consider my decision. Perhaps that has more to do with your persistance than the strength of your argument, but the fact is you feel strongly about this, and this discussion is now probably several times longer than the article was. It's time to move on: how about this, we un-redirect the page for the time being, and you can edit it further if you feel the need. Then, in about a month or so, if the notability concerns are still present, we can relist it at AfD to get a better consensus. Is this acceptable to you?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gathering some additional articles and references, from the Internet and Family. McKay 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I restored the page and left a comment on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) ----

Hi Bill. As an addendum to this discussion, I wanted to point out to you that your interpretation of my final "abstain" (with compliments to the "redirect" proposal) as an actual position of "redirect", is indeed accurate; I have no objections to your proposed relisting either, as it was so borderline (IMO). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Baccyak. So you know, I restored the page so further discussion can occur, you may wish to comment there. As I said above, I'll relist the page on AfD if anyone feels the notability concerns aren't taken care of in about a month.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about restoring this article. I've put a more comprehensive comment on the talk page regarding my opinion, but wanted to reiterate the fact that your interpretation of my position was correct in that I was quite satisfied with the merger. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop butchering the Excalibur page

Please! Slayerofangels 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean stop removing irrelevant material placed in inappropriate sections, then I respectfully decline.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When closing AfDs...

...don't forget to use {{ab}} -- otherwise the page will display funny. I'm sure you only forgot this one time, so no worries! Just a friendly reminder. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Blurred Line. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I can't believe I did that! Thanks, Ian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! Keep up the good work! (no need to reply) If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tanna

Oh - you've moved it back! Part of the reason that the island seems to be the main use is its inclusion in Template:Vanuatu. Now that I've changed that, what's the picture? - Fayenatic london (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't know, the island still looks like the primary use, at least by the number of articles that redirect to it, with the Jewish term (from Tannaim) a dignified second. In terms of a google search, the island also still looks like the primary use. I'm willing to fix all the redirects whatever happens, but what's going to be the bigger pain in the ass to fix, both now and in the future? Perhaps we should run it through WP:MOVE to get a consensus. At any rate, I'm going to be out for awhile, but let me know what you think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, good work. I fixed a few that you had missed, where there was more than one Tanna link on the page. Tanna the island now has about 20 incoming links, not counting those from the Vanuatu template. However, Tannaim has over 270, so if we were starting afresh I think Tanna would be a page about the Jewish sages! Given that scale of existing links, it's likely that more articles will continue to be created/expanded with links to Tanna, intended for Tannaim, so I suggest that Tanna should either be the disambiguation page or redirect to it. - Fayenatic london (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move the island back to Tanna (island) and get on the redirects. --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all done, then -- thanks! I wish consensus was always that easy. You probably noticed that I joined in with the redirects -- just enjoying using WP:Popups after I changed some of the options for it in my settings. I highly recommend it for fixing dabs, if you're not aware of it already. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui‎ (homoeroticism)

Andy says in the NBC interview that he was "weirded out" by the appearance of Cho taking photos in his doorway late at night. Possibly Andy was partially unclothed at the time. Andy also speculates that he did not know what else Cho might be doing there at that time of night besides the photos, implying that it might be other prurient activity. I believe that this adds up to possible-homoeroticism, implied by Andy. If true, the homoeroticism could be a potentially important personality trait of Cho's that should be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel8 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but that's only an interpretation of what the source says. If no source says it directly, neither should we.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy is talking about male-male prurient activity. The word for that is homoeroticism or at the very least possible-homoeroticism.  uriel8  (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, especially since his "homoeroticism" hasn't been brought up in the media. You can bring it up on the talk page if you wish, but I don't think we should draw that interpretation from that source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Y mab darogan

Was it you who deleted the reference to Gwynfor Evans being the mab darogan becuase it was not suggested or am I mistaken? If so look at the following link http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/comment/0,,1660579,00.html--Rhydd Meddwl 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it, because it was unsourced, and nothing in the paragraph even said he was called Y Mab Darogan. Your source is good, but if you reinclude him the wording should be say something like "Evans was referred to as Y Mab Darogan due to..." I don't think anyone really believed he was a literal savior in the way they thought of Arthur, Owain, and Henry VIII.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Canute the Great

I should apologize for undoing your second-to-latest edit, but I had to in order to revert the move. I hope you can forgive me, since the edit was made redundant by the move back anyway. :o) --dllu 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Your edits improved the article, which is the goal anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica

I noticed on Lilith that you pointed out that Encyclopedia Mythica was a horrible source and unencyclopedic. I agree, and long ago a number of us on Talk:Mythology agreed the same thing. Unfortunately someone keeps insisting upon putting it (and equally bad sites with Wiki and school projects where people with no background add anything they want) back as a link on Mythology and it was always getting reverted later. I removed it again last night, but it wouldn;t surprise me if it's back already there. Could you can an eye on it there? There are other badly-needed changes there, but this one is so obvious and important that I think we can prevail on that one. It'd also be nice if we could come up with some overriding policy on myhology pages somewhere not to link to sites like that so we can point people to it later when they put it back. DreamGuy 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an additional eye on the page. Links to pantheon.org should be removed on sight, especially if they are being used as an actual reference rather than an external link. As for coming up with an overriding solution to the problem, the best place to discuss it will probably be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy Letter

Duh, goddam that Dave Eggers and his stupid magazine to hell! I actually saw that reported as a real letter in the mainstream news, but re-reading it, it's gotta be a joke. Too bad, it'd be cool :) LilDice

No worries, I didn't catch on until I saw they had another feature on Aaron Sorkin's visit to the dentist.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Arthur

I put up a proposal for the project on Arthur on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#King Arthur. We need 5-10 people to justify starting the project, and we already have two. Wrad 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in, I'll put my name down now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Road (novel) -- descriptive terms as "opinions"

The novel The Road has often been described as "haunting," and if that is one of its keyt characteristics, then it should be noted upfront. It is not unencyclopedic to do so -- to the contrary, it would be unencyclopedic not to.

For an example of why it is not, look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article on "Existentialism." In the section on "Historical survey of Existentialism > Emergence as a movement," you will see that Kafka's novels are referred to as "haunting novels." Larry Dunn 13:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't demonstrate that the book is haunting, or that that is one of it's key characteristics, only that a reviewer found it haunting. That would be fine if the sentance said "some reviewers have called it haunting", but it doesn't. And the Britannica quote is not in the lead of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Britannica quote is not in the article's lead isn't really relevant here, because the article is not exclusively about the Kafka books. Anyway, the fact is that the article does call the books "haunting" -- it does not say that "Kafka's books are found by some to be haunting."

NPOV does not require that all descriptives be banished -- calling a movie powerful or a book haunting is not a value judgment. In fact, if it is a substantially unanimous view of the book, and in fact is seen as its primary artistic element, it would be wrong not to put that term in the introduction.

For more on this, see the article in question. Larry Dunn 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your source doesn't establish that "haunting" is one of the book's primary artistic elements, only that one reviewer thought it was. I'll respond further on the article's talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaver: 'cleanup, removing entries w/ no articles'

Is that a new policy? It results in a net loss of information. You could instead just mark up such entries, opening the way for creation of the relevant page. Mporter 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Please don't delete other people's comments on AfD. Corvus cornix 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an accident, my apologies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)