This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cuchullain. 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.
Under the section History: Their forefather came to Kerala only in the 1675. The first bishop (Fifth generation in India) was consecrated in 1772. by a bishop who came from Antioch. At no time in their history they had any contact with the Roman Catholic Church. So it is meaningless to include their history from first century.
It seems you are not sure about the court case No: R.A. 22/1862 at the Madras High Court for which the verdict was pronounced in 1862.
Under Ecumenical relations I find that “Other ecumenical links have been developed, not least with the Anglican and Lutheran Churches”. Are you sure that this church authorities know about what you have written?
Under the section, Relations with other Nasrani groups, a paragraph states that “However within 150 years.. .. .. “ This paragraph has nothing to do with this church.
Writings of foreign authors, especially who had not been to Kerala or visited Kerala for a few hours or days and then writes about St. Thomas Christians of Kerala cannot be considered as reliable sources.
Just for your information, Yesterday (Tuesday 15, February 2011) I met the senior bishop of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. I know that they have a good collection of their original historical documents. Earlier I had a talk with their historians and had seen their documents and had visited their offices and parishes for getting their correct history for my books.
The Malabar Independent Syrian Church is certainly one of the churches of the Saint Thomas Christian community. As such a brief mention of the total history is warranted. Currently there are only two paragraphs devoted to this history, and they are the only well-sourced parts of the entire article.
I didn't write the section "Ecumenical relations". I agree that it is very poor.
If the "foreign authors" you're complaining about are Baum, Neill, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, of course they are reliable sources. Please do improve the article, but removing well-sourced material attributed to undisputably reliable sources isn't going to work.--Cúchullaint/c18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for a prompt reply. I was not able to write soon after because I was busy in editing and publishing a book , released on Saturday at the Maramon Convention and in trying to find more about your recommended reliable sources.
I was not able to find details of this Baun. What is his full name and what is the title of his book? About Neill, I assume that you are talking about Bishop Stephen Neill. I am afraid that you have not read his book. Now I am colleting details of his work in India and a few other things concerning him. Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly a reliable source for matters connetced with Britain and about British people. By the way do you consider original documents as reliable?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. The full bibliography for the authors I used is found in the "references" section of the article. Neill is Stephen Neill; the book is certainly reliable (and yes, I have read it; I assume you mean you haven't read it?). Neill was educated and taught at University of Cambridge, and his book, published by Cambridge, is highly regarded in the field. The other book is A Concise History of the Church of the East by Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler, Austrian scholars. Baum was formerly a professor of the University of Graz. Winkler is a professor at the University of Salzburg; you can see his qualifications at his web page here (it's in German). According to the book's title page it was originally published in German; the English edition is published by Routledge, a reliable publisher. Encylopedia Britannica is definitely a reliable source, and not just for Britain. It's not even published in Britain. However, as an encyclopedia it's not as good as a scholarly work for our purposes. Of all the above sources, Neill is the best; it's the most comprehensive and the most respected by other scholars in the field.
On "original documents", that's a tricky issue. Original documents are primary sources, and can be subject to interpretation by whoever is reading them. For that reason Wikipedia articles need to based on reliable secondary sources written by scholars in the field. Original documents may be used, but can't be used to make any kind of interpretation.
Thank you for your nice letter. Last week two books were released and now I am busy preparing another one.
About Neill, I wanted to make sure that you were talking about Bishop Stepen Neill who was a missionary in South India. I have read some of his books and if I am not mistaken I heard him addressing a gathering when he visited my town. I try to read all your edits regarding St. Thomas Christians because I am one of them. So please continue writing. If I am not mistaken, I have been to your State a few years ago.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, Neduvelilmathew. I've tried to follow your edits as well. It's good to see another editor working to improve our articles on the Saint Thomas Christians, especially someone from the community. I've actually cut back editing articles on the community a lot, after a pretty nasty confrontation with a tendentious editor who has since been banned. I still do try to help out where I can based on the sources I have access to.
I highly recommend Neill's History of Christianity in India. It's certainly the most comprehensive treatment of the subject in the English language, and it's very well written and evenhanded. Of course it does contain some material some readers don't want to hear, but the author had a lot of sympathy for all of India's Christians. I only wish I could speak Malayam and the other languagesnso I could read about them more fully! Take care,--Cúchullaint/c00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
On the Hurricanes, I'd say not yet. For us to have an article on some future event or development, it is imperative that it's almost certain it's going to happen. With the Hurricanes, there's still no firm confirmation about if/when they'll actually be playing, joining a league in Jamaica or elsewhere, etc., beyond this one release. Once we see a real schedule, or they start playing games, or it's really confirmed they'll be doing something similarly noteworthy, we can create an article. However, this source is a good sign. You could of course work on it in your user space before moving it into article space.
The same for the deleted articles: to recreate them we need (1) reliable, third-party sources that discuss the team to a significant degree to establish notability, and (2) real confirmation that something definite is going to happen. We can't put much stock in vague announcements from the AMNRL; thesearticles from 2001 show that the league has been talking about westward expansion for literally 10 years. Nothing came of it in any previous year, so we'll need more to verify that this year will be different. Basically what we need to do is gather all the available reliable sources as they emerge and see what we can do. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but I predict some of these teams may have a notable future, and others will never really get off the ground.--Cúchullaint/c16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Matthew Shirk
The edits that I have made to the wikipedia page on Matthew Shirk are done to make the page more neutral. Since you left me the message I have removed other material that is negative and is referenced to the Folio weekly, an alternative news source that has a reputation for getting facts twisted. My goal is to make the page more neutral, plain and simple. I'm not the same person that has also been editing and adding as you suggested. Everything being done is within the Wikipedia policy. Your removal of reliable information raises questions about your neutrality. (Bushnellmacomb (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
Sorry, but you are obviously the same person who's been adding that same material. If you want to seriously improve a Wikipedia article, you need to be prepared to edit according to Wikipedia policies. Using alternate accounts to make your position seem better supported, edit warring, and adding poorly sourced material is not acceptable behavior. That said, improving neutrality is the goal, and I'm more than willing to work with you on that. Folio is usually not a great source; I'll look into that.--Cúchullaint/c19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Scott & High-Speed Rail
The economic impact of high-speed rail is relevant to Scott's decision to reject funding. It's also not negative; you're reading in your own view (several theories could explain based on cost-benefit why "rejecting" those jobs was the right move). Your argument based on original research and BLP is flawed because a FDOT study does not meet the criteria of original research, the information is not inherently negative, and the source is reliable. I'm reverting the page to include the job information. This issue is best left discussed in the Discussion page and not in an edit war between you and whoever put the information in the first place. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but you are clearly the same editor as the above. The reasons why your edit is inappropriate has been explained in detail on the talk page.--Cúchullaint/c23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of castle age
Dear,
I think you should have discussed deletion before deleting the "castle age", Preferably on its or mine talk page. I found it suitable to be created as I think people may come to wikipedia searching for It. The stats shows this page was able to attract substantial viewer-ship. Though being an Administrator you have right/ authority to delete a page if you find it suitable. I think a discussion with creator or editors would have been better. I believe the Admin-ship authority comes with responsibility. I think use of this power without discussion may deter new users in terms of contribution.
Hello Arshan. I deleted the page in accordance with the deletion policy, after reviewing the deletion discussion. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has standards on verifiability and notability, and the article did not meet them. Specifically, the article had no reliable sources, which are necessary to determine whether material should be on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--Cúchullaint/c17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I think there's probably a better way to explain the situation concisely, but that certainly wasn't it.--Cúchullaint/c13:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Jesse Itzler
the part of the article on Jesse Jaymes' song, which is part of his musical career and it is not biographically relevent under those pretenses as per wiki. the information does not speculate about jesse itzler.
as per wiki
Edit summary: "Reverting, discuss on the talk page before making changes"
This is a red flag if the person writing this edit summary doesn't say anything about it on the talk page! No one owns Wikipedia articles, not even Jimbo Wales (see WP:OWN). If someone is going to demand that others discuss on the talk page before making any changes to an article, fairness demands that he too discuss it on the talk page. Also, he should remain open to what is said in the talk page. When others heed the request to "discuss on the talk page before making changes," it does not give veto authority to the person who requested this.
Nonsense. I did discuss it on the talk page, and explained the various problems with the material. I also explained why the material was inappropriate in my edit summaries. As the one wanting to restore that material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it.--Cúchullaint/c16:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
the evidence is there, the document was thoroughly referenced. the discussion shall be moved from here to the article's talk page. you removed an entire section and a very large amount of information based on vague explanation at best. your reasons were outlined, but i contend that the proof is "in the pudding" already. I agree with the above statement. your methods are such as to dissuade others interested in editing wiki projects Nophonenophone (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Books Monthly site, it's the author's personal web page. He doesn't claim any particular expertise and his editorial process for reviews is reading through them himself. To my mind it's clearly not a reliable source. You could always run it by WP:RS/N, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. I'll weigh in at the AfD.--Cúchullaint/c17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
USA Rugby League Teams
USA Rugby League website launches tommorrow and will probably give us a better idea of their plans for 2011. Maybe it would be time to recreate the pages as it seems most teams who will be involved have already been announced, perhaps see tomorrow and see whether they are worth recreating?Youndbuckerz (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, I don't think we should recreate the "developmental" teams until we know more about them. Unless of course there are third-party reliable sources dealing with them. But at any rate the site updates should give us more to work with. Perhaps we could make a section on the developmental teams on the USARL page.--Cúchullaint/c02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Oneida FC, RI Rebellion and NJT Titans? should i start those now? It says those are teams that are guaranteed to play- no forfeits etc..Youndbuckerz (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Those would probably be all right to get started on, since their commitment to play in the league is more or less official, and there may be some third party sources we can use. I'd say let's not create the Utah, Dallas, Denver, etc. articles until we know what they're doing and have sources to use. Again, we can mention them at the USARL page, and it may be worth it to make their names redirects to the league's page, as it appears they've all aligned with the league.--Cúchullaint/c14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I will get started on them as soon as i have time. One team i believe i should also start are the Denver Wolverines as they have a website running and iirc they have news articles on them the others arent quite at that stage yet. Website is up at usarugbyleague.com it has the full clubs and developing regions Youndbuckerz (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, verifiability isn't arguable. If there are no reliable sources on a subject, we can't have an article on it, period. On whether some of these teams may join fulltime, well, it's not for us to predict the future. They may join (and hopefully some or all of them will), or they might not. But Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and we can't have articles based on what might happen.
My suggestion will be to turn the articles into redirects back to the USARL page, and making a brief section for the developmental teams. That way we can avoid having to delete them all, and the history will be preserved if and when the teams join the league. Even if they are deleted, I can restore the article text if need be, or you could save it in your user space. Unfortunately, either way, your images can't really be kept on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you've put so much work into it, but we've been through this before.--Cúchullaint/c15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, redirect is alright if you can save the info that will save the hard work of having to re=add all the info again.Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hi, i recently copy-edited the Motormaster article as part of the Wikipedia copt-edit drive, however User_talk:Mathewignash has reverted twice the changes and even cited them as being "bad" including removing a very valid "more footnotes" needed tag. I raised the issue with them on their talk page: User_talk:Mathewignash#Motormaster to no response at the moment. I also informed them that i'd ask for an admins opinion, and as you are familar with Mathewignash and i've come across you before, i thought you'd be the best choice.
So essentially i'm asking for you to look at the article and see whether mine is as claimed: Reverted the bad edits made, that don't follow correct formatting' and that Mathewignash's version should take preference in regards to Wikipedia manual of style and etc. etc. or the copy-edited version. A proper comparison can be found here as they include both our final versions of the article.
Would you mind having a say here? I opened a discussion on the WikiProject trying to work on small bits of the layout at a time, however i feel that it might be better just to provide a working example of a complete restructure. Mabuska(talk)16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll drop a line over there. I won't be joining the project or contributing to the subject regularly, but I'll offer my opinion.--Cúchullaint/c17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats no problems. An admin's opinion carries more weight to us ordinary members, and i think a less biased viewpoint may be central to the discussion on future article formats. Mabuska(talk)23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Service award level
There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Oh, I see you've added it already, excellent. I was thinking of creating an article for the Atari 5200 Gremlins as well, which seems to be the more interesting version.--Cúchullaint/c15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I think an article for the 5200 version would be a great idea; I'll be happy to help if you decide to start one. It might be the first article on a 5200-specific game, unless I'm missing one. 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Fairfax Eagles / Alexandria Storm
Hi, I'm Danny Hanson. I wanted to clear up some things you've posted. The Alexandria Storm was never associated with the Fairfax Eagles. I was the coach of the Eagles and when Steve Grant decided to move to Texas this year, I began the idea of the Storm. I was then approached by the Slayers to be their head coach. I asked several Eagles players to move over with me. Steve had no hand in the merger with the Slayers. Since I am now active with the Slayers, I have no intention of starting the Alexandria Storm and the Eagles are now defunct.
Thanks Danny. When I was working on the article, I was trying to base it on the official PR releases from the league (specifically this). Do you know if the league or the teams are going to make an official announcement about it to clear it up? It may be something you want to do, at least on the Slayers website.--Cúchullaint/c20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. That was the release and it was accurate at the time of release. Good idea regarding the press release. I'll definitely do that soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansondw (talk • contribs)
On 30 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gremlins (Atari 2600), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the rare 1984 video game Gremlins, the player must either prevent the furry Mogwai from eating the hamburgers at the bottom of the screen, or shoot them after they transform into gremlins? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm also bothered by all the edits adding 2010 population numbers. I haven't been able to find the figures on the US census site, except as a downloadable data file, and the interactive sites some newspapers have put up don't link very well as citations, and may not be available all that long, either. I've been reverting un-cited changes, but I'm ready to give up on that. One problem I see is that I'm not sure that the numbers are final. I gather there is the possibility of adjustments being made. Do you know if this is being addressed anywhere on WP? -- Donald Albury00:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge it's not being addressed on a wider scale, but it should be. This actually happens every year when new estimates come out; well-intentioned editors add the new estimates without citation, or else just leave whatever old citation was there, which is worse. It's just worse this year as it's actual census figures rather than estimates. I would have preferred not updating any of these pages until we had a real source from the census we could cite, not just tables of data, but considering how hard it would be to uphold this over thousands of articles that may not be feasible.--Cúchullaint/c13:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
As a participant who has voiced an opinion over at the TF WikiProject about proposals to change the article formats, a set out proposal has been provided and as a participant in the overall discussions, your agreement or disagreement in regards to them is required, if you so wish to provide an answer. Link to proposals here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#What_the_proposal_actually_isMabuska(talk)19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
UF article
I reverted one of your reversions, as your argument was wrong. Neither of the citations for the race/ethnicity box says Caucasian, so I reverted your edit because If this is what's reported, it's what we say works against you (Census citation says white, the other citation does not use the words White or Caucasian at all).
The incorrect separation of Asian and South Asian apparently (regrettably) is what the UF citation says, so I let your reversion stand.
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not about you "letting" anything happen, or whether a source is "incorrect" or not. As long as we're reporting whatever the sources actually says, we're in the clear.--Cúchullaint/c13:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice you wiped out my edits to this page (with the edit summary "clean-up", as if there was something grubby about them!) and to the Spain section of Columbus Day. I've commented here; perhaps you could explain what the problem is... Moonraker12 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll respond over there. I didn't "wipe out" your edits; I reworked them in an attempt to be closer to the sources.--Cúchullaint/c12:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fine, for the time being anyway. I haven't looked extensively into it, but there was actually an article for the fiddle player at Frankie Gavin, eventually with a disambiguation note for the boxer, from 2003 to December 2009, when it was deleted as copyvio. So for that amount of time the disambig situation appeared to be adequate. And after it was deleted no one bothered to move the boxer's article or even create a redirect.--Cúchullaint/c13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've said, the articles should not be on Wikipedia until they pass the notability and verifiability requirements. This means they would need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources before they could be recreated. The source you linked to is nice, but that mere mention (it's really just repeating what's in the league's own press release) is not enough for them to have their own independent articles. At any rate it doesn't say anything that's not already covered at USA Rugby League. Especially considering that these teams don't have definite plans to join the league in the near future, there's no need for independent articles at this stage.
The image in the article shows the song title as "Theme from Cheers (Where Everybody Knows Your Name)", not the more simplified title. You should consider moving it back to accurately reflect the title of the song and not the common name for it. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä(talk)15:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The common name is preferred to the official name. In this case the song is much better known as "Where Everybody Knows Your Name", which is at any rate already a subtitle of the more official name. When the song was up for an Emmy it was as "Where Everybody Knows Your Name".--Cúchullaint/c15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Twined Towns - Sister Cities
I am new to Wiki and I appreciate your status as master editor and am willing to take your guidance; however, I hope you will use some discretion instead of simply undoing everything I am trying to do for my city Ocala, FL… I gladly take the hint and agree to drop the “International Relations” section (an idea I borrowed from another city) and also lose the reference to Columbia… but must insist that the rest is in fact an improvement and also much desired by my superiors at the City. There was no section at all for our sister cities when I began… What you see is also what I did. Give a guy a break will ya? We are expecting visitors from Ireland this week! Please leave this edit alone for a while, can you handle it? --Wormdust (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Wormdust. We've tried to explain why your edits were problematic on the article's talk page. Much of the issue was the formatting: there was no need for the sub-sectioning or for the bullet points, and of course no reason to include a sister city partnership that lapsed decades ago. I'm sure we can work out a mutually agreeable solution if you weigh in the discussion at Talk:Ocala, Florida rather than reverting.--Cúchullaint/c15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
So, we meet again!
I've just noticed your reply on the Sir Lamiel talk page (sorry, I've not been around much recently); I’ve replied over there (just to give you a heads-up). Moonraker12 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
.
Dear Sir, Please kindly confirm, is it OK with below reference to be used in the articles.
1) isbn=9781434323576,
publisher=AuthorHouse
Author name: Aleem Shamim
Book name: Prophet Muhammad(s) and His Family
chapter:Some Observations About Prophet's Marriages AND Chapter: Mothers of Believers
Page 76-86
A user User:Faizhaider had doubt about its authenticity and vacated the section, just because he could not find it thru simple google search.
Kindly advice, is it should and must that provided references should be reachable thru simple google search? otherwise the source information will be removed?
I would also like to report about the misuse of the WP authority given to the user User:Faizhaider as he is creating inconvenience and disturbance on the article Aisha, as informed by him, to me on the talk page of Fatimah he is Shia. therefore he does not make any disturbance on the article Fatimah thou there are number of un-sourced, primary sourced and frictional works without reference and he does not allow any user to work on it, he will simply revert it with un-necessary reasons. --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The book by Shamim is definitely not reliable. It is published by the self-publishing company AuthorHouse, and is therefore an unusable self-published source. The other doesn't look to be the kind of source we could use either. It's not a publication about Aisha or women in Islam, it's a curriculum unit for teaching high school students about it. It will probably references sources we could use, however. If you want additional input you could post at the reliable sources noticeboard.--Cúchullaint/c16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi. Sorry I haven't had time to look at the most recent round of editing / discussion. I hope to be able to do this tomorrow (Friday) or over the weekend. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do. In the meantime Richmondian has reverted it out and reinserted his contentious statistics as well as some blatant bias, but we'll deal with that as we have opportunity.Cúchullaint/c13:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
please desist
You are reverting a little much, Cuchu. Please engage in conversation. Not trying to say you are right or wrong, just the constant reverting and threats of blocks are not making for a nice environment.
Again, they are not threats, they are warnings of what is very likely to happen if you continue edit warring. You can heed them or not, but if not, you're heading for a block.Cúchullaint/c11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
discussion comments
Man, here we are again with the Fairfax Eagles page :-) Surely I'm permitted to remove discussion comments that I posted? When we were going back and forward on there I was not aware that conversation was going to become public record. In any case, I'd like my comments removed.
On another note, the logo that's posted on the Eagles page is one that we do not have license for. It was a revised logo created by the league in 2010. If I send you the original logo that we own the rights to can you post that instead? I figured it's easier/better to do it this way than have me change it, have you change it back, have me change it again, etc., etc.
Thanks, Steve. The comments you've posted are part of the "public record" whether you alter them on the talk page or not, as they're saved in the page history. Altering a comment after others have replied to it is is almost never appropriate, as it deprives the other editors' comments of context and makes it very hard for anyone else to see how decisions were made. What I can do is archive our conversation so it won't be visible from the talk page.
On the image, sure, if you have one you'd rather use you can contact me with the "email this user" button to the left. It may be easier to just upload it yourself (with the "upload file" button also to the left), and I'll take care of the license tags.--Cúchullaint/c13:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Cooch, I have a small problem. There have been a series of IP users who continue to delete the 2011 SEC regular season championship from this article. The IP users are located in Greenville, South Carolina, and may be the same user with a dynamic IP address. Could we protect the page for a week or so? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Dirt, I missed your comment yesterday. Hopefully the notion has passed and we won't see any more edit warring. You ought to make a comment on the talk page explaining your position; I've put the page on my watchlist, so if it keeps happening I'll step in and protect the page if need be.Cúchullaint/c23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
re: wp:article titles
Hi, Cuchullain,
After checking around, and thinking about it, I think the problem is pmanderson. Sure, I would think that, but If you check his block log:
I was getting quite angry, because I couldn't understand why his arguments didn't make any sense, but he just clearly never backs down.
He really is edit warring the policy isn't he? Blueboar isn't good either, but neither of them are getting consensus (by which I mean, we all agree and then make changes), rather than just ganging up on the policy, like blueboar and pmanderson is.
It's a policy, you're supposed to agree. But I think if stick together and make a good faith effort to enforce that all changes have to be agreed then it will be OK. At the moment blueboar and pmanderson are kinda running wild.
We can't let blueboar and particularly pmanderson or anyone else (me either) make any changes without getting agreement, that clearly doesn't work.
Yes? Can you assume I'm making this offer in good faith? If we get (say) WhatAmIDoing on board we can enforce it, because we would have the majority. I've already put the same thing on his talk page.
Otherwise it's just going to spiral out of control, pmanderson won't back down on anything, and blueboar will tend to back him up. I'm proposing the opposite of edit warring, we go with consensus, and any changes made by pmanderson (or anyone else) gets undone by one of us, and moved to the talk page, where we discuss it, and if it's consensus only then do we action it.
I can certainly accept that you're proposing this in good faith. I think the way to go about it is to start off from the perspective that neither version accurately reflects what the real consensus is. I think the original version was closer, but considering that it has confused, or at least found to be deficient by, a number of editors, it needs to be tweaked. We ought to make a proposal, probably based on the original wording, that makes it clear that the purpose is to make sure articles are presented in the same way, and that not all titles have to consist of words that typically function as nouns.Cúchullaint/c14:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with that completely. But at the moment I'm more concerned with the behavior that's happening on the page, And if I'm the only one undoing edits and moving them to the talk page where they can be discussed, I think that pmanderson in particular and blueboar will just revert me on the main page. Whereas if we present a united front, I think the end result will be 100% better. At the moment pmanderson seems to be of the attitude that he doesn't care or need to care what anyone else thinks. I just think it will calm him and everyone else down if we do it this way.Rememberway (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Rememberway, if you're going to bring up pmanderson's block log it's only fair that we look at your past account's blocks and topic bans as well. I strongly suggest you keep editor behaviour out of this conflict. --NeilNtalk to me14:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Neil's advice to focus on the content rather than the contributors is sound. It will certainly make the situation much more collegial on the talk page; at any rate there's no way to edit war on the policy page itself right now, as it's been protected. As soon as I get a chance I'll put together a proposal for the wording, and we can go from there.Cúchullaint/c17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. It's certainly worth a mention on the Axemen article; there's not enough to justify an independent article yet though.Cúchullaint/c17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I disagree with your recent reversion of the article Sibel_Kekilli. If you believe that I used "mangled language" you should change the text in order to improve the language, but keep the information intact instead of just revert the text to the previous version. Following are my considerations regarding the version of the article I have edited:
No, the article was not clear at all that Kekilli did porn films. In fact, the article was clearly written in a way that deliberately tries to conceal this fact and this is against wikipedia policies. I could agree that the importance of such a list is arguable, but definitely his past as a porn actress need to be clearly stated. I've changed the article in order to fix it.
Your addition included some mangled language; it wasn't an improvement. The article was already clear on Kekilli having worked in porn.Cúchullaint/c12:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just FWIW (don't really want to discuss it at the article's talk page since I'm fine with your revert): she was born in Germany, but as a Turkish citizen; she changed to German citizenship 10 years or so ago. For that reason, I figured it might be an acceptable and not un-due compromise to put that into the lead. Cheers, Amalthea13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem was that she's not "Turkish-born", meaning "born in Turkey". She was born in Germany. I can't read the German sources, so I don't know what they say about when she became a German citizen, but it appears she's been one since before she was notable. Her Turkish heritage is discussed in the article body.Cúchullaint/c13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see, my mistake. To satisfy my curiosity, is there a succinct wording to express that someone was born with a certain citizenship, as opposed to in a certain country? And yes, as far as I can tell she (only) held German citizenship during her whole career. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, if she had Turkish citizenship and just happened to have been born elsewhere, she'd just be a "Turkish actress". It's only tricky here because she evidently had Turkish citizenship when she was born, and acquired German citizenship later. But at this point, she's been a German citizen for the whole period she's been notable. WP:MOSBIO specifically speaks against adding ethnicity or "former nationalities" in article intros unless it's particularly important, so I don't think it's something we should worry about in the lead. But it's definitely something we could add to the article body if we had a source for it.Cúchullaint/c16:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
National Rugby League USA
Do you think it is time for the National Rugby League USA page to be deleted? The comp has failed to kick off and probably never will, it is likely the USARL will turn pro within 3-10 years at least, with the right structures in place.¬¬¬¬
It probably shouldn't be deleted outright, as it did get some notice in the press when people thought it might actually go off. I agree that the league will probably never get off the ground; it's not the first time they or others have announced a project that has failed to materialize.
It might do to merge it with AMNRL. A couple of well-cited sentences in a section of the AMNRL article will probably suffice. I'll think about it when I get some more time.Cúchullaint/c14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
