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.
Hi there, I saw that you started to move the page names for SEPTA stations to comply with WP:USSTATION. I would like for us (and all editors) to be on the same page about how we're going to go about standardizing the SEPTA station articles to avoid lots of unnecessary page moves. Some of the moves were done after I already started to standardize them, and have created minor issues. Whenever standardizing lots of page names, there will always be exceptions due to various issues.
Proposed rules:
Stations with same name as non-SEPTA stations – Disambiguated with "(SEPTA)"
8th Street station – should be formatted 8th Street station (Philadelphia) because it services SEPTA and PATCO. According to WP:USSTATION, "the option is especially appropriate for stations that serve more than one system or mode of transit". I can't think of any other SEPTA stations that should be disambiguated like this.
The two North Philadelphia stations – One is a SEPTA Regional Rail/Amtrak station, the other is a SEPTA subway station. We can't disambiguate by city for the first, so we need to include the modes in the disambiguator. Or we could do "(railroad)" and "(subway)", but that could be controversial, since technically a subway is also a railroad (but let's not get into that discussion here).
Airport stations – This is a strange one. First, the article compromises all 4 stations. Second, it's not clear whether the "official" name is "Philadelphia International Airport Terminal X" or "Airport Terminal X". But I'm proposing something like Philadelphia International Airport stations, elminating the "Terminal" from the article title because it doesn't make a lot of sense to read "...Terminal stations" since is about 4 stations at the airport, which each serve different terminals.
Dream out loud: Thanks for the comment, and I think most of those points seem very reasonable and beneficial. I'll ping two other editors who've been involved or commented since we started work here: epicgenius and Secondarywaltz. Here are my thoughts:
I moved several of the stations you'd moved to "(Philadelphia)" as you'd put them at the line name, and in my experience that's the least recognizable option for readers and is best reserved for when there are two stations in the same system of that name (as happens sometimes). Epicgenius moved most of them to "(SEPTA)", rightly, as many SEPTA stations are located in suburban towns that are a lot less recognizable, and as USSTATION notes the system is "a good option when the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city". That said, I think you have a point about 8th Street station in particular. That one should be "(Philadelphia)", especially as it appears the two systems own the different sections. We need to reduce the chance of confusion where possible.
Usually, when lines are necessary we just go with whatever the article's called (so "Broad Street Line" rather than "SEPTA Broad Street Line", etc.), but it may be worth trading some WP:CONCISEness for recognizability. I certainly have no objection.
No objection to moving AT&T Station if that's the common name. It does appear that Jefferson Station could go to (SEPTA); no opinion on capitalization.
On the airport stations, that seems like a reasonable descriptive title to handle a unique situation. Good call.
Yeah, adding SEPTA seems fine to me. I don't object particularly as SEPTA seems to have a pretty idiosyncratic way of naming the lines - Some are xxx-yyy Line while others are SEPTA Route xxx. On North Philadelphia, looking at the page views from before they were moved, the Amtrak station gets 69% of the views (more than double the BSL station). It also seems to be substantially more prominent in Google Books, presumably due to its history. As there are only two stations, the BSL station can be linked in just as few clicks from a hat note as from a dab page.--Cúchullaint/c13:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: SEPTA is meaningless to most people in the world, perhaps even in America, but almost everybody will have heard of Philadelphia. What use is disambiguation without clarity? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused here. If it is an Amtrak station the City is consistently used for disambiguation, but if it is a regional or local transit system station then SEPTA would be preferred. Is that correct? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz, I'd say that's more or less what we're gravitating toward. Realistically, either the city or the system could be used in most cases. However, the city is only really useful for stations actually in Philadelphia itself; (SEPTA) is likely to be more recognizable than, say, (Radnor Township, Pennsylvania). As USSTATION says, the system is "a good option when the system is likely to be more recognizable for readers than the city". Going with SEPTA where possible will make things a bit more internally consistent. However, (Philadelphia) or (Pennsylvania) will be needed in a few places where the station hosts more than SEPTA, for instance Amtrak or PATCO. And in a few cases, outside-the-box solutions are better.
Dream out loud, I think there will be a problem with Norristown High Speed Line stations. I moved them to (NHSL) as it's similar to what was used before. Would you suggest (SEPTA NHSL)? Because (SEPTA Norristown High Speed Line) is simply too long to be a good disambiguator.--Cúchullaint/c02:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't like "NHSL" as an abbreviation, because it's unofficial and not something that is commonly used, just like "BSL" and "MFL". It's ok to use the shorthand in discussions, but it wouldn't be approrpriate for disambiguation (unlike CTA for example). –Dream out loud (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking around the web, NHSL does seem to be in use; no idea how recognizable it is. I'm just not keen on these long disambiguators and 5 words seems very excessive.--Cúchullaint/c13:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The Norristown High Speed Line does seem to exit the Philadelphia city limits. The abbreviation NHSL should be pretty convenient for abbreviating Norristown High Speed Line titles. However, we could move all (NHSL) titles to (SEPTA) if there aren't any other SEPTA stations with the same name. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Epicgenius, unfortunately there are 5 that need the line as they conflict with other SEPTA stations of the same name. I'm down with (NHSL) or perhaps (SEPTA NHSL); thinking about it, the disambiguator only needs to distinguish from other stations, so context likely makes it clear enough. There doesn't seem to have been a major problem when they were at (NHSL station) or whatever.--Cúchullaint/c14:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, then I agree with putting a line disambiguator in these instances. I'm fine with "XXX station (SEPTA NHSL)" since it's shorter, and anyway, it's also similar to the naming format used previously. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
SEPTA station names
Ok. Thanks
Let me know if I should go revert the changes I made. There's a lot of pages. Sorry I didn't see your message earlier.
--Fruhvvb (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Fruhvvb: Not a problem at all, it's a pretty easy fix, and there's no way we could have expected you to see that conversation. I'd say for any you can fix yourself, go ahead and do it, but any that need deletions, just let them go and I'll try to hit them up soon. Again, thanks for your help on these.--Cúchullaint/c13:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Fruhvvb, it looks like the vast majority of your moves are fine, as most cases don't need additional disambiguation. It's only the ones that went to (Pennsylvania) that (usually) should go to (SEPTA) instead.--Cúchullaint/c13:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hallo, while stub-sorting I came across this stub and did some tidying up of it, made a couple of links etc, retargetted a redirect, AGFing. Only at the end did I find that the stub over-wrote a redirect created in Sept 2012 when you moved the article to merge page histories. This new stub presumably splits what you then merged. I've left it as is, but if you feel strongly that it all ought to go back then I'll try to unpick my handiwork. See my contribs in last few minutes for the various changes I've made. Naturally I know nothing at all about the academic politics of Florida - just a drive-by stub-sorter trying to improve a badly-written stub! PamD19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
PamD: The article has a bit of a convoluted history as it was in a flux state before the move. I believe it was originally titled University of South Florida Lakeland (now a redirect to Florida Polytechnic University), then University of South Florida Polytechnic, and after the formation of FPU, it went back and forth between remaining a standalone article, and redirecting to the FPU article. As they were really two articles talking about the same thing, I merged them.
I don't personally see any benefit to keeping a separate stub on USF Polytechnic. For one thing, it was actually called "University of South Florida Lakeland" for the vast majority of its existence as a USF branch campus, from 1988 to 2008. It didn't have a separate campus from the local community college until after that. Since then, the USF branch campus as a legal entity has been dissolved, but the "new" university is its continuation. And, the Florida Polytechnic article already covers the history better than the stub does. If it's all the same to you, I think there should only be one article.--Cúchullaint/c20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries. Looks like it's on me; I should have caught that someone re-stubbed the redirect a few days ago, which just reopened the can of worms. Thanks for being attentive.--Cúchullaint/c20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I've got it all sorted, and hope the new editor won't be upset - as you can see, I've pointed her to you if she wants to discuss it any further! PamD20:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hallo again: after another request on my talk page I'm somewhat sympathetic to the alumni of the defunct college, and feel inclined to revert to the stub I edited at the start of all this. The entity which existed on the campus was not the same as the entity which occupies it now, and should have a separate article. If I reverted to that 5 July stub of mine, would you object? PamD07:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
And I've found a copy of the logo I can legitimately upload, as opposed to the dodgy one which was in use in the previous stub. PamD08:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
PamD: I'm sympathetic to their position too; the move was certainly controversial and apparently not popular among the USF community. However, I'm not sure that anyone outside of Lakeland will draw a useful distinction between the former USF branch campus and the independent college that has succeeded it in the same place. I'm of the philosophy that one decent article is often better than multiple subpar ones; I wouldn't want to see the stub recreated if it's just going to have the same or worse coverage than the current article has.
That said, if you or others want to take a stab at a decent article on the USF branch, I won't object, with a few caveats. It needs include coverage of the whole history (the community college campus, the separate campus that's still being built, the name change from USF Lakeland to USF Polytechnic, and the dissolution to form Florida Polytechnic University), and all the various redirects from its two names (University of South Florida Lakeland, USF Lakeland, USF Polytechnic, etc) need to point to the same place. Links also need to be updated in the Florida Polytechnic article and possibly others.--Cúchullaint/c14:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive undiscussed controversial page moves. You keep doing this despite being told not to. There is a discussion process there for a reason, use it for god sake. I'm getting so sick of you steamrolling in and pushing your POV. As you can tell you're actions are really pushing me to the end of my tether and there isn't much good faith left to assume with your disruptive editing. Jeni(talk)13:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume this is about Wallingford railway station. I'm sorry, but there's no reasonable interpretation where that that primary topic, let alone that moving it should be assumed controversial. There's also nothing wrong with WP:BRD, and I fail to see how this could be construed as disruptive. For the record, I've started RMs in various cases where the moves are actually controversial or challenged. You can harp on me all you want, but the reality is that our train station articles have a much bigger problem: the titling and disambiguation schemes are often functionally unnavigable by outside readers, and there's been very little effort to fixing it.--Cúchullaint/c15:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
No the problem hasn't been the titling until you started changing the titles. You base your "primary topic" argument on the number of hits these articles get on Wikipedia. That's just flat out dumb. The North Philadelphia station article was a disambiguation until you screwed it up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea that there was no problem with titling is false for reasons explained to you numerous times before. If that were true, WP:USSTATION wouldn't have been adopted and widely implemented by the community to correct the problem. Your claim that articles can never be WP:PRIMARYTOPICS contradicts Jenni's position above that the tourist train station in Wallingford, England is the primary topic for that name. At any rate, if you have a problem with the primary topic guideline, start an RfC at the guideline page and try to get it changed, because it's pretty clear on the issue as it currently stands.--Cúchullaint/c15:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep making controversial moves without starting a discussion first, then edit the redirect so that nobody can actually revert you. Actively taking steps to stop people from reverting you is not in the spirit of BRD. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if you'd undo your move if someone questions it, but you don't, you just plod on with your fingers in your ears. If I spot this again from you I'll be seeking external comment at one of the noticeboards. Jeni(talk)17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Jeni: Please. No more than a handful of the hundreds of moves I and others have made have been challenged, or brought to my attention as "controversial". This one didn't hit me as remotely controversial - again, I doubt anyone would suggest that a tourist train station in Wallingford, Oxfordshire would be the primary topic of this name if it weren't for the inconsistent and incomprehensible disambiguation scheme that's been allowed to develop. It receives only a fraction of the page views versus the other (still active) stations,[1] and has no greater claim to historical significance or use in reliable sources.
Either way, the disambiguation problem is real. There wasn't even a disambiguation page or a hat note until a few months ago, nor could any of the stations be found through the Wallingford dab page until I added the link. This problem doesn't originate in the UK trains project, but it's quite real.
I did not "actively take steps to stop people from reverting". That's simply the nature of placing disambiguation at the base name after a move. Again, I didn't think it would be any more controversial than, for instance, moving Lodi railway station. As always, I'd have been happy to revert the move or discuss the issue with you, if you'd asked. You didn't, until after placing the speedy delete tag. Not much else to do there. Nor do I recall anyone else bringing a similar issue with a UK station to my attention in the last several months.
I guess the bottom line is, do you really want all UK railway station articles to go through a formal RM, regardless of their prominence and level of ambiguity? If heritage stations are included, what about the various articles on defunct and demolished stations without sufficient disambiguation? It seems like a lot of bureaucratic hoops to jump through to fix what most other areas of Wikipedia would see as an obvious and easily remedied problem. As someone who's devoted a considerable amount of my time to Wikipedia train articles, I'd personally prefer less hoops. In the (objectively rare) event that someone has a problem with a move, folks can always ask me to revert (politely is preferred, but not mandatory) and we can go to RM then.--Cúchullaint/c20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The explanations you gave are a complete line of crap, especially the WP:PRIMARYTOPICS argument! You fail to realize the is not just for disambiguation. By your convoluted logic, you'd give the one of the three New York City Subway stations named "Van Siclen Avenue" as "Van Siclen Avenue station," just because it got the most hits. What if one of the others ones gets more hits later on? Also you just screwed up another station article in Philadelphia, which was already renamed, at least in a more reasonable manner! People like you are the reason Wikipedia is going down the toilet! If I didn't have other articles to finish, I'd quit right now, and I wouldn't be sorry if the whole goddamn website were wiped out with a virus. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Dan, clearly nothing I say is going to make you happy. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a well established guideline. You can try get it changed, or you can learn to live with it, but it's not worth working yourself up over it.-Cúchullaint/c23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
These page moves were utterly unnecessary and go against what has been established in various page move discussions such as that at Talk:Wynyard_railway_station,_Sydney. The inclusion of "railway station" in the article title is sufficient disambiguation given that this is not the manner by which North American stations are referred to. On this basis, Wallingford railway station could not by any stretch of the imagination be confused with Wallingford station (Connecticut) or Wallingford station (SEPTA). There's nothing here to be fixed. Adding unnatural disambiguators to long-established UK station names is unhelpful and controversial; please in future go through the RM process. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Lamberhurst: Wynyard railway station, Sydney is a poor example of your case, in that it actually upheld the need for additional disambiguation beyond "xxx railway station". Which is kind of the point: adding "railway" to the title doesn't distinguish titles in any meaningful way for anyone not already familiar with the inconsistent disambiguation scheme of Wikipedia train station articles. As for going through RM, yes, clearly this is more "controversial" to some people than I figured.--Cúchullaint/c20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Fruhvvb: Usually we need reliable independent sources, but that will do in a pinch, as I don't see any references using just Yeadon station. However, your re-revert introduced some other problems. For one, it's not clear that the "&" should be used per WP:&. More importantly, as I said in my last edit summary, I can see no reason to think the disambiguation (SEPTA) is needed here. I mentioned this in another comment to you here, but per the guidelines, we don't include the parentheses unless it's needed to distinguish the article from another with the same name. There is obviously no other Chester and Callahan station to distinguish from. Some of your other recent moves (Girard Avenue station and 73rd Street station) had this same issue.
When you do move articles, it's important that all alternate titles that are in use are also included. In some cases (like this one) it's possible that the station was misnamed to begin with, and the previous article title needs to be removed. In others, it may be an alternate or historical title even if another is common name. In many cases, you need to go around to other articles, dab pages and hat notes and update the names, as you are doing with the templates. These are all things that need to be figured out if you're going to do more than just update the title to the USSTATION format.
I know this is pretty tricky, but it's important to get things right, as it's been problematic for so long. It may be productive to go through the WP:RM process or ask for assistance until you get the hang of the guidelines. If you have any questions, be sure to let me know.--Cúchullaint/c13:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Fruhvvb: Got it, thanks. For 40th Street, it appears that "40th Street Portal" is better known in the local media and Google Books, especially now that a major development is being planned there, so we don't need to figure out a parenthetical disambiguation. Probably a good solution for 36th Street as well. At any rate, I think I've gotten to most of the titles, but other cleanup will be needed for incoming links, templates, etc. Let me know if you need any other help.--Cúchullaint/c17:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
William Carey International University
Hi Cúchullain,
While doing new-page review I found William Carey International University. I don't know enough about the US university system to comment sensibly, but the article looks well dodgy to me. What do they mean by calling themselves an NGO university? And what's this stuff about them not being accredited to grant undergraduate degrees, but just postgraduate? Is that normal?
Slashme: It looks like a lot of the claims are indeed dodgy, though the school is real. "Non-governmental organization university" doesn't mean anything. I imagine what the author is trying to convey is that it's officially listed as a non-profit organization, like a lot of private schools, including unaccredited ones. It appears that the institution is totally unaccredited, and to their credit they don't claim otherwise.[2] However, they're dodgy on what their "approval" to issue post-grad degrees entails. It appears that the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education consents to them giving out their (unaccredited) degrees in that state. I have no idea what the International Council for Higher Education is, but it doesn't appear to be an accrediting body.[3] To be fair, there are plenty of schools that issue only higher degrees (law schools, for example), and it's also not terribly uncommon for religious schools not to seek accreditation. I think the article could be saved with some rewriting: it's a private, unaccredited Christian university in Pasadena, California. There should, however, be hat notes distinguishing from William Carey University, which is accredited.--Cúchullaint/c21:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I've given it a quick once-over, but I'm not quite happy with the result, due to lack of time. If you get a chance, maybe you can smooth off a few rough edges? --Slashme (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
why are you and 0cerenity ultra-protective of Anita Sarkeesian? It seems that you two have been on this article for quite a few years, and ultra-ultra-ultra enforce your interpretations of wiki policies on them, but seamingly (not saying you are) blatantly ignore a plethora of other pages.
Perhaps if a few uninvolved admins were to take over from you guys then it'll seem less as if you're playing Anita's pet and more like you're trying to keep things on the level.
This is not a criticism of you, rather it's a question of why have you and 0s chosen to be the page police for that specific subject rather than actively going to uninvolved admins and having them take over while you two go after different subjects?
I think I see why people feel that you two are ultra-feminist bodyguards of Anita's talkpage, or that one of you is Anita herself. It's a little shady, and it does appear to be somewhat of a bias on your part that you two speciffically patrol this page regularly.
I hope you get where I'm coming from and that you consider finding other admins to deal with this page, then unwatch it knowing it's in good hands.
thanks.
Eric Ramus
PS, I may not agree with Anita Sarkeesian's views, but I do agree with you guys that in order to be included it must be sourced, to ensure that we're not making crap up.
199.101.61.70 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite to clarify a few things. For one, I'm not acting at the article as an admin, but as a regular editor. Two, the thing I'm "ultra-unltra-ultra enforcing" is the biographies of living persons policy, which states that "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research"; this is non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Three, it doesn't particularly bother me that random, unidentified "people" think I'm an "ultra-feminist bodyguard". In fact, that sounds kind of sweet.--Cúchullaint/c02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
But you do have to admit that even while no varafiable proof of criticism from a [[wp:reliable] source can be found, the bage would appear biassed in her favor, even just a little.
I guess this just shows that the sources themselves are biassed, and as a result, Wikipedia's article is biassed in her favor as well due to reflecting said sources.
Valid criticism does exist, but it's just not what Wikipedia considers reliable.
Also ultra-feminism is not cool, it's basically taking feminist ideology and cranking it up to 11.
I would encourage you either way though to go after other articles for a substantial amount of time, this way you don't appear to be biassed in Anita's favor, even if you are a feminist (doesn't matter if you are or are not).
I'm just saying, that if you're going to ultra ultra ultra enforce the rules of the policies there, then you should do the same at articles like this one or this one that has a dispute of the subject's real name and birth year. and don't say "but others are taknig care of that, thus I'm here for Anita. If you're going to only enforce it on pro feminist articles, then you should even things out to avoid biasses, be they falsely perceived or actual for real biasses. And not just from passer bys' points of view, but from any admins' points of view.
I mean if Annie here gets ultra ultra ultra enforced, then Jacob here should be too.
I edit a wide variety of articles on a wide variety of subjects; the Anita Sarkeesian article is a very small part of my total output. However, among all the articles I'm involved in, it has perhaps the highest rate of disruption caused by new accounts inserting disparaging and/or poorly sourced material about the subject. That trend makes me pretty wary of people asking that I "go on to different subjects" and let others "deal with this page".--Cúchullaint/c04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
On the same token, telling one user to "get off the horse" doesn't mean that everyone will get off the horse, nor would we make special exceptions for one particular person/article. We stick to policy, that's just how we do things. Zero Serenity(talk - contributions)15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm saying that if you'll do it for one article, you should apply it to every article you edit.
If the biographies of living people policies apply to Annie's article then why not Jacob's article?? or even any other article in existence on Wikipedia?
It seems to be ultra enforced on Anita's article but ignored on others.
You guys need to stop holding Anita's article as ultra-important and others as less if the same policy applies to them all.
For example:
(Redacted)
Rather than just linking to policies all the time when people ask the questions, because who the hell's going to read 37 quintillion different sections just to look for something that may or may not be related to their question?
(Redacted)
I'm just saying, rather than trying to appear speciffically on the feminist side, we should always strive for true neutrality, even if the facts piss off feminists a little bit. It's not intentional to piss off the feminists, but if something comes up in a reliable source that criticizes anita, then I'm going to submit it here or in the talk pages, and I want it to be just as equally considered as this woman's praises of her.
I'm just saying, that if you're going to be ultra protective of feminist egos or feelings, even those of Annie herself, then perhaps you are the ones going against Wikipedia's policies yourselves.
perhaps you may want to have Annie read this since you're so into linking policies all the time
why doesn't wp npov apply to Annie?
These are things you need to be prepared to address, because if not, then you'll be facing a lot more problems from random editors coming along. Plus, it will allow people like me to see that you are indeed honest and neutral and that you're not ultra-pro feminist and that you're not playing Annie's pet.
I only want to see Annie's article get treated as any other article of a living person, and I also want to see you guys get treated farely by those who come accross you guys.
You're good people, trying to do a good thing. It just turns out that it doesn't appear that way given the facts and the amount of unwillingness you have to put a genuine admin in charge of this page temperarily. Remember you don't own Annie's page so it's not your decision what goes and what doesn't, nor is it mine.
thanks for reading though, and I hope you get my points.
Eric Ramus
(Redacted)
I'll site this article as at least acknowledging criticism of Annie's series, which is a start to show both sides. .
I may not fully aggree with Annie's videos, but I feel that pages about her should always show both sides, and should never go one way or the other, even if that means puttinga few things up that may damn the feminst ideology.
For example, if Annie makes a false statement in her upcomin series about historical women and a source points it out, then it should be mentioned under either the reception or a criticism section that this person stated that she god that particular fact completely wrong. Same if she was to do something that ended up getting her in trouble, like the infra-low chance that she may misuse her status as a 501c3 to profit, then if she gets in trouble, and a source reports it, then it must be included in the article too. In the same way, if she does something good, and a source reports it, then it should be included too.
I'm not for vandalism at all, but I'm not for articles that have a feminist bias for any reason at all
Thanks
I guess I'm trying to say that you, 0serenity and DonQuixote appear to have a minor ownership problem with Anita's article and the one on tropes vs. women in video games, and insist upon the status quo.
You constantly throw Wikipedia policies at those who want to make minor edits such as wording from "sparked a wave of sexist harassment' to "sparked a wave of backlash and sexist harassment" because some feminist blogger said it's all harassment.
I don't believe that a pro feminist view should be the only side on an article for any reason, because then it presents the reader with a skewed view of things.
It'd be like if I took to patrolling the WestJet article and decided that I'd only except sources that were pro-westJet. I'm biassed because I've been flying for them for 8 years. That therefore would present a conflict of interest
So if only feminists are patrolling the article, then a conflict of interest issue may be present, even if the feminists mean well.
It may be harder for a feminist to see a source that is against Annie as a reliable source, just as it might be a little harder for an ultra-conservative Christian to see an atheist or pro-homosexuality source as a reliable source.
It'd be like if the phelps family were the onl yones patrolling the WBC article, where they only excepted pro-WBC articles as reliable sources.
Yes, Wikipedia does indeed have a definition of "reliable" but as human beings, we have to interpret this definition as best we can after having read 38 quintillion sections of policy.
If multiple people with different world views, i.e. a pro-feminist, a anti-feminist and a neutral came together in agreement on sources, then that's neutral. They presented their sources, and the 3 parties with different world views agree on which ones are reliable based upon their interpretation of that policy
I hope you get why I think that new people need to take over or else chyme in.
I've redacted parts of your comments including pointless personal information. Please do not add that again here or anywhere else. To your claims, I treat every article and page I'm involved in with the same focus on biographies of living persons policy. The only real difference is that virtually none of the others suffers from recurring waves of editors with narrow focuses trying to insert poorly sourced negative material into them. I don't know anything about Taio Cruz, and it doesn't appear there's any recent problems with articles there. If you see a problem, I'd recommend starting a discussion at that article. And for the last time, no, I'm not going to step back from the Sarkeesian related articles.
If you have specific, actionable edits attributable to reliable sources that you'd like considered, feel free to bring them up so we can vet them. Otherwise, this conversation isn't going anywhere.--Cúchullaint/c14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No thanks. I used a standard template for when things are, well, redacted. If you don't like it, consider not violating Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If it happens again when your block expires, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again.--Cúchullaint/c11:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullian at your recent close of a move request at Talk:Luxembourg (Belgium) your edit summary and the tone of your close suggested that you have concluded that consensus was not to the move the page. However, you actually wrote 'move' as the decision. I just wanted to check if you had missed out the 'no' part from no move? Ebonelm (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackson Brewing Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson Square. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dear Cuchullain, lot of biased editing and data removal happened in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church article. You can understand this while going through the edit history of this article and talk page. I humbly request you to restore the version of the article to 1 or 2 days in timeline and do necessary changes. In case you do not have time, kindly request another Admin to intervene in this topic. Thanks in Advance -59.95.67.40 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Kindly note, current version of this article is with biased edits and lots of data removal by user:Kokkarani. Hence please restore this article to 2 days or one week previous version and modify in a neutral way. I think I have done my job to fight against vandalism. Please take care of this article -59.95.67.40 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Kauffner socks
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommyknocker Brewery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Cuchullain. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to see why you reverted the article name back to "South Florida - UCF Rivalry." There are multiple instances of college football rivalry games that are referred to by their rivalry name here on Wikipedia.
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Saint_Thomas_Christian's_-_Divisions-_History.png#Is_this_representation_correct?){kind=link}
