User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

EBK.com

Are you working your way through this? Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. More or less, but I didn't realize how many there were until you provided that link. I've been trying to take care and look at the links before removing them outright, but it looks like that would take forever.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that is one scary list! I remember "taking out" several dozen a few months back after this was brought up (@..sub-Roman Britain?). I'll try to help you to whittle it down to size, time allowing, but can't help thinking it's a task better suited to a bot than a human being. I seem to remember we briefly discussed coming up with a guideline - a page which could be referenced when removing these links, noting EBC and its ilk as unreliable sources. Did anything come of it whilst I was away discussing global warming and the price of a decent mint tea these days with Zaynab, sorceress-queen of Marrakech? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh God, I give up. Cavila's been helping out too. This is what happened a few minutes after he removed the EBK ref at Celliwig: [1]. Et tu, Brute?! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just did my bit, but the list really is frighteningly gargantuan and the bots are conspiring against us. Now I wonder if bots can be automated to delete entire references, rather than just the URL or the single references. Anyway, I'll call it a day. Good to see you back, Enaid! Cavila (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more came of the previous discussions about EBK, but since no one is arguing that it is a reliable source, I don't think anything more needs to be done as far as that goes - we can just remove the bad sources where they are. I am sure popups or a bot or something can be used against the rising tide of EBK references, but for the time being just looking at them and removing them is probably sufficient, as most of them are just in the "External links" sections (unless the site's fans start a spam campaign). Every little bit helps!--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cuchullain! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 271 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Tommy Hazouri - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jake Godbold - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Erika Simon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

South Florida Wikipedia editors Meetup

I proposed a new meeting day, time and place here [2] under the section "New Suggestion" NancyHeise ^talk 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Need something to do?

Henffych, Cuchullain! I came across this just now - Richard James Winstock. The guy's moved his user page to create an "article" about himself. Let's assume good faith! As it involves deleting the page Richard James Winstock (can't really leave it as a redirect), could you perhaps sort it out? Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it. I'll keep an eye on it in case it happens again. I think he probably just wasn't clear on the distinction between what goes in article space and what goes on user space. Thanks for pointing it out to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Quick work! As I said, we can probably Assume Good Faith but I'll keep his page on my watchlist for a while anyway, just in case. Diolch i ti. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:History of Anglo-Saxon England

This is about some recent edits regarding the Adventus, could you please take a look? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable references?

Please explain why you consider these references to be unreliable. [3] and The Life of Saint Brychan: King of Brycheiniog and Family By Brian Starr

They appear to be the very best there are and the fact that one is "self published" does not diminish the excellent content? I have no connection with either and no axe to grind but feel you may be a little harsh in your judgment? Cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Both sources are actually self-published (one's a personal website and the other's a book evidently just printed by the guy himself and put on Google). Sources like these are not suitable for articles like this, as they're not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (specifics about sulf-published sources are here and here). As to the Early British Kingdoms site specifically, there have been multiple discussions about it in various places, and the general consensus has been that it's not reliable, as the author mixes fact, legend, and his own speculation without attributing any of it. Some of the discussions appear here and here. I will try to find a better source for this information myself, if you have any other questions, just hit me up here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK...thanks understood.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

St Mabena

I'm not sure I understand your logic of moving St Mabena to Mabyn?? The place name is St Mabyn but the saint is more commonly known as Mabena NOT Mabyn? as evidenced from my photo of her in St Mabyn Church window Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see it would make sense to rename the article to Mabena though I don't think you can unilaterally decide to change her name. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be controversial. I moved it because the form "Mabyn" is used in the book I've found that I'm currently using to rewrite the article, and use in the other articles, per our discussion. A Google search returns many more relevant hits for "Mabyn" than Mabena, even when articles on the village are specifically discounted. Give me a bit to add the new material and then see what you think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not think it controversial but I live here and I can tell you it is VERY controversial. The saint is most definitely known as Mabena the church window is 200 years old and calls her Mabena. I can see no logic whatsoever in renaming her Mabyn. Which book are you using to reference this? Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Orme's The Saints of Cornwall. We can discuss the page name if you wish but for the time being I'm going to rewrite the article based on the source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link if you search for "Mabena" instead you get 4 links to her and as most of the "Mabyn" hits are for the village it doesn't seem to suggest to me that we should change the article name to Mabyn? All good wishes Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been incorrect to change the article name to Mabyn given that for at least the past 200 years she has been known as Mabena and there are records as far back as 1424 where she was called Mabena. The stained glass window in the church titles her Mabena as does the church history literature inside the church. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Quirky setting for Cuchullain

Check out the painting File:Maynard Dixon - The Apparition of Cuchulainn.jpg: did you ever imagine the Irish hero appearing as a ghost among redwood trees in California? ^_^

Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I never expected that specifically. But experience has taught me never to rule anything out in California ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like one of the wraith-kings from Lord of the Rings (according to The Governor it's a genuine example of Californian Folk Art). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An extremely shy and unforthcoming goddess

Hawddamor, Cuchullain! I wonder if you'd mind giving your opinion on the points I've raised at Talk:Iouga? I doubt that many other editors are likely to see it in the near future and I noticed you've at least seen the article once, and edited it, on your wikitravels. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Seems like it may be a job for AfD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Architecture: removal of link

You recently removed a link on the Anglo-Saxon Architecture page to what you described as an an unreliable site. Why did you describe it as unreliable? I had a quick look at it and it seemed OK and contained information that might be of interest to someone visiting our Anglo-Saxon architecture page. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjm. That site has been discussed a number of times over the years, for instance here, here and here, and the general consensus is that it's not reliable. The gist of it is that it's a self-published website which contains some interesting material, but doesn't cite its own sources, so it often mixes fact, fiction, and speculation without differentiating between them. As such the material isn't reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nestorianism

Hiya, it looks like you were continuing a thought at Talk:Nestorianism, but then didn't sign? I wasn't sure if you were still working on your post, or if it was just leftover from a copy/paste or while you were wordsmithing. --El on ka 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, it was just leftover garbled text I forgot to remove.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, just checking why you moved the {{Eastern Christianity}} template back down to the bottom of the Church of the East article again? I checked other pages such as Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., and it seems standard to have the template at the top, unless there's some other image which is more appropriate. Or is there some page of the MoS that I've missed? :) --El on ka 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was just fixing an italicization markup error and must have had an edit conflict or something. I'll fix it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Aromanians

An extras from the book of Winifrit. You do not have the book? (Greek macedonian (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

The way you've added the quote does not belong in the introduction and adds nothing of value to the article. Please do not do it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! As this may take some time, and as this is patently Njirlu we are dealing with, would it perhaps be a good idea to editprotect the Aromanians page and/or refer the case to the Administrators' noticeboard? Regards, Constantine ✍ 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page while the SPI goes ahead. Which either way the investigation finds, the measures taken should be filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic Church in England and Wales"

Would you please see my comment at Talk:Catholic Church in England and Wales? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stonehenge

You might want to look at the latest edits to the article and the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And now we are Nazis. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Aromanians

Good afternoon! Please tell me why some users have deleted my picture from The Cultural Days of Aromanians? And I see now that even the External Links were deleted. Why? Thank you! (Victorminulescu (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

can we find another way?

I try to add content to this site. I enjoy reading old sources. There are many areas in old sources and classical histories which are fascinating. I see many of your interests match mine. Is there not space for you and I to work together rather than constantly oppose each other? If I have written something which you don't think is well referenced, or could be improved or altered, can we not discuss ways it could be improved, or an alternative location, rather than the knee jerk deletions. I am not trying to subvert this site (which seems to be the way you view my work), I only want to enhance it and make it more comprehensive. Is there not a way we could cooperate with each other? I fully admit that I have not learnt all the technical aspects of the site (e.g. the right code to use). I know I have put pictures on the site in the past which I should not have done. I don't do that any more and am getting much better at referencing my work, indeed I get help from other editors in this. But, please, I am so tired of the automatic opposition I get. You and I clearly share the same interests and there is a great deal which can be brought from some of the older sources and presented on this site with due notes of caution and discussion on its limitations. Regarding the Stone Henge bit I did. Yes I put it in the wrong place. I fully expected it to be moved to a more appropriate area, but sometimes the links to the more appropriate pages are not clear unless you already know where they are. Regarding that piece and the Charles Squire source, his book is very interesting. He presents Celtic myth and legend in a lively way but his book is full of primary source references. I looked up the primary source, Diodorus, and you must agree the identification of Hyperborea (an Island north of Gaul larger than Sicily) would seem to fit Britain. Corroborating this conclusion is the additional information that a) Greek letters were introduced there (Caesar later states this), and b) it has unseasonably warm winter weather (e.g. the Gulf Stream). On the other hand it may be somewhere else, but I think it is reasonable to say that this writer (Squire) has identified Stone Henge with the Temple of Apollo in Hyperborea, and that if this is the true intent of the original source (Diodorus), then this is an interesting and potentially illuminating extra piece of information on what is a fascinating and mysterious archaeological site. Can we please try to find a way to be less confrontational with each other, I don't have the energy for much more of this, and that would be a shame.James Frankcom (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as I haven't given you a warning, if you really want to have this discussion could you please redact your comments at Talk:Stonehenge which are particularly unpleasant. I'm very happy to enter into dialogue with you but not while those comments about Cuchullain and me are there. I hope that sounds reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello James, sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. Let me start by saying that I regret that our interactions have caused you to feel stressed and alienated; I have absolutely no wish to push a dedicated editor away from Wikipedia. I'm confident we can work out our differences, though a few things need to be adressed.

The issues we've been having virtually always fall back on use of sources. The chief problems you and I have had, and which it appears you've had with other editors, come in places where you don't include sources to back your material, or haven't been critical with the sources you do use. In 2005, when you and I started editing here, Wikipedia was in its growth phase and citations were less important than getting the information out there in the first place. I added a lot of cite-less material during that period myself. But we're at the point now that ensuring that our information is correct and verifiable is paramount. And there's just no way to do this without citations to reliable sources.

From your comment above, it appears you don't fully understand the verifiability and no original research policies. It makes no difference whether I think that the Diodorus's description of of Hyperborea seems to fit Britain; only the opinions of experts, which appear in reliable sources, matter. And the circumstantial evidence of the reported Greek letters and warm weather may be interesting, and perhaps even lead to a reasonable conclusion, but it can't be our conclusion to draw.

Another, probably related issue is communication. A collaborative effort like Wikipedia relies on effective communication between participants, and a breakdown there is where what are really minor disagreements get blown out of proportion. The preferred method of editing is bold, revert, discuss - that is, being bold is encouraged, but if others disagree with your changes, they may revert them in good faith. The most productive next step is to discuss the issue so that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. It seems to me that often, you withhold from this crucial last step. Without this, it is very easy for both sides to get a bad taste in their mouth: you feel as if you're just being reverted blindly, and they feel like you're not interested in editing cooperatively. And this makes everyone less inclined to communicate until they are frustrated to the point of being uncivil, which just makes matters even worse.

I think that if these two points can be resolved, everyone will edit happier. I'd be happy to continue this dialogue with you, discuss any of edits, and do whatever else might resolve the dispute. To me Wikipedia has always been a hobby, but if a hobby causes stress, then what's the point at all? Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cúchullain, I am glad we are speaking. I totally agree with what you say about Wikipedia changing since 2005. It is a good thing in many ways and a bad way in some. I think what I will do when I think I have found something (other than a minor edit) which I think merits inclusion is mention it to you in the first instance, we are both fond of the same historical period so I am confident you will be interested. Often it is not the content which is problematic, but where I have put it or how I have phrased it. I am getting much better at referencing now but, yes, there is room for improvement.

Doug I am not sure which things you find particularly unpleasant. Regarding the deletion of information I was referring to the process as akin to book burning (e.g. the Nazis) and this was an overreaction. I was never suggesting that you or anyone else is actually a Nazi. I don't think anyone took it seriously to be honest. I think it would be really positive if we could all just take a deep breath, smile, and make a big effort to start a more cooperative relationship between us.James Frankcom (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, James. Always feel free to have me take a look at anything you're working on, and I'll help as much as I'm able. Taking a deep breathe will help immensely, I think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Falga, Elysium and Tír Tairngiri

I have found a number of references in various places to the "Isle of Falga". It appears to be an alternative name for the Isle of Man. Most sources claim that it pre-dates the name "Isle of Man" and is connected to legends regarding, coincidentally, your name sake; Cuchullain. Legendary history says that Cuchullain invaded this place amid extraordinary circumstances. I have some sources I can show you here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/fim/fim04.htm (The Story of the Isle of Falga)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1258585
http://www.tartanplace.com/faery/maghildathach.html
http://www.worldspirituality.org/tuatha-de-danann.html

My thinking is that this legend may relate to the presumed Gaelic colonisation (or re-colonisation) of the island c.700AD. That is my thinking initially..and yes it is just my original thought at the moment. However, to let you know I am looking into this and seeing what references I can find to the Isle of Falga with a view to adding a mention in the Isle of Man wiki that a) Isle of Falga is considered by some authors (they will be cited) to be an alternative and possibly pre-existing name for the IOM, and b) Irish/Ulster legend has tales of this island (Falga) being invaded by Cuchullain et al at some point in the past (this will be tightened up). I am in the process of looking for proper references and evaluating the ones I have found for this "Isle of Falga". I'd hope to link this with in the IOM wiki to an appropriate page regarding Cuchullain and/or the group of legends detailing his activities. I'd welcome your views on this! James Frankcom (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a really interesting subject. We have a (very brief) article on the "Isle of Fál" at Fir Fálgae, and there's a little more discussion of the involvement of Cú Chulainn at Cú Roí. Basically, several medieval texts allude to a lost story of a conflict between Cú Chulainn and Cú Roí involving a raid on the Fir Fálgae. I'm not clear on all the details, but the gist of it is, this lost story probably revolved around Cú Chulainn and the Ulstermen raiding the stronghold of the Fir Fálgae. In this they are accompanied by Cú Roí, who fights in disguise, as he is wont to do. When they divide the spoils, which include the king's daughter Bláthnat, Cú Roí abducts the girl. Cú Chulainn goes after him, but is defeated and humiliated by Cú Roí. This leads up to Aided Con Roi, the Death of Cú Roí, in which Bláthnat helps Cú Chulainn finally kill Cú Roí. A note to make is that in the early references, there is no direct connection between the land of the Fir Fálgae and the Isle of Man; it just seems to be a typical otherworldly location probably etymologically connected to the Lia Fail. Another highly interesting point, is that some version of the story made it across the Irish Sea, as it's alluded to in a marwnad in the Book of Taliesin.[4]

Cavila would be a good person to talk to about this. He was at one time working on an article on one of the texts that mentions the Fir Fálgae story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting the stuff about the Isle of Man to one side while I try to formulate how to do it, I have added an extra paragraph in the history of Surrey [5] citing the locations of various Iron Age Hillforts in the county. This all comes from one source (see Ref.11). I plan to put some info on each of the hill forts taken from this book.James Frankcom (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few style and formatting corrections (de-linking dates, de-capitalizing "Century") but otherwise it looks good.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven

Cuchullain, due to Milford Haven only yesterday gaining GA status, I think several editors linked to the article gaining GA status (myself included) are still in shoot on site to anything that we can't reference. One of the main bugbears of the article was an attempt to divorce Milford Haven for the Milford Haven Waterway, as they are two different articles. The newly formed article History of Milford Haven delves more into what happened before the formation of the town. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that explains that, thanks. My issue was there was no indication in the lead that there was anything at "Milford Haven" before 1793, which might confuse people who come to the article from, say, Cymbeline, written two centuries before.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once an article has passed - in this case a particularly rigorous - GA review, it's probably a bit late in the day to start picking holes in it 24 hours later. A GA can of course be intelligently expanded but vigilance will usually ensure that any subsequent edits conform to the already achieved GA status. Thanks anyway for your concern.--Kudpung (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no actually -- becoming a GA doesn't indicate that an article is finished, and at any rate adding one line of text is hardly "picking holes" in it. As I say my only concern was making it clear that there was settlement at "Milford Haven" long before the town was founded, so as not to confuse readers coming in from Cymbeline for instance. This is taken care of in the current text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that articles that have passed a GA are often far from finished. However, there is a clearly identifiable trend on this encyclopedia, for editors - even those who are members of the same relatively intimate project - to stay on the sidelines, and then pounce on the article with minor criticism and/or relatively unimportant edits the moment the GA has passed. IMHO it does not bode well for the notion of collaboration, which is absolutely essential if this encyclopedia is to encourage its serious content editors and authors to making further contributions. It's like a rowing team winning an Olympic Gold and getting a smack in the gob from the captain of an sailing team, and told they didn't try hard enough ;) --Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look man, I think you may be taking this a little too seriously. If it's a bad edit, that's one thing, but there's no reason to waive off an otherwise beneficial edit - especially minor ones - simply because an article recently became a GA. If anyone takes one line of text as a "smack in the gob", they ought to re-read WP:OWN and have a beer. And I can't speak for anyone else, but you're really overestimating my patience and organization skills if you think I'm watching articles and waiting for them to pass GA to jump on them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look 'man'; I take everything on Wikipedia very seriously - 'recently' was less than 24 hours, and I couldn't help noticing you didn't contribute during the six weeks it slogged through its review. If you have look at the article's GA talk page before trying to instruct me on WP:OWN, you'll realise just exactly where I stand and always stood with Milford Haven, and and that I'm not even a member of their Welsh project and am not like to ever be one after that fiasco. Nothing alters the fact however that there really are people on this encyclopedia who do watch for newly passed GAs, and then pounce. I'm sorry if I tarred you with the same brush, but that's exactly what it looked like. Anyway, I"m glad you admit to not being perfect with your organisational skills and patience, and as I said before, thanks for your vigilance anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "not being perfect" you mean "totally lacking in", I fully concede ;) Seriously though, I've edited hundreds of Wales articles, but I don't have every Welsh article on my watchlist, and I certainly don't keep track of when they've all passed for GA. I assure you that I'm not sitting around waiting for articles to pass GA to descend upon them, but it's bad medicine to start telling people constructive edits are inappropriate because it's "too soon" or "too late" after a milestone. At any rate, I consider this (very minor) issue resolved, and I appreciate all the work you've done in making Milford Haven a great resource.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dark Ages

I've warned the editor who called your edit vandalism, but I think that section needs work, eg the bit about 'knowledgeable modern scholars' and " sources that do not have a rigid adherence to the academic study of history,". Maybe I can find the Usenet discussions, especially those by Paul Gans, that rehashed this over and over., to see what sources were used there. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the intro still needs work. The current wording was mostly the work of User:Notuncurious, IIRC. I'm not really happy with it, but Darkagesweredarknotrainbows, whose fabulous title underscores their obvious POV, has only made matters worse with lines like "...decline in literacy which took place in Western Europe between the Decline of the Roman Empire and the 15th century"; "the term is used popularly and in literature and in dictionaries", and "Increased understanding of the accomplishments during the Dark Ages..." Any improvements are of course welcome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vortigern and Robert Vermaat

I thought I'd work on rewriting this to get rid of the first person approach, but I'm wondering about keeping the references to Robert Vermaat's Vortigern Studies website. I may bring it up at RSN, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good on you, that page is highly deserving of a good rewrite. I'd say, considering how many better sources there must be, to remove the Vortigern Studies references. Perhaps we could retain a link to the main page in an external links section. Nothing against the site, but I don't see anything indicating it's particularly reliable in the way we need for references, and a lot of the material there is, shall we say, very speculative. IIRC I may have added one or more of the links, but only to primary sources such as the 19th century poems and paintings. The site is unlikely to be far wrong on this stuff, but the material can surely be found elsewhere online.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Independence Hall

I started a move req on moving Indendependence Hall to Independence Hall (disambiguation), which I intend to follow with a movereq for [[[Independence Hall (United States)]] to Independence Hall Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Church of the East

Hey Djwilms, the new article Church of the East is up. Far from done, but I think it's alright for a start. I'd appreciate your input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

This is so much better than the crud that was there before. Well done!

I've just had a quick skim through the article. Although the structure and general allocation of space to particular topics now works very well, thanks to your efforts, the content of the article (which you inherited) still needs a fair bit of work. I've noticed that it contains a lot of factual errors. For example, I've just made an edit to a sentence on the Nestorian Stele to make it clear that it does NOT list the names of scores of prominent Christians in China. Most of the names listed on the stele are those of unimportant monks. However, these mistakes can be fairly easily put right. Most of the errors I have spotted do not seem to be pushing an Assyrian nationalist POV, but have arisen from pure carelessness, and I would be happy to correct them at the rate of about one a day. I will also try to give some better references in some cases.

The article Nestorianism now looks much better too. You've obviously been busy while I was on holiday last week.

Djwilms (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Djwilms. I look forward to working with someone so knowledgeable on this interesting subject. There are any number of major and minor changes that ought to be made. I'd especially like to see some more about the rifts of the 16th century and the formation of the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches, but I'll have to leave that in your capable hands.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. I've just added a couple of paragraphs on the schism of 1552 to the main article. I've immodestly quoted myself, as my book is the only source I happen to have immediately to hand, but this version of events is generally accepted by scholars. I was not the first researcher to insist that Sulaqa and his supporters lied to the Vatican by claiming that the Nestorian patriarch had died a year earlier, but I shed important light on the background to the schism by demonstrating that by 1550 Shemon VII Ishoyahb had run out of acceptable successors. There is now a consensus among those who care about such things that Sulaqa, revered Catholic martyr though he might have been, was a bit naughty in 1552.

Djwilms (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As a point of interest, how did this affect India? I admit that I've been a bit confused about the history of the schism and the origins of the Assyrian and Chaldean churches; my confusion is hardly helped by the general appalling state of our articles on the subject. I've tried to avoid touching that part of the history for fear of getting something wrong and making matters even worse.

I wouldn't worry about quoting yourself. Your book appears to be a solid source; it's nothing I wouldn't have done myself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Both sides courted the Indians after 1552, sending out bishops who normally lasted for a couple of decades until they were shopped to the Portuguese and taken back to Lisbon to help the Inquisition with its enquiries. The Indians themselves were remarkably unconcerned with christological distinctions, with the result that a lot of Indian churches later went over to the Jacobites (sorry, Syrian Orthodox, sorry, Syriac Orthodox or whatever they call themselves nowadays) when they sent them a bishop, just because he came from Iraq and was not European. The old Indian church, with its dependence on the Church of the East, is now fragmented into more than a dozen bits, most of them either Roman Catholic or Syriac Orthodox. One bit, which is Nestorian but confusingly calls itself the Chaldean Syrian Church, rejoined the Assyrian Church of the East a few decades back, and is led by the ebullient Mar Aprem Mooken, metropolitan of Trichur. He once told me, apropos of the squabbles that have plagued the Nestorian Church for centuries, that the modern Assyrian Church of the East ought to be called the 'church litigant' rather than the 'church militant'. Just his joke, though, before any Assyrian complains ...

Djwilms (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Glaestings

Do you remember a discussion about this family? Wish I could come to a South Florida meetup! One of the reasons I watch CSI Miami is to see the changes and recall old times. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't recall a discussion about that. Do you remember the context? Glastonbury, presumably?

When were you in South Florida? Sadly it's been years since I've gone down there myself, but every time I do go it's like a new place entirely. I keep saying I'll try to make it whenever they have a meetup, but circumstances usually restrict my movements to Jacksonville and the surrounds, the gulf coast where my fiancee's from, and more rarely to Tallahassee or Orlando.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Miami. Going to Merit Island near Vero Beach to see an aunt this summer. I don't know much about anything north of Deland. As for Glaestings, I thought it was about Glastonbury but didn't see anything in the search history, maybe I didn't search back far enough. Thanks anyway. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Church of the East

On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of the East, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dusios

Saw your cite request in the article Dusios. The lead section summarizes the article as a whole; the last sentence (if that's what you flagged, rather the whole graf) is a summary of the final section. I believe this is in keeping with policy on lead sections, but let me know if it still troubles you: what I've done is simply add a note saying "see discussion under" etc. Thanks for your interest. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your comment. I placed the tag specifically for "Dusii continue to play a role in the magico-religious belief system" - the continue is what got me here - and the bit"early-medieval paganism", as I didn't see that discussed in the article. Also, Celtic polytheism is a bad link for "early medieval paganism"; the Franks were not Celts. Minor quibbles; great work on the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually your edits were thought-provoking, because of the whole Gallic/Celtic morass. And the late-antique period is difficult, because of the mixing of Germanic and Celtic in Gaul. (The mix of things in the 4th-6th centuries is something I've become interested in recently.) I've tried to look for better links. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehosheba etc.

Unless I am mistaken, I think this needs to be either deleted or changed into its own article (or redirected to the person she married) as the person is in fact female. Here are my sources: [6], [7]. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the person is female; she was Jehoash's aunt. Her name redirects to Jehoash of Judah because that's the article where she is discussed in the most detail. I would not object to someone starting her own article, but there wouldn't be much to say in it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Genocide

Dear Cuchullain,

If you or Elonka really want something to get your teeth into, you might like to consider taking on the zealots who have hoisted their Assyrian flags around the article Assyrian Genocide. My attempts in the past few months to cite the odd fact or two and distinguish between genocide and ethnic cleansing have been unceremoniously rebuffed. Read some of the discussion anyway, as it may give you some harmless amusement, and then consider what is going to happen to this article now that the Americans have decided to recognise Turkey's ethnic cleansing of Armenians in 1915 as a case of genocide.

Djwilms (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look, and it confirmed my notion that I don't want to be anywhere near that mess. There's enough to do in areas I know something about. I've seen it before - some POV monstrosity gets held in a dire state of arrested development by strident bickering. Common to most such articles is a state of low-intesity warfare fought by armies of partisans and single-purpose accounts armed with strident rhetoric and conventional wisdom, and who have no real inclination to actually improve the article. Such an atmosphere drives off the majority of interested editors, until some knowledgeable individual with a lot of time and energy comes in to clean up house. This can take months or years, and sometimes requires dispensation from ARBCOM before any improvements are made.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Edit Wars

Dear Cuchullain, I have just discovered that the article Amid (Chaldean Diocese), which I wrote a couple of months ago, has recently been vandalised in the usual way by Assyrian nationalists, who have replaced well-established terms such as 'Nestorian', 'Chaldean' and 'Syriac' with their absurd politically-correct equivalents 'Assyrian', 'Chaldo-Assyrian' (that's a new one on me) and 'neo-Aramaic'. It's not so much the sheer mindless inanity of these edits that I object to as their tendency to spoil my own limpid, well-considered prose. In particular, I find the use of the term 'Assyrian Church of the East' as an adjective (doubtless replacing my earlier 'Nestorian') deeply offensive. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this sort of knee-jerk editing? Is there any way of booby-trapping the word 'Nestorian' on Wikipedia, so that a mild (or even severe) electric shock is administered to any frothing Assyrian nationalist who attempts to change it? Ah, how I long for the authoritative grace of the old Encyclopedia Britannica, whose articles were written by scholars who knew their subject and wrote stylish English. William Wright's magisterial 1887 article Syriac Literature can still be read with profit and delight today, but I doubt if he would ever have finished it if he had constantly been forced to fend off Assyrian spoilers deleting 'Syriac' and replacing it with 'neo-Aramaic'.

Beneath the humour, I am making a serious point. How can Wikipedia stop these dispiriting and time-wasting guerilla attacks?

Djwilms (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I always mess things up whenever I try to do a mass revert of this kind of vandalism and end up spending half a day trying to put things right. It was also very well timed, as I woke up feeling extremely dispirited with the whole Wikipedia enterprise this morning. It sometimes feels like the torture of Sisyphus, or whoever it was who had to keep on rolling a rock up a hill that slipped back down just as he approached the summit. I have been invited by George Kiraz and Sebastian Brock to contribute my work on Nestorian and Chaldean dioceses to the Online Dictionary of Syriac Heritage, which will soon be up and running, and which sounds like my kind of dictionary. The articles are written by scholars, they own them, and if people want to edit them they email the author and suggest an edit. That way all the idiots get screened out, but the authors of the articles still get useful feedback. It sounds like an ideal compromise between the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. Anyway, I was just about to shake the dust of Wikipedia off my shoes for a few weeks while I thought about whether I still wanted to be involved with it. However, your intervention has (for a while) restored my faith in human nature. Wikipedia has so much potential, but putting right vandalism takes up so much time ...

Djwilms (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm afraid there's no remedy save vigilance for this kind of thing. However, it is my hope that one day we'll have a good core of articles on the Church of the East, which will serve to educate interested readers who will then be better equipped to maintain high standards and recognize partisan obfuscation and other unproductive editing. This way it will be easier to fall back on that base in the face of edit wars. One thing though - don't be discouraged when someone edits your work; this is a collaborative project and all material may be subject to merciless editing. In cases where the changes are unproductive, it's easy enough to fix; if the problem persists, take it to the talk page or seek additional input. Clearly the stigma against the term "Nestorian" and the exhalation of the term "Assyrian" are not endemic to Wikipedia; they exist in the real world and serve to confuse the discourse out in the real world as well. Your input is much more appreciated than you might know; I for one am entirely new to the subject, and was encouraged that we have people who know what they're talking about to help us neophytes get a grasp of the fundamentals. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement; and you're quite right, of course, it's a contested subject not only in cyberspace but in the real world.

Don't get me wrong: I fully recognise the value of collaboration. In one of my other main areas of interest, the Sino-French War, a couple of articles I created on China's regional fleets have grown during the past two years from little more than stubs into fully-illustrated and immensely informative treatments of a very obscure subject, thanks to enthusiastic input from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia excels at this sort of thing, and I still have hopes that the obscurities in the patriarchal succession in the Church of the East between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries can be elucidated by an Assyrian contributor to Wikipedia who just happens to own an old manuscript with an informative colophon. These things can, and do, happen. I was terribly excited a few months back with the list of metropolitans of Shemsdin that I have swiped for my article Shemsdin (East Syrian Ecclesiastical Province). If you have time, take a look at the article Matran Family of Shamizdin that I got it from. The article breaks all Wikipedia's rules, being unsourced, POV and badly-written, but I am convinced that it contains some genuine gold among the dross. No, I have no problem whatever with constructive editing, and outside the hothouse world of Assyrian politics most of the editing of my contributions has indeed been constructive. But the climate changes as soon as one is within the Assyrian world, and the knee-jerk nationalist edits definitely get me down. Anyway, press on.

Djwilms (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I am looking for edtiors who may be interested in editing the Rory Gallagher and/or the Derek Trucks articles. If you may be in that group of people, please leave a note on my talk page! Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about those guys to contribute usefully. Best of luck though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nestorian categories

Hi there,

I've just gone through the various articles on the Nestorian patriarchs, and have sorted them out into two categories. I've put anybody before the schism of 1552 into the category 'Patriarchs of the Church of the East', and anybody after 1552 into the category 'Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East'. Some of the early names in the first category are entirely legendary, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I think the second category should be renamed 'Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East', to bring it in line with the first category.

This is in line with the schema we discussed earlier, where Church of the East (up to 1552) splits into two offshoots, Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church.

Djwilms (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Looks great. I think you're right about the renaming (unless the Assyrian incumbents have always been known as "Catholicos-Patriarch" since the schism). What should we do about the Chaldean Patriarchs? I don't like that the current article on the patriarchs implies that the Assyrian patriarchs are the "true" heirs to the historical patriarchate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As another note, are you going to write an article for India as a metropolitan province, I've been trying to cleanup the articles on the St. Thomas Christians and have encountered a lot of predictable friction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, there needs to be a statement apropos of the 1552 schism (I don't have the page in front of me at present and I can't remember whether there already is one or not) that both the ACOE and the CCC claim descent from the old Church of the East. The main article Patriarchs of the Church of the East could then end in 1552, and be linked to two other articles, 'Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East' and 'Patriarchs of the Chaldean Catholic Church'. This would have the virtue of following the schema we have already adopted for the original church and its two successors. Alternatively, the main article should go up to the present day and include lists of both the AOCE patriarchs and the CCC patriarchs. The first option is more elegant, in my view, and also has the advantage of breaking up a very long list of patriarchs.

The AOCE patriarchs probably have all been called catholicus-patriarchs, but that's no reason (in my opinion) why such an obscure term should feature in the title of an article. We can explain in the topic paragraph that their full title is catholicus-patriarch. Incidentally, if we are going to use the title catholicus, it would be better to stick with the established Latin spelling catholicus rather than use the unfamiliar Syriac transliteration catholicos.

On the second point, yes I will, but I'll need to do a bit more research on India first. I've got to do it anyway for my book, so it's a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

What I'd like to do at present is write brief articles on all the pre-1318 patriarchs along the lines of the one I did a couple of days ago for Yohannan III. I'm presently in the process of translating Bar Hebraeus's Ecclesiastical Chronicle into English for my own purposes (at present the text has only been published in Syriac and Latin), so I can add them at the rate of about two a week. I don't think my (unpublished) English translation counts as original research, as Bar Hebraeus has been used for centuries as a source for the Nestorians, and it would be nice to make the interesting bits available in English to a wider audience by putting them on Wikipedia. Eventually I will replace them with an encyclopedia-style narrative, but for the time being it seems better to have something rather than nothing on each of these patriarchs, even if it is just a direct quote from Bar Hebraeus.

Djwilms (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me??

Can you please explain this? Here you are, intensely edit-warring on an article against a good-faith (but anon, yes) contributor. You're deeply involved in this and the editor(s) in question are in dialog - then what happens? You slam on the brakes and protect the article on your revision!! This is completely unacceptable behaviour for an administrator. I don't think I need to explain how this should have been handled. Please undo this admin action immediately - Alison ^❤ 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked that editor's sock account but the IP address will be temporarily autoblocked, which is okay too. This in no way excuses your behaviour here, though - Alison ^❤ 03:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as nearly as apocalyptic an error as you've made it out to be; pages are routinely protected in cases of edit warring and vandalism to force the parties to talk it out or go away. But you're right, there were better ways to handle it. The situation was complicated for me by our servers going down for an hour after I protected it and the general business of a friday night. I've unprotected the page. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's one of the basic rules of being an admin; no admin actions on anything you're involved in to the extent that you are here. Not only this instance, but you've done it again and again. You are repeatedly protecting articles at your version, then using admin tools to shut the other editor out. Seriously - this is de-sysop material & it's patently obvious that you're not taking this seriously - Alison ^❤ 06:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about so far as "again and again" goes; I have very rarely protected pages in any circumstance in the years I've been an admin; except for one case involving the Balkans disputes a bit ago, I don't think I've used the tool at all in many months. But don't think I'm not taking your comments seriously - I take all reasoned criticism of my actions seriously. And this is, so far as I can remember, is the first time anyone has ever brought to my attention a serious concern with my admin activities. I agree it wasn't the best way to handle it. It wasn't my first fuckup, and it won't be my last, I'm human after all. Thank you for bringing it up; I've tried to fix the mess, and I'll endeavor to not to let such things happen again in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In August of last year, you blocked a user for personal attacks, which was probably justified, except you were the person those attacks were directed at, and while you were engaged in a content dispute with him. It doesn't matter whether or not you were substantially right on the matter (which I think you probably were), you had no business being the one to block Aj4444 or protect New Mexico Campaign in that situation. The incident Alison mentioned is hardly isolated. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 01:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What is there, a sign on my back or something? But seriously, you are quite correct, I shouldn't have done that either back in August. Hopefully such actions, seven months and thousands of edits apart as they are, don't define my career as a Wikipedia editor. Seriously, thank both of you for bringing this up; often it takes an outside view for you to take notice of your errors.

I'm going to take a bit of break, during which I'll mull this over. I have some very serious real-life things going on right now that apparently have been affecting my actions and interactions here much more than I'd like. When I get back, if it is still felt that this bears discussion, it can of course be discussed then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)