Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Talk:Season 2

What about Season 4? It doesn't have any articles titled this way, yet the consensus is against moving Season 4 (30 Rock) because of 30 Rock (Season 4). --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What about it? It's a different move request with its own circumstances. At any rate, any move request needs to be judged against the project-wide consensus regarding naming conventions.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between 4 and 2 then? --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
They're different articles with different names and a different discussion. I haven't looked in depth into the specifics of the Season 4 discussion, and don't plan to. Just glancing over it, though, I believe some of the "oppose" comments do not accord with the established consensus represented by WP:Article titles.--Cúchullain t/c 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
More on WT:DAB#Season 2 vs. Season 4. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Cheers. Bryccan (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that all done and dusted now? I don't want to have to check back there every day for a week or something. Bryccan (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has closed it yet. As blocks are preventative rather than punitive and you've indicated you will let the matter go, it's unlikely you'll be blocked. However, you can avoid these situations if you just stop reverting and work with your fellow editors. I'm sure we'll run into each other again, hopefully under more positive circumstances. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Occupy & Press Freedom

Hi Cuchullain, we just noticed you deleted Occupy & Press Freedom page. We wish you would reconsider this decision or at least move the content to another page. You cited Freedom of the press in the United States as an alternative page, but it's actually much smaller than the original was. This is important information, and at least a few users think it should stay up.

Just become some of the research and citations are bad doesn't mean delete the whole page. Some good citations is better than no citations at all!

Also please consider the irony of deleting a page on press freedom... Groupuscule (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the article following the associated AfD. In that discussion, none of the defenders were able to demonstrate that the article fulfilled the standards for inclusion in the encylopedia, and the content had very serious problems with original research, in that it largely just accumulated information to imply a certain conclusion. It was a fairly clear cut closure.--Cúchullain t/c 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing?

You know more about the Nasrani issue than I do. Does this & the new article appear to be another bout of STC/Nasrani POV stuff from Robin klein? - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. While the topic itself may be worthy of an article, the current content is mostly just Robin engaging in their standard POV pushing and original research. The title itself is plainly silly, and the DYK proposal reveals the real reason this article was created pretty transparently. I hate to say it, but it's become abundantly clear to me that Robin needs to be banned from the topic.--Cúchullain t/c 12:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Robin's desperately tries to establish that STCs are Jews in lineage and all. Out attempts to correct him are met with antagonism and I think a strict warning is required at least, though I'm not against a topic ban. --AshLey Msg 14:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AshLey Msg 14:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see this ANI report. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and apology

Dear Cuchullain, I am writing to you as I got your feedback on the talk page of Kerala Nasrani christian music. I need to tell you that I thank you for trying to rectify the problem with Baum citation. I want to also tell you that I feel like a fool that I did not find out about the tampering of Baum citation all these months. I would never have engaged in so much of conflict if I have known about the tampering of the Baum citation. I apologize for the edit conflict that could easily have been avoided if only I was more vigilant.

as for the music article: this is what I wrote at the talk page: I agree there may be passages in the article that may be open to interpretation. However, it is not done on purpose. This is likely to occur when only one person edits or begins an article. I am happy that you have got the Ross article and have tried reading it. I seek your assistance to remove the likely POV that might have crept up as a solo editor when I started this page. In my capacity in order to be as NPOV as possible I tried to get an Indian source and made a separate section dedicated to Syrian christian folk songs which are largely in malayalam. You could have said that I am engaged in POV editing if I wrote only about Nasrani syrian music and chant accentuation both of which is influenced by Jewish music. But I have made a separate section dedicated to Nasrani folk songs that are sung in the native language of kerala (malayalam). If I had written this article without a detailed description of folk songs in malayalam then you could have called it as POV. But I have gathered information from whatever legitimate sources that I could get regarding nasrani folk songs in malayalam language. As collaborative wikipedia experience please do help in removing POV that is likely to have crept though not on intent. I have at least never removed a citation on purpose and tampered with it. I do have a point of view, we all do. That is why different and competing accounts need to be mentioned. There is much that has to be improved in this article towards making it more neutral and grammatically valid. Please do help.

As for chant accentuation and cantillation this is a quote from Ross page 83 "The Syrian Christian accentuation system was instituted by the Syrian Masoretes, a group similar to the grammarians in Tiberias who codified the system of non-diastematic (nonintervallic) signs for Hebrew cantillation of Biblical texts in the ninth century C.E. (Segal 1953:143; Avenary 1963:10). The Syrian Christian system is a dot notation above, below, or on either side of the words of the text, paralleling the Palestinian dot system of the Jews, which was later incorporated into the Tiberian ekphonetic notation. This development took place between the fifth and tenth centuries C.E. (Avenary 1963:8). The names for these signs give an indication of the expressiveness that characterizes Syrian Christian Bible reading and Chant style, names like wonder" Again I may have made POV interpretation of this, which is likely but again as I said not with intent or purpose. If so then please do rectify it.

I added in this page whatever I could given my access to sources. I have tried to give balanced perspective by referring to Indian source of Choondal from Kerala. Please do add more material from other sources. Again I state that I agree there may be passages in the article that may be open to interpretation but it is not done on purpose. Please do help in improving this article by editing and adding information from more sources. I am afraid to say that I feel hounded and persecuted on the wikipedia. I hope we can have more trust in each other and not see our works with bad intent. An article written by only one person cannot be entirely NPOV especially when it deals with culture or religion or the like. Your help is needed to make this a better and a more neutral article. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I have myself removed contentious passages from the music article based on your response. Thanks for the feedback. thanks Robin klein (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Meiome page deleted

Hi, apparently you deleted the page Meiome. There is still a proposal at Meiosis that it should be merged in there. Is there any way to retrieve the information that was there so that that proposal can be resolved? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to do that, as no one could find any sources that mention "meiome". There were only two sources in the article; one was a dead link and the other didn't mention meiome. The links were here and here if you can make anything out of it.--Cúchullain t/c 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think it might be something that belongs in wiktionary, so the text that was there might be a good starting point. This article says "However, with the advent of large-scale transcriptomics approaches such as microarrays, the meiome is beginning to be explored at a whole-genome level." This one says "The resulting data set helps define the wheat meiome (meiotic transcriptome)". This one has a section heading "Towards understanding expression dynamics of the meiome". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. If you'll give me a few minutes, I'll move the material to your user space.--Cúchullain t/c 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas of cana

Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please take it as a friendly debate. If you find it inconvenient to clarify my doubts, just leave a comment in my talk page. --AshLey Msg 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a 3rd opinion on Thomas of Cana issue as it's the major reason of rivalry between two groups and may cause further dispute between another set of editors in future. --AshLey Msg 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page, WP:3O is for disputes between two people. Your position has already been rejected by several people. This is not an appropriate venue.--Cúchullain t/c 16:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Cuchullain, I only count your opinion. Others (one IP user and Robin) have biased perspective since they appear to be from Southist community. Sitush has no specific opinion in this issue. I still have good faith on you, but I'm afraid you are not able to read the complexity in the animosity between two groups. Since I'm from Northist community, I know what is the mainstream tradition of Northists in Thomas of cana issue. I know, what I'm telling is 100% correct. If we express the challenged statement as a Southist tradition, I have no issue at all. I need the opinion of one more expert in the subject. Could you please guide me to get it. --AshLey Msg 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
So far weighing in on the topic have been myself, Sitush, the anon, and the now-banned Robin. 3O is not the right venue. You may try the other methods of dispute resolution if you wish, but this one won't cut it.--Cúchullain t/c 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AshLey Msg 14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ashley, you don't need to keep leaving me these talkback messages. I'm watching the page.--Cúchullain t/c 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony en Concierto

Did you even take a look at said sources? I will quote what I said earlier: "The first source you provided says "ING Presents Jenifer Lopez & Marc Anthony En Concierto", second says "Jennifer & Marc En Concierto", while the third says "En Concierto"." The tour's official website calls it Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony Juntos en Concierto. I don't quite understand how the move could have gone through when there was only one comment, an oppose. Consensus is supposed to be reached, which it clearly wasn't. Statυs (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus extends beyond just the discussion; there's a project-wide consensus that article titles reflect what the sources say. You say yourself that here sources use this form, and you provided none that used any other name. Additionally, even if "Juntos en Concierto" were the official name, we don't necessarily go with that if something else is more common, as appears to be the case here.Cúchullain t/c 01:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
For your reasoning, you stated all the sources itsbydesign stated reflect the desired name, when that is simply not the case. As you can clearly see, it is called something different depending on the source. Jennifer Lopez & Marc Anthony Juntos en Concierto (translates to Jennifer Lopez & Marc Anthony Together in Concert) is stated directly on the official website. Who's to decide which one is to be used without an actual discussion? Statυs (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I just found some more sources for the Juntos en Concierto title. Forbes: "It was much the same for Jennifer Lopez, who ranked No. 54 with $7 million on last year's list thanks to an album (Brave), a global concert tour ("Juntos en Concierto") and a deluge of media mentions surrounding the birth of her twins." and a concert review: "Jennifer López y Marc Anthony, 'Juntos en Concierto'" Statυs (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This source is calling it the El Cantante Tour. Do you see what I mean? Everyone's calling it something different. It's safe to just go by what the official site says. Statυs (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. I'd regard the versions using "En Concierto" to be slight variations of the same form. Also, I don't see that "Juntos en Concierto" is more official, considering that official promotions (like the poster included in the article) use "En Concierto" - and it certainly doesn't appear to be more common. Nevertheless, you are welcome to start another move discussion at some juncture if you disagree, though I advise you to include sources and policy rationale if you do.--Cúchullain t/c 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians

Hi Cuchullain, IP users have again inserted "Jewish" stuff in STC. What about a semi-protection? --AshLey Msg 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll submit a request at WP:RFPP. It looks like either a lot of sockpuppetry or an off-site campaign, either of which will be handled through semi-protection.--Cúchullain t/c 12:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank u Cuchullain. I think, they have started watching it.--AshLey Msg 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A semi-related question: would you be willing to take over and shepherd the DYK nomination of the music article, since you've done so much work bringing it into line? It's here. (Don't worry about the old article name; DYK has its own redirection for the template, and I expect the new hook will use the new name.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a look now.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversight

Please fix also the circular redirect. Thanks a lot. Poeticbent talk 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_M%C3%BCller

Bruno Müller merge

Hi Chuchullain, thanks for attending to the merge issue at Bruno Müller. I hope I didn't catch you in the middle of the process (it doesn't look like it, judging by the time stamps), but it looks like you may have missed a step. The page is currently redirecting to itself (the former page, Bruno Müller (Nazi), is appropriately redirecting there). Hope I'm not missing something. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BDD. I hit an error in the middle of making the move and wasn't able to return to correct it until just now. I made a post at Village Pump, but no one got to it before I returned. Hopefully it's suitably taken care of now.Cúchullain t/c 01:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In case you find it helpful, I'll try to explain what happened as far as I can reconstruct it from the logs. To recap, the situation was that there was a dab page at Bruno Müller, an article at Bruno Müller (Nazi), and a redirect at Bruno Müller (disambiguation); the desired outcome was that there would be the article at Bruno Müller, the dab at Bruno Müller (disambiguation), and a redirect left behind at Bruno Müller (Nazi). It looks like what happened is:
  1. You deleted the dab page at Bruno Müller, and its talk page.
  2. You moved the article from Bruno Müller (Nazi) to Bruno Müller, on top of the deleted dab page. But you had unchecked the box to move the talk page along with the article.
  3. You realized you missed moving Talk:Bruno Müller (Nazi). So you deleted the article, mixing the revisions from the article with the revisions from the dab in the deleted history, and then moved the redirect that had been left behind at Bruno Müller (Nazi) on top of the mess, along with the article's talk page this time.
  4. At this point you realized something was screwed up, so you asked for help.
What you should have done was this:
  1. Delete the redirect at Bruno Müller (disambiguation).
  2. Move (without leaving a redirect) the dab page from Bruno Müller to Bruno Müller (disambiguation).
  3. Move (leaving a redirect) the article from Bruno Müller (Nazi) to Bruno Müller.
If you realized you forgot to move the talk page along with the article, you should have just moved the talk page directly instead of deleting the article and moving-with-talk the redirect left from the first move. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
And if you ever have to swap two pages, for example if you need to move X to X (disambiguation) and X (disambiguation) to X:
  1. Move (without leaving a redirect) X to X (temporary for move).
  2. Move (without leaving a redirect) X (disambiguation) to X.
  3. Move (without leaving a redirect) X (temporary for move) to X (disambiguation).
No deletion of anything necessary here. Hope this helps! Anomie⚔ 15:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Anomie. I appreciate your assistance.Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Season 2

I have asked for a Move review of Season 2. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Help me to understand WP:COI

Please see this discussion in my talk-page on the applicability of COI on a revert in the article: Kerala. It would be highly helpful if you could guide me in this regard. --AshLey Msg 08:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI refers to when people have some vested interested in the topic they're editing, for instance being employed by or related to the subject. This can be a major issue when the party puts promoting their interest above creating a quality encyclopedia. That IP's edit was certainly a bad edit directly contradicted by one of the sources, but there's no indication that there was a conflict of interest there. More likely they were just screwing around as often happens on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Got it! So I was wrong there. Very kind of you to clarify my doubt. Since you also seem to have concerns with NSC network as a source, I would like to replace it with some other sec. sources. I think Zacharia has some demographic information. More importantly, 2012 caste census is going on and once the report comes out, that would be a good source of population stat. With regards --AshLey Msg 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Census would definitely be a useful source of information.Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Article "Dates in Harry Potter"

Dear Cuchullain:

I am writing you this message because I want to receive a copy of the version of "Dates in Harry Potter" that you deleted. Can you please send it to me on my talk page?

Sincerely,

Colosiant (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what this was about. The article I deleted in 2007 here was subsequently recreated and rewritten, and was eventually titled Chronology of the Harry Potter series. This was deleted by Black Kite on December 25, 2010 here. The article presumably changed considerably during that time; you may want to ask Black Kite about it.Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

St. Thomas Christians

Was this edit necessary? I agree that it is better to say "Syrian Christians" than "Syrians", but we cannot avoid "Malabar". As you know, there are other Syrian Christian communities around the world. Also "Nasrani Mappila" is a correct term, which you can just google to confirm. "Saint" was abbreviated to "St." just to keep the whole thing in one line. I am not aggressive, but is it really a no-no? Thanks. -InarZan Verifiable 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed "St." to "Saint" to avoid the abbreviation, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. I removed/replaced the "alternate names" because the ones that were there are not widely used, if at all. No one uses the term "Malabar Syrians", very few use "Thomasines", and "Nasrani Mappila" is used but is far less common than simply "Nasrani". The fact that those obscure/unused terms were there while common terms like simply "Nasrani" and "Syrian Christians" were not was a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Template talk:Saint Thomas Christians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page move

Hi there, I think you may have moved Blue (group) to the wrong page in the end. Although the original RM discussion was for Blue (English band), the RM was still ongoing and incomplete. Discussions regarding moving to a different name was in progress, as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME stated that the article name should reflect what the group are known by across the used sources. Hence why people on the discussion where swaying towards Blue (boy band) and not Blue (English band). Does this now mean we've to relist the discussion? Wesley☀Mouse 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I closed the discussion as there was no one continuing to discuss who hadn't already been doing so for several days (or weeks), and there was far more support for the requested name than for any of the various ones you suggested. If you object to the name, my recommendation would be to sit back a while and selecting one name, and starting a new proposal. That would reduce the tangential discussions and help determine a clearer consensus one way or the other. If you have any other questions please let me know.--Cúchullain t/c 14:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying back on this matter. From what I gathered, the discussion into various other article names was still in deep conversation, as it had been noted that the five criterion fulfilled one name over the other. Plus, the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME made it an obvious factor that distinctive names would be more of an obvious choice, hence why people on there where discussing the possibilities of Blue (boy band) and moving the Scottish page to [[Blue {rock band)]]. Blue (English band) is more of an ambiguous title than what Blue (group) was. Purely for the fact that the band has never been known as an "English band"; they have self0established themselves worldwide as a boy band, which would tie-in with the distinctive guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody has ever referred to the group as an "English band", so such a title as it now stands would make it harder to find, as the average Joe would automatically search for a name that they recognise, that being Blue (group) or Blue (boy band). As the discussion conclusion was still undecided I was going to suggest to everyone on there that the RM either be relisted or put on hold until there was a clear decision as to what name should be used, and then alter the RM accordingly. Which is also why I feel that the closure was premature, or incorrectly closed. From the comments alone is highly visible evidence that the originally suggested page name was a controversial choice. Another thing probably worth noting is if anyone was to Google search for Blue English band, the results would be wide open; whereas if the search was Blue boyband, then the results would be more specific to the actual band itself. Does this now mean I would have to submit a new RM for the article, and invite as many project that would know more on this to get involved and discuss naming issues? Wesley☀Mouse 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the article itself, it refers to them as a "pop boyband", so having (Englsih band) in the article title is defecting away from the actual band name. Even the sources on the article 1 and 2 refer to the group as a "boyband" and not an English band. Which is why I said the choice was incorrect. Also if you read the comments of those who had initially stated a support, they all further went on to state they also supported the name (boy band). One can only assume that they should have made those points more visible too, which leaves the fact that the support was not an overwhelming conclusion, as the support was for 2 article various not just one. Wesley☀Mouse 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I simply don't see the discussion going that way. While a few participants did express that "Blue (boy band)" or "Blue (English band)" would be acceptable, there was substantially more support for the latter over any of your various suggestions. The title effectively distinguishes the article from the only other ambiguous one, Blue (Scottish band). At least two participants noted that (boy band) would demand moving the Scottish band's article as well, at which point we're talking about another move discussion entirely.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think the closure was prematurely done, and I shall seek further advice on this, as it is very evident premature closure has occurred. Another user has even pointed out that they interpreted the consensus as a move to correct title "Blue (boy band)" rather than incorrect title of "Blue (English band)". The discussion should also have been raised to the respective projects connected to the article, and that was never done. We are dealing with a BLP case here, so distinction over anything else would take priority for sure!? Wesley☀Mouse 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to seek further input if you disagree with my decision.--Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have initiated a WP:3O on the article talk page which can be found here. As you are the closing administrator of the original RM, you may wish to participate in the discussions. Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Realism page move

Hi, thanks for the page moves. A couple of minor notes:

  • Feminism in international relations was not moved. Is this because you accepted the argument of AjaxSmack? If so, could you correct the closing summary to make this clear?
  • Thanks for preserving the old Realism article at Political realism; however, I'd like to suggest perhaps a better solution - since the content was copy/pasted over, the bulk of the history is now at Political realism; the difference since the move is minor: [1]; thus could we do the following:
    • Copy the content back to Political realism
    • Move Realism (international relations) to Realism in international relations (the original article name for that one)
    • Move Political realism to Realism (international relations)
  • That way, the bulk of the history will be preserved with the main article, and the few tiny edits since 2011 will be preserved in the redirect. We could also do the same thing for the talk page, which was also copy/pasted over inappropriately.

(see [2]

  • Another option would be a history merge, since there aren't likely to be any serious conflicting histories - for example, the talk page could probably be safely history merged (the main page could not however, since the redirect has history of it's own).--KarlB (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I moved Feminism in international relations, thanks for the catch. As for political realism, you're right, it was a copy-paste move. I'm happy to do either of your suggested remedies.--Cúchullain t/c 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. In that case, let me suggest.
  1. Move realism (international relations) to Realism in international relations; copy/paste content to Political realism; move Political realism to Realism (international relations)
  2. do the same thing for the talk page, thus preserving the history. History merge isn't worth it; just make sure there's a link somehow.
Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll take care of it presently.--Cúchullain t/c 18:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Should be sorted now.Cúchullain t/c 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
great thanks; I removed the duplicate talk page content. It all looks good now. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edward Hambye

Seems Fr. Édouard René Hambye is now at the one result only 1 editor wanted. I suppose you have a bit of a wry take on diacritics given that "Cu Chulainn" gets 39,000 Google Book hits, "Cú Chulainn" gets 3,300. No don't worry, I'm not got to point that out to anyone. Anyway, leaving that aside, did Fr. Hambye actually provide anything of use to St Thomas Christian pages? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alas, them's the breaks sometimes. As you can probably tell by my signature, I have no beef with diacritics and am all for using them where appropriate, but in this case clearly there was no consensus to move, defaulting to an outcome that may not be preferable to various participants.
As for the good Father himself, I'm afraid I don't know much about him. Stephen Neill appears not to have been a fan; he calls one of his books "rather heavily slanted on the Roman Catholic side" and says some of its chapters are "barely adequate".(p. 516)--Cúchullain t/c 18:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I stumbled on it at random cleaning up bio stubs, if it hadn't been for the Kerala connection I might have passed on. I don't recall having seen Hambye's books in India, but no doubt they're still around. And I hadn't seen that review, and, softened a bit have added Neill in. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks for DYK

Dear Cuchullain,

The article Saint Thomas Christian music has been put up on DYK on the main page. I thank you for rewriting the article. I realize my mistake. I was wrong and I hope you all would be able to forgive me for that. I thank you for the pain that you took to rewrite the article. I wanted to write this to you earlier but I thought I was not allowed to do that. However I got a message from Sitush which made me realize that it is probably okay to write this thank you note to you. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, Robin. I hope you take the duration of your topic ban as a learning experience and come out of it with a better understanding of how to write for Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 13:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

STC music - a question of style

Re: this edit - don't we usually italicise song titles? - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, song titles get quote marks, per WP:MOSTEXT. However, I consider this one borderline, as longer works are usually italicized. I'll look at how other sources do it (though obviously there are a number of different titles for the work.)Cúchullain t/c 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I realised that I might have got it wrong, hence the query rather than cack-handed fix. Although, as it happens, I am cack-handed anyway. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Haha, no worries! I'm not seeing much consistency with how the "Thomas Parvam", "Thomma Parvam", "Ramban Thomas", etc. is written out. On another note, I'm starting to see sources that doubt that the song was actually written as early as 1601. I'll be adding more as soon as I can find it.Cúchullain t/c 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Next thing you'll find is that Monty Python wrote it. Or, more likely, the Nazis - remembering that law about how the game of connections on the net almost invariably end with someone raising the Nazis. More seriously, I'd love to help with this one but I am finding that a lot of STC stuff is only available to me online in snippet view, and I am not prepared to use that due to lack of context. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of this stuff is remarkably difficult to track down in real sources. I suppose that's why weak and biased ones are so prevalent. I'll do some more digging - that is, if I have any time left after lengthy discussions about the benefits of drive-by tagging ;)Cúchullain t/c 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Nicu farcas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Nicu Farcas (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

brewery vs. brewpub vs. microbrewery

Hi Cuchullain,

Thanks for helping with this new page. You're the not the only person to say that "brewpub" should be replaced with "brewery" on this page. I'd never heard the term "brewpub" before, but the description on Wikipedia seems to match better because Bold City Brewery and Intuition Ale Works both serve the beer that they produce and food. The "brewery" Wikipedia page describes a factory and the photos don't show a place where people gather to eat and drink. That's why I changed it to "brewpub", which is actually a sub-heading of the "microbrewery" page.

Here's my solution: Wikipedia allows the link to have a title that is different from the actual link. I think a link to brewpub with the link title displayed as "microbrewery" would be most informative for readers. Like this: microbrewery

Let me know what you think.

Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbreton (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Stephen. First and foremost, Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, per the verifiability policy. The sources you have currently in King Street District largely don't appear to fulfill the criteria (and by and large don't seem to mention Bold City and Intuition.)
When you do find some sources for them, I'm confident you'll find that they are referred to as "breweries", "microbreweries", etc., not as "brewpubs". A "brewery" is any place that brews beer. Under Florida law, a "brewpub" is a specific kind of brewery with its own license. Most notably, they specifically can't sell their beer anywhere besides their own premises, and they can only brew a certain amount. In contrast, places like Intuition and Bold City have the full brewery license that allows them to sell their beer to other bars, restaurants, stores, etc. They are breweries that have their own taproom on premises. If you want a more specific term, I'd recommend "craft brewery" or "microbrewery", but they are not brewpubs.Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing of requested move for Rapid transit

Hello. You closed the requested move discussion for Rapid transit about a day ago. I actually thought we might be at the point of agreement – or at least approaching an agreement – when you closed it. I'm disappointed about that. At the time the discussion was closed, there was a specific suggestion that no one had objected to for more than 48 hours. So why would that suggestion not be considered the consensus outcome? There seemed to also clearly be universal agreement that some kind of move was desirable. It would be nice if you could reopen the discussion to potentially avoid needing to go through this again. There have already been 4 formal move requests on this article, and I'm sure there will be a fifth soon if this remains closed as "no consensus". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The proposer wanted to keep the discussion on their actual proposal to avoid the tangents that, uh, derailed previous discussions. It seemed clear that there was no consensus to move to the proposed title of Metro (rapid transit). I'll amend my closing summary to make that clear.Cúchullain t/c 22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Saint Thomas Christian music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colophon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Colonial French

Whoops okay first off let me apologize for reverting Colonial French before reading my messages, that was poor form. I'm too old for edit wars, so maybe we can talk this through. I find language-related articles are particularly susceptible to nasty back-and-forths because of the emotional nature of the subject matter and the nebulous boundaries of the descriptive terms being used.

My opinion is that the version I typed was not factually inaccurate. The US French articles have been frustrating for some time because each of Cajun French, Missouri French and Lousiana Plantation French have: 1) referred to "3 varieties of French spoken in the United States," and 2) enumerated several totally different varieties as making up the list of three. This is inherently confusing.

Assuming the literature can explain which three varieties are under discussion, I would just be happy with all three articles enumerating the same list of three. As I understand it, the French varieties are: Cajun, Missouri French, and Colonial (Plantation) French. The other three contenders are IMO problematised: Canadian French is, well, Canadian (plus that comes with its own naming problems, see discussion page); Frenchville French is poorly attested and functionally extinct; and Louisiana Creole French is not a French dialect at all, it is a creole which is a very separate beast. Creoles are handled differently from dialects across Wikipedia (I think the Haitian Creole page is a good precedent).

— Muckapedia (talk) 2e juil. 2012 15h59 (−4h)

The issue is the sources. The cited sources do discuss Louisiana Creole French along with Colonial/Plantation Society French and Cajun/Louisiana Regional French; they do not mention Missouri French, which developed separately and in a different region. Other sources describe the three regional forms of French in the U.S. as Louisiana French (including all Louisiana forms), Missouri French, and New England (ie, Canadian French as spoken in New England). We can note that Louisiana Creole is a creole language and distinct but related to Cajun and Colonial French.Cúchullain t/c 20:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Confusing stuff though. I'm not sure it's clear that Louisiana Regional French is the parent class to Cajun and Colonial French. It reads like another variety alongside. The source you linked to says LRF is a proposed term to take the racial politics out of Cajun and Creole French, but has it been adopted by Linguistic Scholarship? — Muckapedia (talk) 2e juil. 2012 16h17 (−4h)
LRF is usually identified specifically as the dialect most people call Cajun. It has become fairly well used in scholarship. Colonial/Plantation Society French is typically considered separate, as is Louisiana Creole, though now Colonial French has largely become subsumed into the Cajun dialect. Confusingly, all of these may be included under the umbrella term "Louisiana French". I think we can make that clearer in the article.
The truly confusing part is that the term "Colonial French" is used for two different dialects: (1) the pre-Acadian variety of French spoken in Lower Louisiana, and (2). the prestige dialect spoken after the Acadian arrival, which is now thought to be unrelated to the pre-Acadian dialect. We can probably stand to make that clearer as well.Cúchullain t/c 20:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Talk:The_Pussycat_Dolls#Requested_move.
Message added 12:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Statυs (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd stuff at STC

How odd that in the space of 24 hours or so we have User:Spiritofyuva and User:Prof.Dr.A.Yeshuratnam both contributing dodgy stuff and both claiming to be academics (one in the edit summary and one by virtue of their username). If it continues then SPI may be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

At least it would appear they are working together. Better keep an eye on it.Cúchullain t/c 12:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I am away over the weekend but yes, it will need watching. Hopefully they will discuss. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
... and they are doing. Excellent. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

RFPP for Knanaya

I've had enough of playing pin the tail on the donkey at Knanaya. I have requested temporary semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

East and West Florida edits

Bill,

With all due respect, I would like to see you honor the edits several people have made on the East and West Florida pages regarding the use of the word "colony." I reverted to some of those edits last night because they were correct from a historical and factual point of view. There are no references in Spanish royal ordinances or laws of the Spanish Cortes that consider Florida to be a colony or contain colonies (settlements). They refer to Florida as a territory to be settled and, along with being part of the Captaincy General of Cuba, St. Augustine and Havana were appointed governors titled "adelantados," or governors to further the territory. Florida had Parliamentary representation in the Spanish Cortes along with Cuba and Puerto Rico. Representation or coat of arms are not given to Spanish colonies. Pensacola was Florida's first "settlement." St. Augustine was its first "city," after earning a royal coat of arms (much like Gibraltar, Havana, and San Juan PR). There were provinces, settlements, and "missions" as well, in accordance to Spanish terms of governance.

Using the term "colony" in the British sense, may apply to East and West Florida during the British period, but that was a brief 20 years, and the word should only be used when writing within the context of that period, not as it relates to other periods. Example: "East Florida was a colony of Great Britain from 1763–1783 and of Spain from 1783–1822." It should read something like: "East Florida was a colony of Great Britain from 1763–1783 and an overseas territory of Spain from 1783–1822." In the case of Florida's history next to the United States, using this term in the British sense is misleading. It implies a subservient system of governance rather than a representative form of governance. I'm saying this as a professional in the field of journalism, with an interest in Florida's history.

Florida was not a colony of Spain according to Spain and Florida's system of governance. Provinces, autonomous communities, charted communities, and even some states can be considered "colonies" under its technical definition (a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country - Webster.) But again, because of Florida's history with the U.S., using the word colony to describe Florida as well as the Thirteen Colonies is bad word choice. In fact, Florida today has a very similar system of unitary government to Spain. Counties in Florida can charter their own governance (like Dade county), much like provinces can accede to chartered (autonomous) communities in Spain. There is much inheritance and similarity over the course of history.

I'm asking as a fellow Jacksonville resident and as a 10th generation Floridian to let these more accurate word choices stand. Below is some proof of what I'm trying to say. One, the History Channel's Conquest of the Southeast. In no case do they use the word colony to describe governance in Florida in this documentary, only French/British settlements. It's one of the most accurate. Two, is an interview with one of the leading experts in Florida history, and member of the Florida-Spain Foundation, Dr. Michael Francis. In the video linked below, he verifies that Spanish ordinances and laws refer to the Spains (Iberian communities/King of the Spains was the title of the monarch for many years) and the Floridas (Florida provinces). In this video he also describes some of the misuse of the word colony in Florida, and some of the myths people believe about our history, like the Fountain of Youth.

Conquest of America (History Channel) (2005) http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-America-History-Channel-Narrated/dp/B000A0GXMY

Entrevista a Dr. Michael Francis (in Spanish) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0vr122VYG8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLA.101 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FLA.101, thank you for your message. Unfortunately, the wording you reverted to isn't really an improvement and is quite awkward in some places. That wording has been periodically re-inserted into various articles by one anonymous editor and has been reverted by a number of others at different points. As I've explained on the talk page at Talk:East Florida, Talk:West Florida, and elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with using the word "colony" here. It does not imply a specific type of government, only that it is an area settled and controlled by a particular state. As I've said at the article, Gannon's History of Florida uses the word "colony", as do the other sources I've brought up at the article. This isn't to say that we couldn't go into further detail about the actual governance of the colonies (we should), but replacing the term "colony" with more equivocal language isn't an improvement.Cúchullain t/c 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Move of Yakutat, Alaska

Hi Cuchullain, unless I'm missing something, it looks like you moved Talk:Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska to Talk:Yakutat, Alaska per the move request, but Yakutat, Alaska itself still redirects to Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska. Just a friendly reminder, then. --BDD (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I've moved it now.Cúchullain t/c 12:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_19&oldid=1144581850"