User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Jap

perhaps there should be an etymology and history section, in the same manner as the page on the word nigger ?

I don't think Jap is an abbreviation which some people consider to be offensive, it is primarily a racist slur which has its origins in an abbreviation. Nowadays it is used almost exclusively as a racist slur.

The page on the word nigger starts by saying it is a racist slur, then moves onto an etymology section.

I may edit this page in the future, to make it the same format as the nigger page, please contact me if you think they should not share the same format or if you have any other suggestions regarding the jap pageSennen goroshi 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It should have a usage section, but the etymology is obvious- it's short for "Japanese". The nigger article starts by defining the word as a "pejorative term used to refer to dark-skinned people, mostly those of African ancestry", then goes on to say the connotations have been negative for centuries. That is different with "jap", which is, as you say, primarily an ethnic slur today, but has not always been used as one. In World War II it was still largely an abreviation used in English-speaking newspapers, and before that, it wasn't disparaging at all. I also think "jap" is not considered nearly as offensive as "nigger", but more on the lines of spic or honky. The page could use some expanding, and the nigger article is probably the most apt model to follow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I also think that nigger was once an acceptable term in some countries, the term nigger brown was used without causing offence at one time. I guess it depends where you come from, jap is pretty offensive to me (living in Japan) and in Japan nigger isnt really used to offend people at all.

It might be nice if there were some verifiable sources regarding how offensive certain racial slurs are, I know there is one for obscene words but this doesnt concentrate on racial slurs.Sennen goroshi 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some additional sources, but I don't personally have any to provide. I don't know if there's a way to rank ethnic slurs by level of offensiveness, but "nigger" is widely considered one of the most offensive words in the English language, worse than other ethnic slurs and even curse words (in most contexts). But as the king of English ethnic slurs, its article is the best model to follow to expand on other articles on slurs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to be educated on the meaning of the word race, I thought it came down to if there were visible differences for a group of people (perhaps Im over-simplyfying that) but then again, Im also not 100% if there are differences between say Japanese and Korean people. first of all, is my understanding of the word race, correct? secondly, are there any differences between Japanese and Korean/Chinese? Perhaps if Japanese are not a race, then ethnic slur would be better? I won't bother changing that page again, until I make sure I'm using the correct term, or even if a there is a term that applies in this case.Sennen goroshi 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of semantics - I'm going by the dictionary definition of race, which says that it's a social construct based on a number of characteristics and background. Ethnicity, by contrast, is a group of people who identify with each other culturally, etc. Race is much broader and more abstract, while ethnicity is narrower and much easier to define. The Japanese are not a "race" (they would be grouped with other East Asian peoples by those who orginally defined the racial categories), but they are an ethnic group. Hence, "ethnic slur" is the correct way to describe "jap". I'm not the person to ask if there are differences between the Japanese and Koreans, I don't think there'd be much genetic difference, but they do have different languages and customs, and the "Chinese" are neither a race nor a single ethnic group, but rather a nation made out of many different ethnic groups, much like other large countries like the US.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry! I had am emotional reaction. That is the only time I have reverted a page in 27,000+ edits on Wikipedia, other than removing unquestioned vandalism or self-reverting because of a mistake. I was just very hurt that you removed the names, since other names are on there with fewer edits. I read the rules carefully on the page before I added the names. There was no mention of an edit limit. But I have realized for a long time that things are arbitrary here. It is your decision to allow other editors to be listed with fewer edits and not mine. So be it. It is your page. Regards, --Mattisse 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since I see everyone else is adding back names that break your rule, I will do the same tomorrow. I am sure you want to avoid such an appearance of undue prejudice on your part against me and will support me on this. Regards, --Mattisse 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my decision, it's everyone's, I just happen to have worked on the page the most. I repeat, the 1,000 edits "rule" is emphatically not mine, it was around before my time. It's just an arbitrary standard to make sure the list doesn't become far too long and full of only minor contributors. As for "undue prejudice", I really don't care about appearances here, I just remove names when I see them if they have under 1000 edits, or were banned, or have returned, etc., and every once in a while me or someone else goes through and weeds names out more thoroughly. I don't go out of my way to enforce "code" here, I could be editing articles.

You obviously don't agree with the rule, per your original additions and your edit summaries. Why don't we discuss on the talk page over there what to do now and in the future?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to your selective inforcement

If there is a rule, then enforce it for everyone. For some reason you removed my entries while allowing others to be added before and after mine that had less that 1000 edits. --Mattisse 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, Mattisse, there's nothing "selective" about my enforcement on this, and I am not the lone enforcer. It has nothing to do with you, I just happened to notice after you added them that they had less than 1000, I just missed the others (and haven't had time to check on all the ones you pointed out). I'll get to the others when I have time, but right now I'm going to get back to editing articles. But come on, if you have a real problem with the rule, why don't you bring it up over there? If not, I assure you I'll deal with it when I can, but it won't be right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another about the 1,000 edit rule as now I see the list is sterile and not meaningful. I object to your selective enforcement because I was given a revert warning for removing the less than 1,000. Then the person added his less than 1,000 and I could do nothing. Thus you encourage bullying by your selective enforcement. It is that sort of ugliness that I do not want to participate in. I will simply get that page off my watchlist. I certainly do not want to engage in a talk page discussion with people of that mentality. I have never gotten a revert warning before. --Mattisse 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Like I said, I'll get to it when I get to it, but I'm not taking any more time away from editing articles right now. I really am sorry you've been so upset by this, the only reason I edit the page is as a memorial to those who were once an important part of the community but are not any longer. I edit it the way I do because of consensus gathered from the talk page, the AfD, from the others who have maintained the page (some of whom sadly are no longer editing themselves). I didn't have anything to do with giving you the warning, but you were apparently editing out of resentment, and for my part I did try to apologize and explain myself to you. I wish you would reconsider unwatching the page, there is much work to be done, and fewer and fewer people interested in doing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised fewer and fewer people are interested in the page. You certainly turned me off to it. I would suggest that if you want people to be interested in the page, treat their contributions with value. Anyone who adds to that page does so for a reason. Don't treat them as you treated me and don't support bullying on the page as you do now. The page is off my watchlist and this converstion is at an end. --Mattisse 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't treat you any way at all, except to revert your first addition, and then attempt to explain why. Nor did I "support bullying" by not jumping up and editing as fast as you would have liked, I have other things to do, on and off Wikipedia. I suggest you not take things quite so personally, particularly if you're not going to discuss it on the dedicated talk page But your right, this conversation is over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: UNF

Thanks, Cúchullain; I'm quite partial to it. :) María (críticame) 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta

We've edited the same articles before, and I saw you post on Maria's talk page, so I figured I should drop this note here too. Me and a few other people, we're trying to get next year's Wikimania to Atlanta, and we're asking people if they can help, whether it be in online capacities or actually to help with preparation, setup and staffing next summer in Atlanta. Whatever you can do is appreciated. If you can do something, go to "Southeast team" about halfway down the page, click the link, and sign your name to "outside Atlanta." Here's the generic template I've been dropping on people's pages, which may or may not apply to you personally (it was originally geared toward Georgia contributors). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

TilaTequla HELP!

So i tried to update the ref tags with more info like you requested on the discussion page and somehow it got all messed up in the ref list at the bottom of the page.... uhh what the hell happened??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyRob926 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you just forgot a </ref>. No big deal, I've done that about a million times. However, it looks like the spam filter is blocking the Myspace blog now, preventing me from fixing it. I'll see what I can do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot! the spam filter is weird though, sometimes it lets myspace links go by other times it blocks them, its kind of random CrazyRob926 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville, Florida

Jacksonville, Florida has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a look.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Sir Gawain is now up for GA status. Wrad 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But....

You ain't the boss here. ANd i have just as much right to edit here as you do. Since when do you get the high and mighty desire to decide what's right and wrong around here? I'm a huge James Gunn fan. So I'm not out to harm the guy. But I'm a bigger wikipedia fan. Hence, I looked into your little edit war. It seems this is all about some quote. Well... according to wiki, a direct quote is preferred over your intrepretations of the quote. Your intrepretation is not NPOV. But a quote is NPOV. So stop trying to decide what's right or wrong. A sourced quote is superior to your opinion about it. If you don't like it, then find a quote that counters it. Otherwise, it's stays. K? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogabadaga (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quote is irrelevant, it's from some magazine, interpreting what studion insiders said. The magazine's opinion doesn't matter, it's the insider's opinion that should be there, but one particular user is intent on including as much negative material as he can about this guy and this film. It's not a "direct quote", it's the definition of an "indirect quote" - it comes from a third party, trying to sum up the opinion of someone, but we include it here for some reason. I'd be interested to know exactly where you read that "a direct quote is preferred" - that's almost the same thing this user said several months ago in trying to justify his adding it. As for the James Gun article, we have a very strict BLP policy prohibiting poorly sourced contentious material. As I said before, the information is not relevant to the biography.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You've already violated the 3RR rule on the James Gunn article. Please be more careful in the future or you will be reported. Jauerback 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at WP:AN/3RR, I didn't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Even if I had, 3RR doesn't apply to removing poorly sourced contentious material about a living person per WP:BLP; I brought up BLP on the talk page and my edit summaries, to no avail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Berry Lowrie

Here is the quote from the swamp outlaws: DESCRIPTION OF THE OUTLAWS

HENRY BERRY LOWERY

Henry Berry Lowery, the leader of the most formidable band of outlaws, considering the smallness of its numbers, that has been known in this country, is of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood, twenty-six years of age, five feet nine inches high and weighing about 150 pounds.

He has straight black hair, like an Indian: a dark goatee, and a beard graceful in shape, but too thin to look very black. His face slopes from the cheek bones to the tip of his goatee, so as to give him the Southern American contour of physiognomy; but it is lighted with eyes of a different color--eyes of a grayish hazel--at times appearing light blue, with a drop of brown in them, but in agitation dilating, darkening, and, although never quite losing the appearance of a smile, yet in action it is a smile of devilish nature.

His forehead is good and his face and expression refined--remarkably so, considering his mixed race, want of education and long career of lawlessness.

A scar of crescent shape and black color lies in the skin below his left eye, said to have been made by an iron pot falling upon him when a child.

His voice is sweet and pleasant, and in his manner there is nothing self-important or swaggering. He is not talkative, listens quietly, and searches out whoever is speaking to him like a man illiterate in all books save the two great books of nature, and human nature above all.

[p.13] The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper--such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm --Roskerah 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cite it properly on the page and I have no objection to its inclusion. Footnotes are what's used on the page primarily, the cite will need the book's title, author and page number (or if you're relying on the online version, link.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merlin

Further to our edit conficts in the aforecited article, I have employed præternatural instead of the close-cognate supernatural for specific reasons:

supernatural is best reserved for Deity, whereas, præternatural is appropriate for deity.

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural does not imply "Deity", but only something beyond natural; it is also more easily recognized by the lay reader. I kept one of your usages of it, but retained "supernatural" in the intro for that reason. I also changed back some of your style edits, such as converting to British spellings and unstandard characters (specifically the "ae") and your changes of the date format to CE. Most of your edits were good, but it struck me that some of the language was overly flowery for a general purpose encyclopedia. But as I said most changes were good, keep up the good work!--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbecue Bob

I hope we don't get into a silly situation over this, but please look at [2] Ghmyrtle 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I was reading the same thing when i edited the way I did - my intention was to reduce the single sentance/ short paragraphs. At any rate, I'm fine with there being multiple paragraphs, but there doesn't need to be a separate section for his brother - the info on him is just 1 sentance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that it deals with a different person, and where that's happened elsewhere I've tended to use a new section - eg at Lester Melrose. No big deal. Ghmyrtle 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if and when the article is expanded it would deserve its own section, but for now it's far too short. If it is expanded and Lincoln gets his own section (or article), it should still be at least mentioned farther up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Fountain of Youth St Augustine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Image-Fountain of Youth St Augustine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep undoing my addition of an external link to the Yezidi page?

Hello - please stop undoing my addition of a relevant (NOT SPAM) external website on the Yezidi people and their traditions. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurius anonymous (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

???

Huh? On the James Gunn page I added a known fact well documented by the press about his first film. If you are a filmmaker, and your first film was a box office bomb, then that is certainly worth mentioning. Dozens of sources back it up. If you don't like it, then we should probably remove the part of the article that praises Gunn for having an 84% favorable rotten tomatoes rating. Or should we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxador (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All we need to mention is that he did the film, that it did poorly, but was praised by the critics. Calling it a "box office bomb" is not really NPOV, and it certainly doesn't need to be mentioned on the director's page. It is discussed more fully at the movie's page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. So by your logic, we also DON'T need to mention the critics reaction to this film since it is also mentioned on the SLITHER page. It's redundant. So I removed BOTH box office & critic reactions. If one tidbit of news is not notable, then certain the other pertaining to the critical reaction is not. This film did not leave a mark critically. Also add to that the fact that the consensus in the press is that the film was more notable for the fact that is did so poorly in the financial sense. So, again, by your logic there is no point in going into depth about the film SLITHER on the James Gunn page since that's what the SLITHER page is for. If you really want a NPOV solution in this, then this should satisfy your 'logic' in this. Otherwise, you are the one engaging in nonsense.

This discussion should be continued at the talk page. I've already commented there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you about possible sockpuppetry. The refuters are all lined up at the door. Not to mention what seems to be an attempt to write differently. I just looked at Fearedhallmonitor's previous talk page contributions, and they're more "normal" than his current spiel. It's why I was inclined to push for the EW citation's exclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you plan to develop the article further, let me know, and I can help provide references. My research skills for film information are fairly honed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Tromaintern for his sockpuppetry and disruption of several articles, after seeing he was vandalizing that article you worked on. It will be a good indication Fearedhallmanitor is a sockpuppet if he doesn't edit for the next 24 hours. I think the article looks good now, minus the disruptive behavior.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me; I knew he was setting himself up for the fall when he came over to Cloverfield. In any case, my offer to provide references still stands. Just let me know whenever you're interested. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Grail

I add www.gradale.com link to External Links area. But you deleted it. This website will reveal the real location of the Holy Grail. Could you undo it. I created this website to give the real information. www.gradale.com link is not a spam.

Best Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferhatkanarya (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my removal. You should check out our external link guideline. External links should be kept to a minumum, and It's very discouraged to include links to your own website, especially if it's not an academic resource. --Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you , but why do you remove this link? It is only an advertisment of a BBC programme :

The Holy Grail, an episode of In Our Time (BBC Radio 4), a 45 minute discussion is available for listening at the page.

My web site is created to give information and its development cycle continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferhatkanarya (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

notwithstanding your disturbed assertions otherwise, i can't speak for tromaintern despite your desperate hope that i'm somewhere responsible for his actions. though i can speak for myself und will. i'm really not a sock puppet proxy. can't you do an IP check or something to clear this up? yes, I know what you will say next. you'll say that i jumped onto another computer. However, unless I jumped into a plane and flew to a different state, chances are we are in completely different areas, countries. surely, using your bag of tricks und tools in your arsenal you should be able to see if our ip addresses are (at least) in the same area. also, could you not check to see if we used similar IP addresses for past edits upon checking our edit history? i do not know what else to offer other than that. i won't stand for this continued harassment, mate, simply so you can win a mentally-disturbed edit war.

on merits, i concur the article looks fine. though i may reapply the box office tag at a later time if better worded to satisfy all. until then, i'm satisfied.

moving forward>i insist you please assume good faith this moment on, something you have completely failed to do with moi for childish emotional reasons. my edits have not been disruptive. that should be enough reason to assume good faith. thx for your time.Fearedhallmonitor 06:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I blocked Tromaintern's IP address, it looks like you're editing with a different one. I don't personally have any way of determining this any farther, but can look into it. If you really are not a sock, I would sincerelly apologize. However, to quote the guideline AGD "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", and there is such evidence, which was brought up at the talk page: up until a few days ago, you edited mostly the same articles Tromaintern did, you are trying to re-add the same sentance he wrote, and you didn't show up to the discussion until his other socks had been blocked. Our reaction is not unjustified considering how disruptive that user and his sockpuppets have been. Now, assuming you were not involved with Tromaintern, if you have any problems with the current state of the article, you can bring it up at the talk page, but current consensus favors this version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Decononized Catholic Saints

Hi. I have a real problem with this page, and I see that you have commented on it. I prefer " Saints no longer in the universal calender" or something of this nature. I strongly assert that it is still right and proper for Catholics to pray to these saints and ask for their intercession. No where i have ever heard that it is no longer proper to do so. A doctrine allowing "decanonization" would be in direct opposition to the doctrine of infallibility. I hope that we can enter into some kind of dialog and rectify this gross mischaracterization of many of these saints.Die4Dixie 03:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always had a problem with that category's name, because as you say, there's no such thing as "decanonization", though there is some attempt to explain this at the category page. Additionally different churches have different lists of saints. "Saints no longer in the universal calendar" will be able to include such things as Ursula and Christopher, on top of what we have there (mostly people related to the blood libels, ahistorical figures that were never on the calendar, and the dog saint). I'm for a change (pretty much any change). You may wish to bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints; I'm sure they'll agree, and we can take it up at categories for discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Jacksonville

Hello! We are currently working to gather support for our new WikiProject Jacksonville. If you are interested in joining the WikiProject, feel free to come by and add your name to our list of members. Thanks! - Jaxfl 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Cross of Declan

You might want to click on that image and read about its use. As a person of Celt descent,I recognize the cross, and don't have an problem with it.Unfortunately, a person has taken exception to my user name because of an editing disagreement, and has used it to attack me as "racist". The cross has been appropriated by Stormfront( there is an article on them on Wikipedia), and the image has certain legal restrictions in the EU. Thanks for you kind interaction about the saints.Die4Dixie 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oy! Thanks for the note. I was thoroughly unaware that symbol had been adopted by white power groups. I'm not removing it for now because a). the symbol has other associations and b). anyone who interacts with me will know I'm not a racist (also, I don't care about restrictions on the symbol in Europe, their laws don't apply to Floridians.) If it in the future it becomes such a problem that it takes time away from editing the encyclopedia, I'll remove it then.

All that said, you might want to reconsider your username if it' causing you problems in editing the encyclopedia. I don't think that user's case is very strong per the username policy, other than it can be seen as a violent reference. Additionally, the lyrics to Dixie are actually "live and die in Dixie", not "for Dixie". Just a thought.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That editor did not like an edit that I had made and then Wikistalked me to justify a conclusion that he had already come to (and to inconvenience me). I'm certain that he is the one who reported me. Funny how none of the other editors on the pages that I had edited on had any problem ,including admins, with my name. I think the person is doing some sort of gaming the system to cause me grief, as he is a self proclaimed wikignome, who has a lot more experience with the rules and software than I. There are two versions of Dixie(actually several)and one is the Battle Version. I wouldn't want you to remove your symbol, just as i do not want to change my name. I was just pointing out that a user like the one I am discussing could see your edits on "jap" and the comments above and try to unfairly cherry pick and mischaracterize your edits and accuse you of being a racist( which would be utter crap, as it is in my case). Maybe you could help me archive his comments and my responses (on my talk page), as someone who didn't read the whole thing on the Sean Hannity talk page might be led to make false assumption about me.I don't think I will change my name since the issue that he had was really with an edit i had made, and not my user name. Thanks for the support.Die4Dixie 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it appears your name has been removed from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I can help you archive your talk page if you want, but that would not remove the category entirely. If that's your issue, you ought to ask Jmlk17 about it, since he's the one who added it. He's a good user and should be able to help, especially now that the claim against your name was rejected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me get rid of that annoying little box at the bottom of my user page that links to that list? And the list to which it links. It seems a terrible list to just appear on!Die4Dixie 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

And thanks for the links to the quides and How To's. I contribute so rarely that I forget the rules and syntax between times!

(BTW, I just looked at your user page. I read The Cattle Raid on a snowy night in Glasgow thirty-odd years ago. it was good to be reminded of it.)

Wes Pacek 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Barlas

Hi Cuchullain,Would you please present your view at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Asma_Barlas re the textbook in question [3] and re the "consensus (edit-war-forced-consensus?)" version [4]. Thanks in advance. --Aminz 09:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, I wasn't sure if this comment was addressed towards me [5]. It seems a bit like I am invited to a challenge. Well, to be honest I don't know what definition of "historian" is meant here and I am not sure why I have been invited to such a challenge when there is a reliable source that clearly backs up that statement and several instances of webpages arguing that Aisha was older than nine years old has been provided (e.g. Maulana Ali; The Iranian center for Research in Islamic culture and sciences [6]; Understanding-islam.com, Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research [7], etc etc). To my mind, it is not the business of wikipedia editors to prove the factuality of statements from reliable sources; it is the business of the publisher (in this case, the university of texas press). What I can see here, forgive me if I am wrong, is applying double standards; not because of wikipedia rules but because of the subject we are writing about. This is not the type of source whose reliability is usually questioned in wikipedia. Again, if my reading of WP:Verifiability is correct (i.e. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.), I shouldn't be challenged to prove the factual correctness of a source. --Aminz 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I was a bit upset last night. --Aminz 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment Here. Would you please take a look at it. Thanks --Aminz 07:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonial history of the United States—histmerge beneficial

The page just moved to this location and formerly at Colonial history of the United States of America looks to be the result of a cut-and-paste move, made by User:172 in July 2003, of the page that was formerly at Colonial history of the United States but has now been deleted. So, it would be good if you could perform a history merge. Spacepotato 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I guess they didn't have the "move" function back then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

I thought you removed the tag because it was totally disputed (i.e. both factual and neutrality). And I don't want to edit-war on that as I think you are a reasonable and level-headed editor. Would you please reply to my comment here [8] dated at 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC). I am all for talking :) Thanks --Aminz 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, man, it's really confusing following this discussion across several pages. I felt that consensus had spoken at the Aisha page about what ought to be included. It didn't seem like there was any consensus on the RS page about Barlas, and at any rate, she is only one person, and it seems like most other scholars follow Tabari and Bukhari. I don't like the current state of the article, where there's no discussion of Aisha's age at all, but I have to tell you, I greatly resent the way it the article was presented before. It made it sound like there was substantial doubt about her age, but after reading Tabari's account, and the views of several modern historians (including M. Watt), that's just not the way it is.

To reiterate, even if Barlas is a reliable scholar, most scholars just don't share that opinion (and it surely sounds like she doesn't take a positon one way or another). There are real reasons to dispute the current state of the article, but doubting the accuracy of the primary sources isn't one of them. I think it should mention Watt's (and I'd imagine Barlas') opinion that Aisha's age was not something that bothered people during Muhammad's time, even people critical of the prophet. This needs to be said, but we've been to busy arguing over other things to include it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks for your reply. I certainly agree that only in the last century some people have said that Aisha should have been older. This is of course not incidental. This corresponds to the time that the age of marriage was increased in west. Muhammad started being criticized and some Muslims who were influenced by those criticisms started looking to the sources now with a certain goal: to show that Aisha has been more than 9 years old. And that wasn't so hard to do: Tabari and Ibn Hisham for example say that Aisha was the 20th person who became a Muslim. This would mean that Muhammad had less than 20 followers after 7 years (source for this statement:Islamic sciences and Culture Academy).

That is really what happened. This story parallels many other stories: For centuries people said that the Bible says sun is rotating around the earth, Noah's flood was universal, and many other statements. But only after scientific criticism came, people started separating their ways. The story of Satanic verses, you know, is similar. Sometime ago, I was reading a paper about the Witch of Endor. The Jewish tradition and early Christians held that Samuel himself was summoned by the witch. Later Christian scholars addressed the theological issues raised by this text and concluded that it was actually a demon.

In all these cases I think , the real fact is that nobody really know or can know. It is all a matter of probability. I don't consider history as a science. It is a pseudo-science. It is unfortunate that they teach it in the same place as they teach physics or math.

Historical scholarship is reality not a matter of finding the truth, nor is it possible. This is how it works: Take a position, recruit some smart people and they will show that the chosen position actually happened. It is really that easy in my experience.

Coming back to the Aisha issue, I agree that "It made it sound like there was substantial doubt about her age". My suggestion is to first mention that this whole new opinion is a very modern one; western scholars don't accept it; a minority of Muslims do (Islamic sciences and Culture Academy is a quite prestigious religious organization in Iran; this is easily testable: I am sure any Iranian would state that about "پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و علوم اسلامی دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی" )

Best Regards,--Aminz 08:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that some Muslims believe she was younger, but other contributors certainly do. As I said on the talk page over there, we should, perhaps in a different paragraph or section, say that though scholars (it's not just "Western" scholars) have no reason to believe she wasn't the age the historians describe her as, some Muslims today believe she was older for whatever reason (perhaps quoting Barlas as a source). Then we should say that some critics of Muhammad have used her age to criticize him, but that his contemporary critics did not mention it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What does "rv" mean, please?

Please excuse me if this is a stupid question (I'm pretty new here) but what does the "rv" that you recently used in your edit summary mean?

(In our article on Vanuatu you changed my wording of "Vanuatu was first inhabited by [[Melanesia]]n people. [[European ethnic groups|Europeans]] began to settle in the area in the late 18th century and in 1906..." to the rather less precise and more ambiguous "Vanuatu was first inhabited by [[Melanesia]]n people. [[Europe]]ans began to settle in the area in the late 18th century and in 1906...")Alice.S 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert (and for taking the trouble to copy both to my own talk page)!

I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught - but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of European ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

St. Marinus the Deacon?

Hi there! please check the official page of the San Marino-Montefeltro dioceses [9] ...and there are at least other 6 St. Marinus Nicola Romani 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are others, but he's clearly the most famous one. Additionally, I could find virtually nowhere where he's actually called "Marinus the Deacon"; per our naming conventions, we use common names. If, in the future, articles are written on the Marini, we can create a disambiguation page to distinguish them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Sir, If you've a moment, can you take a look at the edits that have been made today to the Sir Gawain article, and see if you can make heads or tails of it? I am, to be quite honest, at a loss to figure out what these new users have done, but there are several changes that have been made---sections added, deleted, readded, reformatted, etc. And, again being completely honest, I do not know enough on the topic to know what is of value and what is not. I am hoping you will have better luck. Thanks. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've alerted the editor who has done the most to develop the article over the past several months, and I personally will take a more thorough look when I have time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Yeah, I've had my eye on it. I've even tried to strike up a conversation with a few of them, but to no avail. Their edits are for the most part pretty good, so I've left it alone to see what comes up. It's getting so that it needs to be reorganized now, though. I'll have to dig through it to find the good stuff and figure out how to get it all together. I really appreciate that they add good refs with their additions. That really helps. One editor even added an entire section with an odd ref format, then deleted it and added it back a bit later with a ref format in line with what the article was already using (roughly). I really wish they would talk to me. Those are the kind I like to work with, but oh well. Wrad 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

Thanks for mopping up! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Magog

I have invited User:Til Eulenspiegel to discuss "primary topic-nesss" on Talk:Magog. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Could you weigh in? I can see this coming to something of a stalemate. I'm mostly arguing from the standpoint of primary use; he seems to be more concerned with nuanced differences in the subject and the current state of the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good ...

to be back. Thanks for the warm welcome on my return. Pastordavid (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

McAffee

Chuchullain - I obviously have an axe to grind with the McAffee crowd, but it is a legitimate one. If my edits over on their advertisment page in Wikipedia were not appropriate, I apologize. But I am requesting your assistance in also making the article more balanced. The fact of the matter is that McAffee is affecting hundreds of small businesses with their heavy-handed methods. Competitors to my website, or any other, can sign up as a reviewer, give us a nasty review, and get us "blacklisted" by them.

My site is a B2B site. To register, one must be a travel agent, per our Terms. How can an organization like McAffee fraudulently register on our site and then accuse us of spamming them by when we send them the very materials for which they registered?

The article in Wikipedia is a shill for McAffee. Such articles have recently garnered notoriety for Wikipedia. I would hope you would assist in bringing a more balanced editorial voice to the article. Respectfully Rbe2004 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shell_Kinney has essentially said everything I could have said over at that talk page. I am sorry to hear of your personal problems with the site, but information used in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, meaning, taken from a reliable source. Your first step should be locating such sources - likely magazine or news articles- containing criticism of the site. There's really nothing else that can be done until you have those.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

rhiannon

I don't understand something... the Rhiannon page says references are wanted, but when i put in one, the book THE LOST YEARS OF MERLIN, you removed it. Why?

Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.112.132 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It means academic references, not novels. We don't need to simply list all modern novels that feature the character, we need real sources for what is said in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

reply concerning rhiannon

OK, that makes sense, but then why are the novels THE SWORD OF RHIANNON and MAD MERLIN cited, neither of which seem to deal with the actual legendary personage of Rhiannon?

Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.15.14 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

These works can be cited in an appropriate section, just not named as "references"; if they are important enough. I don't know if any of that stuff is really important; but none of it can be used as "references".--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

SV

Hi. I left a comment for you re the version you were reverting to, long ago on the talk page. Could you please take a look at it. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you please provide more information regarding this edit of yours [10] (e.g. the exact quote). What part of the book is Rubin referring to? And why is it on topic. Can we for example quote Edward Said's remarks ([11]) whenever we quote anything from any western scholar of Islam? you see where I am going... Cheers,--Aminz (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment you're referring to, could you be more specific? As for the Rubin quote, I believe Rubin is referring to the book in general. You should ask the person who added it, I believe Arrow740, for more information on it. It's on topic because Rubin is an expert on the subject; his thoughts carry weight on whether a source is credible or not. The same would go for any source listed, "Western" or otherwise - if a credible expert had a problem with one of the sources in either section, it could be included. Said, however, is not an expert on the subject - he's a literary theorist, not a historian. His criticisms are against so-called "Western" scholarship as a concept, not on the credibility of individual sources. Rubin is not being trumped out as representing one "side" of the debate against the other, nor does he attack Muslim scholars as some monolithic force; his quote is directed against one work in particular. It would similarly not be acceptable to use Islam Unveiled as a source for anything, at least without pointing out that scholars believe the book is driven by ulterior motives.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I think when someone sides with a particular side in a content dispute and reverts, he is expected to know what exactly the dispute is. You say Rubin says the book is "marked by apologetic motives". What does this have to with his writings on that particular matter. In reality "having no motives" when writing about history is a fiction, isn't it. Regarding his book, Encyclopedia of Islam entry on Muhammad Husayn Haykal says the following in relation to his book:

In the second category must be cited his Hayāt Muhammad (1934), a life of the Prophet of Islam which is respectful of the most reliable Muslim tradition and at the same time conforms with the requirements of modern learning-notably echoing La vie de Mahomet ¶ of E. Dermenghem, Paris 1929, and The Life of Muhammad of Sir William Muir, Edinburgh 1923 (see A. Wessels, A modern biography of Muḥammad , Leiden 1972). After having dealt with the sīra of the founder of Islam, Haykal also applied himself as an historian to the biographies of its first three so-called “Orthodox” caliphs: Abū Bakr (1942), ʿUmar (1945), and ʿUt̲h̲mān (only to be published in 1964, after Haykal's death). Finally, let us mention the account of his own pilgrimage which he wrote in 1937, Fī manzil al-waḥy . In all his work, Haykal appears as a man endowed with a great capacity for work and assimilation, capable of constantly starting afresh...

The writer of SV in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an quotes Haykal but doesn't feel obliged to refute him: "The modern locus classicus is probably the article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt” published by Muhammad ʿAbduh in al-Manār in 1905; but widely-circulated refutations of the incident have also been authored by other influential moderns, including Muhammad Ḥusayn Haykal (d. 1376/1956) in Ḥayāt Muhammad, Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1387/1967) in Fī ẓilāl al-Qurʾān, Abū l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī (d. 1399/1979) in Tafhīm al-Qurʾān, and Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1420/1999) in Naṣb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq (see exegesis of the qurʾān: early modern and contemporary ). Orientalists (see post-enlightenment academic study of the qurʾān ), including the most widely-read biographers of Muhammad — such as William Muir, D.S. Margoliouth, W. Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson and F.E. Peters — have tended (with few exceptions) just as forcefully to accept the historicity of the incident, the orientalist logic having been epitomized by Peters: “This is the indubitably authentic story — it is impossible to imagine a Muslim inventing such an inauspicious tale.” The widespread acceptance of the incident by early Muslims suggests, however, that they did not view the incident as inauspicious and that they would presumably not have, on this basis at least, been adverse to inventing it."

--Aminz (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never been a big fan of dropping lengthy quotes to try an illustrate a point. To your first statement, I do not have Rubin's book, but I am aware of the author's reputation as an expert in this field. The quote from him is perfectly clear, I don't know what you're having trouble with - it says that Haykal's Hayat Muhammad is marked by apologetic motives. It even gives you a page number. I feel a quote from him gives context to the preceding quote from Haykal - pointing out that an expert believes Haykal's work is apologetical. You obviously think that unfairly marks the Haykal quote, especially since none of the other ("Orientalist") scholars have such caveats. This, however, is more likely due to the fact that no one has written such a quote about them (except perhaps for non-specialists like Edward Said). However, I am done arguing about this; I will drop a not to Arrow740 and move on.

Your other edits do seem to have improved the article, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Arrow.

No. One can not quote a source unless he can show it is really relevant to the discussion. In this case, I'll wait for more information. And the quote I provided above about Haykal's book was from EoI. I don't think Ad hominem or otherwise are necessarily the best way to write articles on wikipedia unless it is really necessary. And I disagree with many of your statements about "Edward Said" and your refutation of him as a non-specialist but that's altogether another issue. Said does question a large range of works written on east altogether. --Aminz (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember I added nothing, I only restored sourced information that had been suppressed. Arrow is the person who added it, and he will have to deal with it now, because I'm done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a conversation between me and Arrow on his talk page. I'd like to remove "a fable and a detestable lie," as well as "apologetic motives" from the article as I don't think anything informative will be added by any of these. This is not an article on Haykal's book nor is that one particular review comprehensive or on topic. Haykal's arguments are there. If Rubin has anything to say about those specific arguments, you or Arrow or others are more than welcome to add it in the appropriate place. If you still think I am wrong, you are entitled to revert me cause I am going to remove those stuff from the article. But I hope that we don't end up in a long run series of edit war on this topic. --Aminz (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External link edit

I can see why you've changed some of the German vandalism, but why remove the link to Tim Pollard's Robin Hood Homepage? It's not spam, is of interest and relevance and is certainly valid as the Wolfshead Bowmen or the TV series fansite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.119.130 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain, I hope you might take time to answer my query (and please forgive me for asking, but I'm new around these parts) - what was the issue with the link(s) removal, please? Was it because it was deemed commercial, irrelevant or did it (or they all) breach a code? I genuinely believed that people may find relevant interest in a link to the page of a long-term Nottingham based and officially recognised Robin Hood performer, and maybe more so because of the links with other towns with legendary heroes. Kurgan5 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines about links, such as Wikipedia is not a repository of links and external links. The bottom line is, external links should only be kept if they add something necessary to the understanding of the topic that isn't there already. The link you're talking about is essentially advertising for a performer in England; it's not necessary to the understanding of the Robin Hood legend. Of course, over time, many other inappropriate links built up over there, so I've done my best to remove them as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the swift reply, I can certainly see that makes sense. Cheers! Kurgan5 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wandering Jew

Cuchullain, I'm afraid (in my opinion anyway :-}) you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The intro was not eliminated, but was incorporated into the article according to WP style, whereby the intro should be concise and the article material banded into appropriate headers. I also took care to cut out repeated and irrelevant material, to correct some errors, and to sort the fiction section into centuries so that it was easier to see what was going on. I haven't restored my interim version but suggest that you might agree to my doing so and then I would be delighted to work with you to polish it up. In the form you have left it it is really all over the place. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you did some good work there, but the intro was entirely eliminated, down to the "otheruses" tag, by this edit. I now see that was probably a mistake rather than intentional, and I see that some of what I thought was new unsourced material was just old unsourced material that had been moved around. I certainly don't object to you restoring the page to your version, so long as you make sure to keep the intro.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally nominated for deletion

Thanks for that with the decanonized saints.What about a catagory like "Category: Saints no longer On Roman Catholic Liturgical Calendar'? If the "decanonized" group feels so strongly about it.168.18.163.150 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, but it would essentially be a new category, as it would include many saints not currently in the "Decanonized" category. I doubt anyone will feel particularly strongly in favor of the wrong name, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Doon de Mayence and Doon (lai)

Just saw your amplification of the Doon (lai) discription on the Doon disambiguation page as well as the modifications to the Doon (lai) page. I altered your changes a little because I feel that the connection with the particular Doon de Mayence of the Charlemagne romances is a bit of a stretch (origins and characteristics, differing) though there's surely a common base in Celtic folklore. I left the link with Bayard, however, as I do think that's a clear match. Did Bayard belong to Doon? That's not in the Bayard article and perhaps should be.

Please check out my changes and see if it works. Feel free to let me know if you disagree. Portia1780 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You were right to tone it down, but I was very surprised to see the online source at the article did not mention the Doon de Mayence of the earlier chanson tradition. I saw no reason to suppose that a character named Doon with a horse named Baiart was really some other character; rather I thought the alterations to the backstory was the result of the lai being written much later and under the influence of other lais - just look at what the Italians did to the material. I still suspect this is the case, but I won't add it in without very good evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure if Bayard was ever connected with Doon personally in the chansons, but he did belong to the family - he was given by Doon's son Naimon to his own sons, the most famous of which is Renaud de Montauban. I think the inclusion of Bayard in "Doon" justifies the aricle being listed in Category:Matter of France. I made some other cosmetic changes - changing a bulleted section into prose for instance, but that's mostly minor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits on Merlin

I added information about Merlin being a main character in Jack whyte's A Dream of Eagles series, and you reverted the changes stating that this was not mainly related to Merlin. I totally disagree with this since the bullet I added was in the "Fiction about Merlin" section.

For your information, this series tells the story of Arthur from the days of his great-grand fatherup to his final days, and half the series is teld by Merlyn (from the days he was a teenager to the day of Arthur's coronation as High King of Britain). So, can you tell me why you removed this appropriate entry? Thanks.

I am familiar with Whyte's work. We've trimmed the section down to works that are actually primarily about Merlin, or the major fictional works that feature him prominently. I admit that there are several on there that should not be; I haven't gone through and weeded them out in a while. When I (or someone else) gets to it we will clean the section up. Bottom line is, there's no need to list every book that has Merlin in it, and I just don't believe listing Whyte's work improves the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that listing every single book would be irrelevant, I still think that Jack Whyte's work do put him on the main stage for at least half the series. And I do consider his work as a major work since the research behind this series is massive, and the real facts are intertwined with the fiction in a perfect way. Moreover, it gives a very different point of view on what Merlyn's actions might have been if the Arthurian Legends did happen for real, how the magic could have happened, and I do believe that this adds a nice realistic aspect to the legendary Merlin. But, that's my opinion :o) In any case, thanks for the explanation, it was enlightening :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafou (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and put it back in, but make sure to point out that Merlin's role really is extensive. I'll take your opinion here into consideration when I get around to trimming the section down later.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arara, Paraíba

Help please Cuchullain Arara, Paraíba.--201.43.220.88 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you got rid of some vandalism on the article about the U.S. History.

So do you think we should bring it to WP:RPP? After all, histories are nothing to joke about. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt, there has been consistent vandalism there for several days now, and no productive edits besides reversions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's agreed then, I will bring it to attention now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint Marinus

I must object you here. The appropriate term would then be saints from the teritory of present Croatia or Italy. Just saying Croatian or Italian is a national definition and at that time there were no such nations, everything was still a part of Roman empire. If you find a more suitable category, you are welcome but those two are simply wrong. Regards. --Tone 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have a category for "saints from what is now Croatia", there are just too few of them. So, Marinus gets put in the generic Croatia cat. It's mainly for geographical reasons; this is standard practice for all the saints articles (For example saints from what is now America go in the American saints cat, even if they lived before the US was founded). There's really no better way to do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Roman saints or Saints from Roman empire or Latin saints or something like that? There is a category Category:Byzantine saints for example. I understand that geographical sorting is convenient but there should be a better way (by the way, even hr:wiki doesn't have him in that category, neither is he on the list.) --Tone 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how they do things on other Wikipedias, I'm only in the saints WikiProject at this one. The Ancient Roman saints category is not useful as a geographical designation since it included many modern nations, and that's what we are trying to do with these categories. We are using "Croatia" as a geographical term, as in Croatia before the Croats; he is not being called a "Croat saint". Also note that "Italy" was a generic geographical term for the are long before the modern nation was founded. In some cases there are enough saints to have subcategories, notably Category:British saints, which has subcategories for Category:Romano-British saints and Category:Anglo-Saxon saints, for example. In this case there are not enough entries to justify that. That is not the case here. There has been long standing consensus in the saints project (and in the saints categories in general) to use geographical terms in this way. If there is another well known geographical term in this case, you could suggest the category be renamed, but I don't know of any. --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a disclaimer at the category explaining the use of the term. How is that?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's better, I suppose. Well, let's stick to this now. I have no ideas to improve it at the moment... Cheers. --Tone 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)