User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Cadwaladr article

Hello Doug and Cuchullain, if either of you has a few spare minutes, could you have a quick look at a newly occurring issue with Cadwaladr? The recent history gives a flavor of the problem, and the "Citation" section of the talk page hashes things over (I tried to get a discussion going, no luck). The editor objects to Haddan and Stubbs as "outdated scholarship" and has a definite opinion as to what is and what is not a reliably cited and reliable source, and I can't seem to get him/her to talk it over (just repeats the same thing; erasing material without discussion; etc, etc; and very emphatic that he/she is correct). Thanks. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, I've been traveling. I'll join the discussion at the talk page and see if we can't work it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary for the time lag, I've been out-and-about a bit myself. Thanks for taking a look and for your comment ... the issue of the supposed conflict with the Celtic Church is a good point and should be checked out. I think I was over-reacting to a drive-by editor who simply didn't like "old sources".

*sigh* Yes, I see he's back with the same edits to Hen Ogledd and related articles as he was making last year ... where is that drive-by editor now that we need him? Hello Argumentative, have you met Opinionated? Y'know, when you read a fictional work like LOTR you 'suspend disbelief' and enjoy the story; that's not a good way to read history (which is not to say that Morris was writing history in that book that shall go unnamed).

Oh, well, I suppose the world will still turn. Good to be in contact again. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cumbric "Original Research"

Here is the relevant section from Studies in Nidderdale:

Sheep breeding has been practised here from the most ancient times and it is probable that the "Scotch" or "black-faced sheep" are the descendants of the primæval British stock. I now give side by side -

1 - "An ancient form of counting sheep in Nidderdale" supplied by Mr T. Thorpe, Pateley Bridge, "which" he remarks, "you will probably be aware, are counted and sold in scores or half-scores."

2 - "Swaledale Numbers" supplied by my friend Mr. J.R. Dakyns, Trinity College, Cambridge of H.M. Geological Survey, who says, "They are also used in a knitting song," on the authority of Mr. J.G. Goodchild, H.M.G.S.

3 - "Welsh Numbers" from Owen's Welsh and English Dictionary (1803).

4 - "English Numbers"

(Lucas then supplies a table similar to the one on the Cumbric page)

The numbers have been handed down from generation to generation, and remain, with the exception of a few single words, the sole surviving remnant of an ancient Cymric dialect of the Pennine Chain - though those are hardly cold in their graves who spoke it fluently in Swaledale.

In times of snow, from their habit of sheltering in the hollows, sheep often become buried in the drift...

That's it. That's all he says on the matter. The rest of the section is all about sheep. Now perhaps it is my objective judgement that this constitutes lack of substantiation, and perhaps it isn't. Paul S (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR specifically says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Lucas' own book does not advance the position that Lucas' claims are unsubstantiated, so it is inappropriate to attribute such an assertion to it. The real question is, if the book makes dubious claims, why are we mentioning it at all? I haven't investigated it much, but I don't see any secondary sources on Google Books that even bothers mentioning Lucas in regards to Cumbric. But whether or not to keep it is an editorial decision best made at the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I mention it because it is Lucas' Studies that first notes the counting score and the similarity to Welsh. I feel that it is necessary to point out the lack of substance to the assertion because crankery abounds and a Cumbric revivalist will sooner or later be citing it as evidence that the language persisted into the 19th Century. Paul S (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source beyond Lucas that indicates he's the first one to note the counting score? And if you're concerned about giving credence to such a dubious ideas, it would be better not bring it up at all. I can find literally no sources outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors that even mention Lucas's statements on Cumbric, let alone his statement that it was still spoken in the 19th century.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.archive.org/stream/studiesinnidderd00lucaiala/studiesinnidderd00lucaiala_djvu.txt Paul S (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, according to the Yorkshire Dialect Society (M V Barry, 1967) Lucas definitely was not the first to record the counting score; it was apparently noted in the 18th Century - although I can't find precisely when or by whom. Maybe we should just delete Lucas anyway? Paul S (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a source to the article that says counts have been recorded since the 18th century. That might be a good place to start if you're interested. But I think Lucas needs to stay out of the article - no secondary source I can find for the Cumbric language bothers mentioning him, so unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's any reason for us to do so either.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong?

...at the Aisha article? Because if someone like you or Amatulic says I'm over the line I would listen and consider carefully. But there seems to be an ongoing pattern from both of those opposing editors to insert large quantities of contentious material without discussion. Personally I feel the article certainly needs improvement, but the current actions are not actually raising its quality. I see real issues with undue weight on minor or fringe beliefs, excessive reliance on primary sources, questionable sources, and overall low quality of writing. All of these issues can be addressed, but only if they engage in a meaningful way on the talkpage. So am I right, or wrong, or have I finally degenerated into a ranting, raving lunatic? Doc Tropics 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spot on, and have really gone above and beyond in trying to work with them and find a resolution. They simply don't want to hear you. For whatever reason, this article just attracts a lot of the sort of people that are the reason for WP:COMPETENCE. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, indeed. Thanks for the positive reinforcement; they were starting to make me feel like I'm just a mean old troll, lol. Doc Tropics 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)

I don't agree with you re the use of the word marijuana rather than cannabis based on popularity. Marijuana *is* a slang word which has become common use (see Marijuana_(etymology)) in the US but does not represent a world view. Main reason I'm not inclined to revert is that the show itself refers to cannabis as marijuana. Efficacious (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there was no reason to change it to "cannabis" in the first place. "Marijuana" is a perfectly acceptable form, and as you say it's what's used on the show itself. You mention the marijuana (word) article, but this clearly says the form is used routinely in laws and organization names. It's hardly an informal slang term any longer. I also don't buy the idea that "marijuana" is only used in the US; this is just an anecdote, but folks I know from Canada, Australia, and the UK have never called it anything but "marijuana".--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Aisha

Hi! It seems I have overriden few of your edits on the article by mistake. Can you redo them? Sorry! BTW can you plz take part in the discussion we are having on Talk:Aisha.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to take part in the conversation as soon as I get a chance. I've been following it, but I've had too many other things to do to weigh in yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain! I'll be on wiki-break this weekend (fri-sat-sun) and will be active by minimum capacity during next two weeks. If you are active meanwhile can you have watch on article Aisha, it's talk & temp and ANI entry related to IK. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep an eye on them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Thomas G. Carpenter

I asked user:Wehwalt (a random admin) to do a merge, but he suggested waiting a few days for discussion. No reason why, since these articles receive so little attention. The official title should be Thomas G. Carpenter; that is what Carpenter is professionally known as. María (habla conmigo) 14:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to wait if Wehwalt wants to, but the articles are so short that just adding some content from one to the other would effectively be a content merge, even if the edit histories aren't merged. Here's what I'll do: I'll add some material to Thomas G. Carpenter, and assuming no one objects, I'll merge the histories after a few days (or Wehwalt can). Sound good?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're able to merge the histories now, go right ahead. I'm not exactly keen on waiting around for a discussion that won't take place about an uncontroversial merge on a little known subject. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, and I've added quite a bit about his life and work. On another note, the source I found for Carpenter's life will be a good one to use for the early history of UNF as well. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, Schafer's book would be prime to use for a reference. María (habla conmigo) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Anchor baby / immigration reductionists

Hi. FYI, I've filed a notice on the edit-warring noticeboard regarding the dispute you and I have been having with the IP editor on the Anchor baby article. I mentioned you in my notice, in the context of saying that one reason why I filed the notice was to protect you and me from possible allegations that we had been edit-warring along with the IP anon. In case you would like to add any comments of your own to the notice, by all means go ahead. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think this is just a case of an anon who doesn't know the normal procedure, or doesn't want to know. I don't know that I have anything to add, but I'm more than happy to continue the dialog on the talk page. The definition could use some work, but trying to change it like that is obviously inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that an uninvolved admin has blocked the IP anon for a 3RR violation. For what it may or may not be worth, said admin commented in the noticeboard section that "I completely agree with that IP that you are reinserting some mad weaselly language." While I'm not suggesting we should all immediately defer to every criticism so as not to offend anybody, I suppose it might be worthwhile to step back a bit and ask whether the existing text could perhaps be improved — possibly by changing "immigration reductionists" to something else, possibly by taking it out entirely — or whether the text really is just fine as it stands and people who disagree with it need to study the matter more deeply until they come to realize this fact. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the intro can be improved. I just don't think that removing who uses the phrase actually improves it. I don't think the language is "weaselly" in the way the term is used on Wikipedia; if anything, the problem is that for whatever reason our article on the anti-immigration crowd uses such a pointless euphemism in its title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Urban Meyer resignation today

Cooch, Urban Meyer's resignation was announced by ESPN at 2:30 today. Crazed IPs have started trying to add unsourced material, etc. Footnoted material regarding the resignation has been added to the lead and two other appropriate sections. Can you put the article on "established editor lock-down?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I've semi-protected it for two weeks. I'll put it on my watchlist as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article Blackarachnia

I have been researching the character of Blackarachnia and I had some new sources to add to the article, but it's deleted. Can you help? How do I go about adding them and cleaning up the article so it can be reconsidered? Mathewignash (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You can add the sources to List of Beast Wars characters. If it turns out that there is enough reliably sourced, verifiable material to spin off as its own page, you can deal with it at that point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have 3 or 4 more scources now, but who makes the call I have enough sources now? and how? Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You could bring it up at Talk:List of Beast Wars characters. If the sources are usable, just add them in to the appropriate section of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Blackarachnia has been a main character in 2 other TV shows (Beast Machines and Transformers Animated), and some of my sources are for the other shows, not Beast Wars. Honestly the redirect currently on the Blackarachnia page right now is not really appropriate. It should at least be a disambig to the various pages. List_of_Beast_Machines_characters#Maximals and List_of_robots_in_Transformers_Animated#Decepticons are just as much about her as the Beast Wars page. Mathewignash (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well why don't you do this: add the references to whatever pages they are appropriate. After that material has been vetted, we can decide if "Blackarachnia" should be a disambig to those pages, an article, or whatever. I really don't know what else to tell you until I've seen the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. Is it you who make the decision, or do I simply add the sources then mention it on all three talk pages trying to get other editors opinions? Mathewignash (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review the sources for you, and let you know if I think they're usable. If not you can take them to the reliable sources noticeboard.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I added some. I also have more, particularly stuff that doesn't fit in the TV series sections, like her comic book appearances and toy reviews. Take a look at what I have so far. Mathewignash (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on the Blackarachnia page in my userspace. Can you take a look here? User:Mathewignash/Blackarachnia Mathewignash (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at your sandbox as it currently stands. Of the sources I was able to check out myself (the online ones) I have to say I didn't see any that I would take as justifying an independent article. I'm sorry. In order to have its own article the subject needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many of your sources appear to be self-published fan websites and even forums, and are therefore not reliable. Some do appear to be reliable, but do not give significant coverage to the character. Additionally there are large bulks of text that do not have sources at all. While some of the sources may be useful to support material at other articles, but unless the offline sources are reliable and contain thorough coverage of the character, I don't think an independent article should be created.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bradenton

I genuinely don't understand what part of the article requires additional citations. The team's basic information - name, stadium, etc. - is all shown on the official site (link provided) and on the USL site (link provided). The average attendance stats have a link to the match archive. Each player has a reference confirming their nationality and position. What other information is there? There is no "history" section yet, therefore we can't include citations there, because there's nothing written... I'm really struggling to see what your issue is. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information in the introduction needs citations, and they really need third party sources to establish why the material is notable. When the club was founded, its league, where it plays, its connection with the school, the fact that it had a sister team, etc. These type of citations do usually go in the body rather than the lede, but as there is no body yet, they need to be somewhere, or we really shouldn't be including the information. Additionally, the attendance figures need to be directly cited; the link to the USL archive main page is not sufficient. I have no doubt this team is notable, and the information fairly easy to find.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Rugby League Atlantic Cup

Hello! Your submission of Rugby League Atlantic Cup at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of DYK nominations, I responded to your comment on Atlanta Neighborhood Union at the DYK page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll check it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rugby League Atlantic Cup

Well Xmas has started. Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you!--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jacksonville Rockets

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cuchullain/Archive 15! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Project!. I am glad to see someone with an interest in Native American history and society join the project. There has been a growing interest in these topics lately and I have seen a big increase in traffic regarding this topic. You might also want to consider joining the Smithsonian Instiution collaboration project. There has been an ongoing effort by the Smithsonian and Wikipedia to collaborate more. In regards to Florida, if you don't mind me asking, how active is WikiProject Florida? It had been suggested a couple times in the past that WPFlorida didn't have much activity and might be interested in collaborating with WPUS, possibly even as a subproject. Do you think that would be something that project would be interested in? Please let me know if you have any questions, commments or suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Kumioko. I will look into the Smithsonian project, that sounds really awesome. In regards to how active the Florida project is, I'd have to say, not very. While there are a number of people who are actively working on Florida articles, including myself, there's not a whole lot of project collaboration currently. In terms of things like templating, bot tasks, and perhaps ratings, it might help to have have the additional resources of the national project. I doubt many of the active members would want to go along with becoming a sub-project, however. At any rate, it might be fruitful to discuss collaborating at the project pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and the comments about WPFlorida. Here is a link to the Smithsonian project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem

Cooch, I need some advice on the proper place and procedures for filing a complaint against an administrator for violation of WP procedures and bad-faith deletion of files. Please see the discussion at User:Zscout370's talk page and File talk:Florida Gators logo.svg. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to do is what you already have done - ask him about it. That has to be done before anyone will bother with it at DRV. However, I think you're coming on much too strong. I know its frustrating, but I doubt he was really acting in bad faith; more likely he was acting in good faith, but just made the wrong decision. And there's no real rush

I can't find anywhere where Zscout justified his deletion of the "Gator head" or other similar logo; therefore the best step will be to just ask him, hear him out, and perhaps see if he will reverse his decision. If not then we can go to DRV to put it in front of the community.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it, Cooch. Third-party opinion matters. Zscout knows better; he's been on wiki for five or six years, and apparently works in copyrights and trademarks frequently, and there has been a complete failure by him to adhere to any of the file deletion procedures, speedy or otherwise. He deleted the "fair use" images, then bootstrapped the fact that the SVG file was "unused" as his self-justification for the speedy delete of the file. Even the most aggressive deletionists who work in copyrights and trademarks give notice; Zscout failed to do that in any shape or form and failed to provide a viable speedy delete rationale. His sole justification was found in his first two edit summaries: "as a member of the SEC, I know this is right out." [sic] And, yes, it's frustrating as hell; these WP copyright and trademark police don't even follow their own damn procedures. He didn't even bother to review the fair use rationales on the file talk page, and those rationles have survived review by some of the most aggressive deletionists over the past year. It's really tough to wrap my brain around an administrator and copyright specialist who doesn't follow his own specialist procedures and then expects others to suspend disbelief and credit him with "good faith." Very hard, in deed. Am I missing something here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what his justification was for removing from the pages, as it doesn't appear that he gave one, and I'm not familiar enough with the fair use policy to speculate. I'd just wait to see what he says, and perhaps he'll restore the image. If not, we'll go to DRV.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per your comment above, I have toned down my comments on Zscout's talk page somewhat. Nevertheless, I am certain that my anger still comes shining through. Now, I'm going to sit in the corner and hold my breath 'til my face turns blue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The same user has engaged in the same behavior at the University of South Carolina athletic articles, wiping the school's official logo from the face of Wikipedia. To think that any real encyclopedia would have articles on these subjects without including this logo is preposterous. Please help! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Garnet, I suggest you leave a comment with Zscout. Presumably his justification is similar to the one he gave about the Florida logo (that it was overused). But we'll see what he says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Garnet, that is exactly their goal: the elimination of virtually every "fair use" of even potentially copyrighted images. this is dogma to the WP copyright police, and very often contrary to other perfectly valid WP policies.

Cooch, you may want to chime in over at Zscout's talk page. The Gator head logo SVG file has now been restored, and there is a perfectly civil, if somewhat one-sided conversation on-going. Zscout would like to see 2 or 3 fair uses of the logo; I think that magic number is more like 16. Part of our negotiating strength is that only the Gators football team uses the script Gators logo. Come join the party. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new Good Articles

Hi. You might be interested in hearing that I managed to bring three of my earlier contributions up to the "Good Article" level: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Vance v. Terrazas. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, congratulations! I look forward to reading your articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacksonville

Hi! See note at Talk:Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida. Yopienso (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've responded over there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Spamfighter!

Fast work with "War in Heaven". Cuchullain was also quick on the draw. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cuchullain. You have new messages at Kbh3rd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey

Doing well, thanks for the message. Yea, I remember the old wild west days of Wikipedia lol. --DanielCD (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"This change actually added a redirect; it wasn't a redirect before"

Actually it was pointing at the article, but I moved it back a couple of minutes ago so by the time you saw it it was a redirect. Just to let you know he wasn't changing the link to a redirect. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. I figured something like that must have happened. Thanks Golbez.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

Hey, I remember you being really helpful when I was first figuring out how to write articles! Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply! Sadads (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Sadads. This seems like a good idea, I will definitely look into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, no problem, Sadads (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rugby league in the US

for the WAMNRL you should check the website www.wamnrl.com they have schedules on there and possible teams they also released news on AmericanRugbyNews last year, Same thing for the Midwest with Chicago- i believe they will be playing Detroit in rl 9s one home and one away game. Florida is starting there own league through the Axemen who have programs running in Orlando, Miami, Talhassee, Daytona and Tampa and as for the other teams listed- Southern Chiefs, North Carolina they are scheduled to be part of some rugby league events this year such as 9s tournaments, War @ Shore etc.. and for the others i put in AMNRL such as Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Delaware Valley, Bucks County. David Niu confirmed Bucks County through We are Rugby and also said Delaware Mantarays through twitter i have also recieved email that they are working with union clubs to have teams from Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia.

Hope this has cleared things up a bit. Youndbuckerz 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Youndbuckerz. Unfortunately, we still can't use the new material. Comments on twitter and personal emails are not reliable sources, and we can't just take announcements on web pages as fact. Talk is cheap, after all, and Wikipedia can't tell the future. We can't list a supposed team as officially part of a league until we have something official. In the case of the Southern Chiefs, we have an organization that has yet to play a single game.[1] There are no sources at all for North Carolina Rugby League. The Bucks County Sharks were said to be rejoining the AMNRL, but that was before the split with USARL was announced.[2] The bottom line is, we can't say anything about any team that doesn't appear in a reliable source. As it currently stands, there are few reliable sources even for some of the established teams, let alone teams that have only been announced and have yet to play.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yvain

Hey Cuchullain,

any chance you could give me the title of the illuminated manuscript from which you`ve taken the image of Yvain and his lion fighting the dragon? Thank you very much in advance,

94.15.68.6 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't. I uploaded that image so long ago that I don't know where I got it from, let alone which manuscript it's from. I'll check around and let you know if I find anything.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Permissions to use your article related to the Kanagawa wave

Hello I am from latin america and I created a Video to teach Microsoft Word. In some sections I included the Kanagawa Wave article that you wrote. My editor told me that I need your permission to publish that information. Is that OK with you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbimonte.daniel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to ask me, I don't have any rights to any Wikipedia material. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights on how you should and shouldn't use material taken from Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it and it says: By law the contributions are still owned by people who donated them. These people are not bound by the license and can use their property in the way they like. However media with multiple authors require permission from every contributor to use them differently from the terms of the Wikipedia license. So, do I have your OK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbimonte.daniel (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no authority to give you permission. Wikipedia editors automatically release material they contribute under license, and I'm not the only editor of that article anyway. Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms..." You need to read what the terms are, as I don't know what exactly you're wanting to do with the article. See this: Basically the guidelines just say that anyone can reproduce (nearly) any text on Wikipedia, but they should attribute the material (like with a link or a URL), and include a notice that it's been released under the CC-BY-AA license (along with a link or a URL).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a MS Word tutorial. The wikipedia material is free and I can reproduce it, unless it has a profitable purpose. Unfortunatly it has profitable purposes. According to the Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License: Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. So are you the author of the waves of Kanagawa ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbimonte.daniel (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the only contributor to that article, and I don't have the authority to let turn over a copyright. You can use the text if you fulfill the given requirements. That is, you should attribute it with a link or a URL to the Wikipedia article, and include a notice that it's released under the CC-BY-AA license, along with a link or a URL. Additionally, if you make any changes to the text they must also be released under the license.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rick Scott

An IP seems intent on his revisions to Rick Scott beyond what the sources actually state as fact. Youmight wish to examine the text he re-adds. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The changes I saw just seem to add the word "gerrymandering", which is supported by the source, and explain why Scott's withdrawal may delay implementation of the redistricting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The person removed the extant cite which did not steess "gerrymandering" and use of that term is clearly nor specifically relevant to Scott's BLP. I think the prior cite was well sufficient without introducing side issues (that is, an implication that Scott supports "gerrymandering" when such was not in any official statement about his reason for withdrawing the certification). When a false impression might be had by a reader, it is proper for WP to use the first cite given. As redistricting can not be even started until the final census figures are available, the "delay" is putative - most states take more than a year for the process to begin with. Even "summary files" will not be released until after 31 March. Collect (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you revert it, and leave a note on talk invoking BRD and expressing the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted quite enough for the multiple IPs involved - I hesitate to push the envelope. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicoleño

Hi. Cabrillo could not have visited San Nicolas in 1603, because he had already been dead for six decades by that time. You appear to have meant Vizcaino in December 1602, not 1603. I was wondering where you obtained this information? OldBabyBlue (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, OldBabyBlue. It's actually a confusion of the accounts of Cabrillo and Vizcaino. Cabrillo's expedition was (reportedly) the first to visit the islands, but it was in 1543; Vizcaino was the first to land there (and 1602 is correct). That's what you get when you don't cite your sources; fortunately Wikipedia's standards for that have improved greatly since 2006. I'll add the cite.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gasparilla disambiguation vs. redirect

If you look at the wikipedia article stats for the Pirate Festival, the island, and the mythical pirate, you'll see that the pirate festival gets far more traffic than the other two possible uses. In each of the days around the parade, the festival article gets more views that the other two articles receive all year - combined. It just makes sense to have "Gaspatilla" redirect to the pirate festival, with a brief disambig sentence at the top in case the user was looking for one of the other two articles. Zeng8r (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That only means that the festival itself is a more popular topic, not that the name "Gasparilla" refers to the festival with exclusive frequency compared to the other uses. In determining names, we need to look at usage in reliable sources. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar reveal as many or more hits for the island than the festival. For example "Gasparilla+island" vs. "Gasparilla+tampa" on gbooks. I think this is a clear case for making it disambiguation page.

And at any rate, as there are several topics of the name, there still needs to be a disambig page of some kind, not just a hat note.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - thousands upon thousands more wikipedia hits for one particular use of the name doesn't make it a proper target for a redirect? These stats reflect people who are actually looking for information right here on this website, not at google-anything. Seems perfectly sensible to me. Zeng8r (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, it's not "hits for one particular use of the name". It's hits for "Gasparilla Pirate Festival" versus hits for "Gasparilla Island" or hits for "Jose Gaspar". The statistics only show that the festival itself is a more popular target, especially around the time it's actually happening, not that the term "Gasparilla" is associated exclusively with the festival. The disambig page Gasparilla only gets a few hundred hits a month, so obviously the thousands of readers who view Gasparilla Pirate Festival are finding it in other ways beyond typing in the term "Gasparilla".

In determining what names are used for which articles we need to look at common use in reliable sources. Incredibly, As I Lay Dying (band) gets much more article traffic, and probably also more raw Google search hits, than the much more significant As I Lay Dying (novel) ([3] vs. [4]) But it's not the primary use of the term; reliable sources on "As I Lay Dying" are overwhelmingly about the novel than the band. In this case, reliable sources for "Gasparilla" would appear to be split, and I don't see that one use is the clear primary use of the name. It has been a disambiguation page since August 2009 (the last time we had this discussion), and I think it's worked pretty well since then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The quarter million+ people at the parade a couple weeks ago plus thousands more at other Gasparilla-related events disagree with your "no clear primary use" statement. But whatever, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about it. Zeng8r (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion; I happen to disagree with your take on the guidelines. If you want to press the issue you can bring it up at the page in question.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rugby league

No worries seems a few things on here wikipedia have changed as i cannot find the big writing to make the title, i will still be on here from time to time, just busy right nowYoundbuckerz (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Just drop me a line if you need anything.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you could help with updating the USARL wiki page and teams etc that would be great. We also need logo changes for AMNRL teams who have switched to the USARL, the ones on wiki are owned by the Star Group and they do not like them so we need old logos back for the USARL teams.Youndbuckerz (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got most or all of them on my watchlist, and I'll be sure to update them as new sources come out. On the images, I know we're pretty bound by WP:LOGO, so we need to use whatever they're using. Oftentimes we can keep old logos too for encyclopedic use as a historical reference, but I don't know if it matters that the teams don't own the old logos. I'd have to look into that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)