Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 39

List

Where was the consensus to move List of Universal Pictures films? The name of the film distribution arm of the company is Universal Pictures. Koala15 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Koala15, it was the result of a requested move discussion on the talk page. I can add a fuller closing statement tomorrow.--Cúchullain t/c 03:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Only two editors responded with opposing views, that's not a consensus. Koala15 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It was open for over a full listing period, and the support views were stronger in my estimation. The nominator's rationale included.--Cúchullain t/c 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No requested move should be closed with only two opposing views in the discussion. Koala15 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
RMs can be closed when the discussion period has passed and consensus has been reached. However, if you were asking me to reopen and relist the discussion, I'd be amenable to it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be reopened or I could do a move review. Koala15 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll reopen and relist for another week.--Cúchullain t/c 17:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Irish art revisions

Cu, apologises but once again another article uses Celtic in all the wrong contexts, so I felt obliged to revise. Not going out of my way to be difficult here, there simply seems to be almost no correct uses of the term. Fergananim (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Your last edit was better; the previous ones introduced a lot of typos and errors. I've made several changes to your text, as it appears the previous text was cited and you altered it considerably. For instance, the previous text claimed that Romanesque art was introduced in the 11th century, which I've never heard; the previous text stated that Romanesque art came from the Norman invasion. To my knowledge, the Romanesque was known in Ireland earlier in the 12th century, but not the 11th. Also, you changed the term Celtic brooch, despite the fact that the article uses that name and it's a lot more recognizable to readers. I wouldn't know what a "penannular brooch" is, though I'm familiar with them.--Cúchullain t/c 19:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have to get my sources, but yes Romanesque was introduced significantly before the Normans - Clonfert Cathedral, Artfert Cathedral, and of course Cormac Chapel on the Rock of Cashel. Anyway of course such texts would give no kudos to the Irish for such innovations; they all date from when Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom - the 1864 text even lists Cormac Chapel under the head 'Great Britain' - back then we were all subordinate Celts and thus course plainly incapable of civilisation the English were so kind to teach. I foresee a long, upwardly immobile track ahead, trying to get Wikipedia upgraded with the last forty to fifty years of Irish scholarship .... Fergananim (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Fergananim: It would help immensely if you were to include reliable sources in the changes you make. As I've said, the most if not all of the reversions you've made that have gotten reverted had no sources at all. However, I think you'll find that there are high caliber modern sources that do use the term "Celtic" outside of linguistics. I also hope that you'll bring up your proposed edits beforehand to avoid the blowback you've been getting.--Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I will do. The only question that remains is, how would you define "reliable sources"? Fergananim (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Fergananim: In the usual way, I guess, the best sources for the given topic that are available. There's a lot of available academic work on all these topics.--Cúchullain t/c 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.  Paine  u/c 03:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Adjectives for U.S. citizens listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative Adjectives for U.S. citizens. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative Adjectives for U.S. citizens redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Cuchullain.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cuchullain. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dôn page protection

Thanks for the page protection on Dôn. I'm in the process of making out an editwar/3RR report on the Admin's noticeboard however he hasn't quite violated 3RR so it's just editwarring. I've tried to engage with User:Cagwinn on the talk page but I'm afraid it's degenerated into ad hominum a bit. I warned Cagwinn that 3RR was imminent on his talk page a little earlier. Obviously I couldn't do page protection myself since I'm involved in the content dispute. Again, thanks for the intervention. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I hope things go smoother from here. I have access to sources that may help, and I think will satisfy all parties, but it will likely be several more days before I can step in as an editor.--Cúchullain t/c 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Correction: Pigman is in the process of destroying the integrity of an article in order to stroke his own ego. As I mentioned in the talk page, the facts are on my side - never in the primary sources (i.e., the medieval Welsh sources) is Don stated to be a women, no less a wife, or a goddess!! This is beyond ridiculous and I am sick of people like Pigman disrupting perfectly valid edits just so they can feel important! Cagwinn (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Cagwinn: personal attacks are not helping make your case. You're lucky you haven't been blocked for edit warring and incivility. The fact is the article needs a lot of work, and simply changing a couple of points and then revert warring over them isn't going to fix it. You'll all be better off trying to find away to incorporate all points, as Bartrum does, rather than excising points you don't like entirely.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It's incredibly annoying dealing with people on Wikipedia who can't debate me on the facts, but must instead resort to calling in the bureaucrats to shut me down and "win" the debate. I only care about the quality of the articles and presenting readers with genuine, verifiable facts. You can remove me if you like, but it's the articles that I monitor and curate that will suffer, when people with a fraction of the knowledge that I possess about Celtic and Arthurian studies take over. Cagwinn (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Cagwinn: Your knowledge is invaluable to Wikipedia. Your interpersonal skills, which are a necessity in a collaborative project, are sometimes lacking. Again, you only hurt your own case by edit warring and making personal comments. In this case, you're as guilty as anyone in moving the debate away from the facts when you started insulting the other participants. This is simply not the way to talk to people you are trying to persuade. This has been a recurring problem for you for many years now.--Cúchullain t/c 19:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, we can't change our nature. I am passionate about these subjects and also don't suffer fools. I also make no secret of the the fact that I detest Wikipedia's byzantine, politically correct bureaucracy, which only serves to stifle conversation and to promote mediocrity (or worse!) in its articles.Cagwinn (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Cagwinn: You can change the way you interact with people any time you want. You'll be much happier for it. There are plenty of other editors who are passionate and knowledgeable about these subjects who do not routinely turn content disputes into unproductive shouting matches.--Cúchullain t/c 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there are such people - and I rarely, if ever, butt heads with any of them. It's always the agenda-driven, misinformed, crybaby types who instigate edit wars with me and then call in the WP cops when things don't go their way. Cagwinn (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As Wikipedians, of course the priority is the 'pedia. But we cannot create and maintain articles as a collective when a participant insists on WP:OWNing, disrupting, verbally assaulting and making it impossible to collaborate. While I of course care about the quality of the Dôn article, and the articles with which it is interconnected, my larger concern in this particular instance is Cagwinn's ongoing disruption of the working environment, and how it is making work on quite a few articles difficult. And how this keeps happening. What should be a simple matter of calmly updating sourcing and text in collaboration with other experienced editors has instead turned into a drawn-out, draining, ad hominem swamp, as usually happens when one disagrees, even slightly, with this individual. If long-term admins are put off by it, what does this atmosphere do to those less committed to the project? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, Cagwinn, Pigman: How disappointing. I've requested longer protection, as I'm stepping in as an editor now. It is frankly embarrassing that this disagreement has escalated this far.--Cúchullain t/c 02:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 02:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You seem more interested in fighting with me than ensuring that the article is accurate and up-to-date with the latest research. Instead of dragging out this bureaucratic nonsense, you could simply acknowledge that I know what I am doing (I have been editing and curating WP articles relating to Celtic and Arthurian Studies for many years now), am providing reliable scholarly sources to back up my edits, and am greatly improving the quality of the article.Cagwinn (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Artognou stone

Re this edit, could you find some reliable sources that justify the claim that the term is "sometimes" used, and add them to the article, as I suggested on the article talk page? It may help stop the edit warring. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle: Thanks for the comment. I'm now home and have time to work on these articles. I believe the "Arthur's stone" name was already verified in sources in the article body; at any rate, the newly added sources should be sufficient to prove that it exists and is notable. I'll comment further at the article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think the source was added after I made the comment, and the problematic editor has now been was blocked in any case (but has since been unblocked, it seems). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving the South Florida-UCF Rivalry

Hi Cuchullain,

Now that the Orlando Predators have folded and that South Florida and UCF are the only team playing a War on I-4, would you be amiable to moving the rivalry to the War on I-4 page as well as putting it as the main article on that page as opposed to the Orlando Predators and Tampa Bay Storm rivalry?

Best,

DampFrijoles (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DampFrijoles: I don't think the UCF/USF article should be renamed, but it may be time to move the arena football article. I'll get that started now.--Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Cuchullain: Sounds good. Thanks a million!

DampFrijoles (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Niagara Falls Station

Niagara Falls Customhouse and Interpretive Center is the official name of the station as seen here https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oQ8ZxoDSUpw/V50cM6vI80I/AAAAAAABecE/Au-q28kOsewlAaTKsS67RcJgL64EMRjxQCKgB/s1600/IMG_20160730_132550.jpg Mo2010 (talk) 21:34, 06 December 2016 (UTC)

Mo2010: I've responded on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cado

Hello Cuchullain,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cado for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MarkDask 14:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

How would you deal with this?

(Asking you because Shii, Yunshui and pretty much every admin who could remember why I was editing logged out is gone.)

Only the foggiest connection to any recent stuff in particular, but how would you deal with a NOTHERE account that appears to be doing nothing but trolling, but only does so in very infrequent, small doses, so they have not been blocked yet, and their last edit was a year ago so reporting them on ANI seems inappropriate?

I was trying to locate the "laughed off BLPN" incident I referred to here, and it turns out the reason I couldn't was because it was during my "afraid of JoshuSasori's off-wiki harassment so only editing from a dynamic IP" phase, and was somewhat different than I remembered. BLPN was not consulted, and it was one really unusual account showing up out of the blue and making a string of complete nonsense posts in which the only part that kinda-sorta made sense was their claim that BLP didn't apply.[1][2][3] I checked their other contribs, and they aren't much better, and their user page consists of the words "Thank you". Umm... you're welcome, I guess?

I actually tried reporting them on ANI when these diffs were fresh, but was essentially ignored for any number of several possible reasons, the most likely of which being that (a) the two users who commented had been too careless to read the diffs I provided and (b) no one wants to agree with a "self-confessed IP sockpuppet". Chances are that if anyone ever tries to report the account again they'll get the same "discuss on the talk page first" spiel I got three years ago, and by that time the account will have become inactive again so the point will be moot.

It honestly looks like the account might be part of a sock-farm that has evaded notice, but I've gone fishing on SPI in cases like this too many times in recent months so CU won't help.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, it appears the count you're talking about hasn't edited in a year, so there's not much to be done here. If you have more recent evidence of misbehavior by some other account, I'll look into it. Otherwise, you'll be much better off spending less time worrying about this kind of thing and getting into drama at ANI.--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but before those edits a year ago they hadn't edited in almost two years, so there's no reason to believe they won't be back again, and their edits a year ago were just as troll-like as two years before that. I know getting into drama on ANI is not a good idea and I know posting about this on ANI now would be stupid. I was just wondering how you'd deal with a problem like this, and I guess "forget about it" was your answer? I'll probably take it, and stuff this away in the thick file marked "weird shit that makes no sense and was really annoying at the time but isn't not worth losing sleep over in the long run". As for not getting into drama on ANI -- I'll probably try that too, just as soon as the current thread I'm embroiled in now gets closed. I'm gonna hold off on Samaritaning community discussions that seem clear-cut and that I can contribute to, now that I've been reminded that litigious editors can wikilawyer the thread into TLDR territory so that other editors will come along and say "ban everyone" without actually reading the thread and actually get some traction. I'd really much rather finish those articles that didn't get done in time for the Asian Month deadline. Anyway, happy editing! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88: If the account comes back and is disruptive, we can look into it then. If there's actual evidence of sock puppetry, we can review that, but I don't see that currently. I'd very strongly advise you to start letting disputes go and getting back to article writing. I'm afraid you're perceived as someone who spends a lot of time engaging in conflicts, and this undermines your own position when there are legitimate grievances. It will be better all around if you step back from the drama.--Cúchullain t/c 17:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the odds of me happening upon them the next time they log in and edit (or even within a month or so) are extremely slim, and I have my doubts that if anyone else notices it they will also notice that all of their previous edits from years ago look like trolling. But yeah, I totally agree with you that I should get back to article editing. I just don't have the energy to do so when a very prolific editor is currently requesting that I be sanctioned simply for agreeing with several other users that their edits were problematic and I've had to devote several tens of thousands of bytes to defending myself against the attack over the last ten days (and counting), and every time I try to do something else they post another attack on me on ANI and draw me back in. Honestly, what I need more than going straight back to article creation is for that thread to get closed or archived and for me to take a wikibreak for a week or two, but I can't do that when one of the parties to a dispute is trying to claim that I am also party to that dispute (in fact that I am the main problem) and requesting sanctions against me (even if said sanctions don't have a snowball's chance in hell), and some other editors who have openly confessed to not having read the thread are agreeing with them on the former point (at least implicitly when they say there are "three main actors"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bororo people

I saw you moved Bororo people to Bororo (Brazil) and made Bororo people a redirect to Bororo, on the basis that there is a group in West Africa with the same name. This resulted in a whole lot of articles getting a link to the disambiguation page, one of which I noticed by accident. The Wodaabe of the Sahel are sometimes given the pejorative name Mbororo (Cow Fulani) but all articles that refer to the Bororo people refer to the South American people. I moved Bororo (Brazil) to Bororo (Amerindian people), on the basis that their original territory was in parts of what are now Brazil and Bolivia, sort of like moving Celts (United Kingdom) to Insular Celts. But the article really should be moved back to Bororo people. May I count on you to do that? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Aymatth2: Sorry for the delay. A few things here. "Bororo people" would be acceptable disambiguation if the Bororo of Brazil were the only people named "Bororo". However, until you changed it,[4] the article on Wodaabe showed that they were called "Bororo" as well. A cursory look on Google Books shows many recent sources do use the "Bororo" spelling for them.[5] Unless this is some kind of error, it seems very unlikely that the Brazilian Bororo would be the primary topic over the far more populous African people. The dab page would be the appropriate place to send "Bororo people", though I'll endeavor to repair the incoming links.
Bororo (Amerindian people) isn't a great disambiguator, as disambiguation should be simple and non-unique if possible. I don't see any other articles that use (Amerindian people) as a disambiguation, and the term "Amerindian" may not be recognizable to all readers. I chose Brazil as I didn't see any evidence that they still live anywhere else, but (South America) may be better.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.--Cúchullain t/c 15:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Red Bororo is a breed of cows, and Mbororo, M'bororo or sometimes Bororo is a slighting term for the Fulani who herd them, a bit like "Frog" for people who eat frogs. When trying to tidy up the links to the disambiguation page I found no articles linking to the Fulani people, but over 20 linking to the South American people. That is clearly the dominant meaning of the term. A Google Books search for Bororo confirms that the South American meaning is dominant. I agree that Bororo (Amerindian people) is awkward. The obvious choice is Bororo people, with a hatnote pointing to the redirect Mbororo. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Aymatth2, sorry for the delay again; I've been busy with the holidays. The question is whether the South American people are the primary topic. This is hard to parse out as the Wodaabe obviously aren't known as "Bororo" in all circumstances. However, they are by far the more populous group, and their article receives far more traffic.[6] It seems unquestionable that reliable sources do sometimes refer to the African people as "Bororo", but if this only occurs occasionally then it's possible the South American people are indeed the primary topic. However, I'm just not seeing evidence for or against this as of yet.
The "xxx people" construct is a separate issue. "Xxx people" is fine for distinguishing between an ethnic group and ambiguously titled articles on other things, but it's not sufficient when there are two "peoples" who can be called by the same name (unless one is the primary topic). Considering that both the peoples' articles receive far more traffic than other ambiguous topics, I'd be amenable to moving to plain "Bororo" if one is indeed the primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Many of the Fula people are nomadic herders of cattle, goats and sheep in the Sahel. Some Fula cattle herders call themselves "Wodaabe", or "traditional" Fulani. Some are called by outsiders "M'bororo", or "cattle" Fulani. The terms "Wodaabe" and "M'bororo" overlap but are not synonymous. But this is irrelevant.
The dominant meaning of "Bororo people" is the Amerindian group. That shows from internal WP links and from Google books. The first page from a JSTOR search shows 24 references to the Amerindians versus one for the West African group: Notes on the "Bororo Fulbe" or Nomad "Cattle Fulani": Part II E. A. Brackenbury. Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 23, No. 92 (Jul., 1924). The standard convention when there is an ethnic group "ABC" who speak the "ABC" language, and where "ABC" may have other meanings, is to make "ABC" a disambiguation page, with articles on "ABC people", "ABC language" and other meanings. E.g. Fula or English. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, it sounds like you're right, the South American Bororo are the primary topic. However, we appear to have a bigger problem if "M'Bororo"/"Bororo" isn't synonymous with "Wodaabe", as the article currently treats it that way.
The current naming conventions allow for several article title formats. "ABC people" is fine, but it's only useful in cases where the article isn't primary topic of "ABC" and needs more disambiguation. Hence English people and Fula people but Cherokee, Muskogee, Taíno, Arabs, Aztec, Sioux, Americans, etc. If the South American Bororo are primary topic of "Bororo people", they're also the primary topic of "Bororo", as none of the other uses besides Wodaabe come close in terms of significance or page views. What would you think about a move to straight "Bororo", with the dab page going to Bororo (disambiguation)?
My recent edits to indigenous Brazilian articles is part of an effort to get some consistency and clear up navigation. For some background, in the past articles on ethnic groups were moved to the "ABC people" construction even in cases where the only other use was "ABC language". This was primarily the work of one editor who moved thousands of articles; there was never consensus or guidelines supporting it, and it conflicts with WP:AT and WP:TWODABS. Due to this, other editors stepped in over time, which has just compounded the mess. Sometimes articles were just moved back to "ABC", but frequently, "ABC" was turned into a redirect pointing to "ABC people". In very many cases, there were no disambiguation links, leaving readers no easy way to navigate to "ABC language" or other uses. After a long series of discussions, most articles on indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have been cleared up. However, the same problems also affect Brazil (and other places), hence the recent moves.--Cúchullain t/c 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with a move to straight "Bororo", with the dab page going to Bororo (disambiguation). I am used to "ABC people" as a convention, but agree that the simpler "ABC" is usually the more common usage. The Library of Congress defines Bororo Indians as the heading for the people of Bolivia and Brazil, a term used by the Brazilians, but this may be politically incorrect.

The article on Wodaabe is right in saying that other ethnic groups may refer to the Wodaabe as "Mbororo", but wrong in implying that all people called Mbororo are Wodaabe. Some sources distinguish the WodaaBe pastoralists of Niger from the Mbororo pastoralists of northern Cameroon, and some say the Bororo and Wodaabe are separate groups in Niger too, but others plausibly say "the term Bororo is thus used to signify a much greater variety of groups than is the term WoDaaBe." I gather that a) M'bororo is a breed of Zebu cattle. b) Fula pastoralists who rely on them are often called Mbororo/Bororo people, or cattle people. c) Some but by no means all Fula cattle people call themselves WoDaaBe, people of the taboo. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Aymatth2, cool, I'll take care of the moves today. The incorrect info in Wodaabe is a concern. Perhaps the discussion of the "Mbororo" term would be better at Fula people, with a description saying something along the lines that many of the people so called are Wodaabe?--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Perhaps a better solution for Mbororo would be a separate article. There are plenty of sources, e.g. [7] and [8], which say they are Muslims, and [9], which says they are pagan and are the nomadic Fulani as opposed to the Muslim "town Fulani". This seems simplistic: I do not find mention of the Mbororo in Guinea. I confess that I thought the "town Fulani" were the same as the Hausa people, sort of, but see [10] for an explanation. Maybe some bold editor will sort out the mess. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately I'm out of my depth on this one.--Cúchullain t/c 17:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I Wrong

looks like Talk:Am I Wrong still points to the DAB. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Nohomersryan.--Cúchullain t/c 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Pandas and People

Hijiri here. Don't ask. I wasn't sure if you were aware ("jokey name" was ambiguous), but the latest Kauffner sock's username was likely a reference to this. Kauffner's being active on the creationist wiki Conservapedia makes it look even fishier than if it were just his usual random jokes. 182.251.140.111 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

BHG's user talk

Any particular reason for reverting my mail notification? GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, BrownHairedGirl: None. My finger must have slipped on the watchlist page on my phone. Didn't even know I did it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. Thanks for reverting. GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Devonshire listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Devonshire. Since you had some involvement with the Devonshire redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ilongot people/language

Hi. I see you moved the articles citing primary topic. Not sure it follows convention for people/language pairs, but if one topic is primary, you can always do WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT without sacrificing convention. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

RioHondo, the conventions are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and of course WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Constructions using "xxx people" are only really necessary when the people aren't the primary topic of the term. In this case (and others), they do appear to be based on the page views, and the fact that there wouldn't be a language without the people.--Cúchullain t/c 16:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. But again, there's the primaryredirect option to keep the disambiguations that make them clearer to readers. DABs are for clarity is all im saying. :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. There are probably cases where it will make sense.--Cúchullain t/c 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ten years of adminship, today!

Wishing Cuchullain a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, 10 years. And still working day in, day out in the area you said you would during your RfA. Congrats and thank you! Jenks24 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Chris troutman and Jenks24! It seems like just yesterday. Man I'm getting old.--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (2001)

FYI Unfortunately two editors refuse to let this issue go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Planet_of_the_Apes_.282001_film.29.23Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Camlann

The info box and indeed the article make it appear as though this was a real battle. I can't recall if anything was ever decided about military Infoboxes for "battles " like these. Doug Weller talk 22:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be better to just remove the infobox entirely, unless there's a separate one for mythical battles.--Cúchullain t/c 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 12 years ago...

Hey, Cuchullain. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Lepricavark! Sometimes it feels like just yesterday.--Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

third party opinion requested

I've been going back and forth with a user who wants to remove the 1995 Sports Illustrated cover featuring Danny Wuerffel from Danny W's article because he claims that it fails NFCC. As I've repeatedly explained on the article's talk page, I think that it pretty clearly fits WP:NFCI #8 as an iconic image in Wuerffel's life, and I've found and added sources spanning 20 years to back up my claim. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎‎ has basically repeated "no it doesn't" and removed the photo several times. I trust your judgement, so I'd appreciate your opinion on the matter when you have time. Thx. --Zeng8r (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zeng8r, thanks for the comment. I'm not especially versed in copyright issues but I'd regard this as a borderline case at most. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being unnecessarily rude but he does make a point in the fact that according to the current article text, it isn't the cover image itself that's necessarily significant, it's the fact that Wuerffel got it unexpectedly and displaced Manning. In such a borderline case, I'd err on the side of caution and leave the image out. I notice that there are few examples of Sports Illustrated covers being used on Wikipedia, except in a few cases where the cover was truly iconic.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I was looking at #8 at WP:NFCI but I suppose that #1 may better apply in this case, which kinda goes with the gist of your comment. Thanks for the input. --Zeng8r (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
PS No kidding about User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎‎'s behavior. It's par for the course - I have never seen such a long list of ANI reports on a single user, as they usually leave or get themselves banned after the first couple dozen incidents. Not this one, I guess...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Zeng8r (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ocute

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ocute you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ocute

Congratulations, it's a...
...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ocute

The article Ocute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ocute for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks so much, Shearonink! I really appreciate your time and guidance.--Cúchullain t/c 16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wind Waker

Already looks about GA-ready—just needs some source tightening czar 19:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been working on it. I'm about to redo the critical reception section, as it seems pretty incomplete at the moment.--Cúchullain t/c 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic accent

I beg your pardon, sir. I just happen to have the thought of moving the page for the past few days. I was hesitant to reinstate another RM for two reasons. One, we just had one and people could be potentially annoyed with a second one. Two, from experience, I can conclude that a civil RM discussion on this particular topic is close to impossible. However, seeing that you are an administrator, you would know that the protocol better than I do. Therefore, do you have a better solution? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

LakeKayak, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, there's really no other option besides more discussion. That's just how Wikipedia works, for better or worse. You can open a new RM with your new proposed title, but frankly I doubt it will be successful. Generally speaking, Wikipedia tries to avoid constructed titles like that (sources don't typically refer to a "Mid-Atlantic/Transatlantic accent", they refer to the "Mid-Atlantic accent" or "Transatlantic accent"). If you do want to open a new RM (or open dispute resolution or an WP:RfC), I'd highly recommend you collect the evidence to see which option is really the most common in the relevant sources, and go from there. I'd also wait for a few months so that people can participate with fresh eyes.--Cúchullain t/c 21:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. And only for humor, I actually did see a YouTube that used "Transatlantic/Mid-Atlantic accent".LakeKayak (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Cuchullain. When you changed South Georgia from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "South Georgia" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

R'n'B: I am well aware. I was waiting for the system to remove template links, which have already been updated. The much bigger problem is that at the most recent RM at Talk:South Georgia Island, it was determined that the island should not be moved to its common name of South Georgia, although the base name was left redirecting there. If the phrase is really ambiguous as most participants argued, it should not be redirecting to South Georgia Island as many of its thousands of readers will be misdirected.--Cúchullain t/c 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nintendo Power

Unfortunately, my collection around 2002-2004 is the most spotty (as well as the final 2 or 3 years), as it is neither from the era where my cousins subscribed nor where I subscribed. Because of my current living situation I don't have immediate access to my NP magazines, though I'll see what I do have when I get a chance to access it again hopefully within the next few days. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

TheListUpdater, thanks so much for the reply. No problem if you don't find them, but if you do find them let me know!--Cúchullain t/c 17:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Say, out of curiosity, where did this list you mentioned come from? I don't remember putting my name on anything.TheListUpdater (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You're listed in the WikiProject Video games reference library for Nintendo Power. I reached out to pretty much everyone there as many seem not to be active on Wikipedia anymore. However, I think I'll be able to get the 2003 review via interlibrary loan at my university, but I don't have the page numbers for the "best games" list.--Cúchullain t/c 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have either of the issues you mentioned in my collection. I'm sorry I can't be of help.TheListUpdater (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Famitsu reviw

Hi Cuchullain. Here's the Famitsu review: 1. It's not as good resolution as the original, but I think that was caused when I uploaded it so let me know if it's too small to make out and I'll re-upload a better copy. I'll get a scan of the Games review soon. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

OK scratch that. I just re-uploaded and it's better now. See here (you can click the image to blow it up more). Flushed with success I'll go dig out the Games review now. I'll post again in a minute. -Thibbs (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And here's the Games review:

  • McDonald, Thomas L. (December 2003). "2004 Buyer's Guide To Games". Games. Vol. 27, no. 196. GAMES Publications. p. 53. ISSN 0199-9788.

It would probably be a good idea to blank the url= field so that it isn't pointing at the scan in the final version if you use this source. Sorry the words at the left edge got a little blurred due to the spine of the magazine. Let me know if you need any help deciphering any of it. -Thibbs (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, probably best not to link to the scan. I sent it over to my friend and will let you know if we need more assistance. Thanks again for doing all this.--Cúchullain t/c 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: our disagreement as Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory

I wanted to be sure you saw this comment of mine and knew that I meant every word of it. It's pretty rare to see such solid logic as you used in any disagreement on a fringe subject, and I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion, even if it seems like I might not have. You have, actually given me quite a bit to think about, and for that I'm very appreciative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants: Thank you for the kind words. I appreciated the discussion and your well reasoned comments as well. The current close is inappropriate, but I don't really have the energy to deal with it anymore, considering how... determined some people seem to be about this. I suppose it's natural that fringe topics would draw such strong feelings.
I have a bit of advice going forward. The direction of the discussion was driven by the large number of editors coming from WP:FTN. Nothing wrong with that; the people writing the articles generally know best about them. But it can have a bit of a "walled garden" effect, and whether the new title is right or wrong, it's at variance with the way most articles, including articles on other fringe topics, and even including multiple fringe articles that have had formal RMs, are titled. Perhaps more articles should be changed, as you argued, but I don't see this level of enthusiasm from FTN regulars holding up over the hundreds more RMs it would take to make them consistent, and without that future RMs are unlikely to all go the same way. It's just not the way WP:AT is usually understood`. And for topics that have a wider interest, like Bigfoot, Men in black, etc., I can't see them ever reaching consensus to move even with a strong participation by fringe-focused editors. Trying to handle this in piecemeal fashion would just create a situation where some articles are perennially out of step with the others. If you (and others) are hoping to achieve wider consistency, it would be worth taking a holistic approach. Perhaps even consider developing some workable naming conventions. They can be a pain to develop and reach consensus over, but at least it would be something people can point to in discussions.
Food for thought anyway. Take care, and enjoy your weekend.--Cúchullain t/c 20:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Cuchullain, having seen that AN, I fully agree with your reasoning concerning both the merits and procedure of the move; however, I've been busy lately and I came late to the party, and it's unlikely that my oppose could have changed the outcome anyway. It's certainly a WP:LETITGO situation now, but if it's of any condolence, I think that your !vote was the only one policy-based among a dozen others. Regards, No such user (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No such user: Thanks, I really appreciate it. It's pretty clear that if the discussion had been allowed to run its real course there would have been more reasoned opposition (and presumably more support as well). There are admins out there who wouldn't have moved considering that so many of the support votes didn't get into the questions of policy or practice. But that would never be the end of it, and clearly there are a lot of people out there who think the name is better with "conspiracy theory" attached. My main concern now is what to do with the hundreds of other articles on conspiracy theories - I tend to doubt that most will be moved, so some will always be out of step with others.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Celtic Britons

Thanks for your edits to the intro. The version earlier today - before I hacked it around a bit - was in my view way too long and confused, but I'm happy that you've now improved my version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to undermine your work. It looked like the anon (or a previous one) just moved most of an earlier version of the intro a separate section, and then rewrote an inferior intro that didn't really explain who the Britons were. I tried to keep the best of both versions, and restore the citations that had been removed.--Cúchullain t/c 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you Cùchullain, for your Support vote on my X2 (film) Requested Move. Cheers. Wufan10304 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nintendo power

Hi, I know you needed Nintendo Power, can you tell me again which issues you needed? Andrevan@ 00:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrevan: Responded on your talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Montreal Central Station

I have repaired the naming conventions defined in Via, AMT and Amtrak stations templates to reflect your move. Although it's a much better name choice, this was a singular move and it would have been an easy to clean up some of the mess you leave behind. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Part of the issue is that the templates are esoteric to the point that no one knows where they're even located, and the "mess" created from moves is usually pretty minor. It would be helpful if there was a central list somewhere (or advertising it if it does exist). I moved Baltimore Light Rail stations recently and I have no idea where the station template is. It's not at either Template:Baltimore Light Rail stations or Template:BLR stations. And at this point they're all done so a central fix of the template will be better than adding everything in as an exemption.--Cúchullain t/c 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know that. Now I can now reveal the secret! For the DART ones that you are currently cleaning up if you look in the station infobox at the s-line template you will see that system=DART and therefore you are looking for {{DART stations}}. You would never have guessed Baltimore Light Rail, which you will find at {{MTA Maryland stations}}, because it also switches by line. You did some Amtrak stations before so I know that you can figure it out. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I think I've gotten all the Amtrak stations I moved yesterday (and a few others). Now that Baltimore Light Rail stations have all been moved, it would be best to update the template to USSTATION format, but unfortunately I'm not sure how and I don't want to break anything.--Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Leave that with me. I'll do it later. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks much, Secondarywaltz.--Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it's working perfectly. Thanks, Secondarywaltz. Mind if I hit you up when I'm done with the Dallas moves?--Cúchullain t/c 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Let me know when they've all been done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz: They should be all done, I'm going to take care of Trinity Rail today.--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_33&oldid=1144174426"