Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

I'm still here?

I had a bit of a laugh about this. IIRC, I never said I was leaving the project. I've still been actively editing. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have no clue what happened. I was attempting to add someone who had not in fact edited since that date, and had said s/he'd be gone in the near future, but I mistakenly put your name (or an alternate version of your name) down instead of the correct one. I don't know how I got so mixed up with the names, and I have absolutely no recollection of who I was trying to add to the page. Again, sorry for the confusion, I certainly wasn't trying to write your wikiobituary!--Cúchullain t/c 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Politics

Hey...your last edit on Sexual Politics doesn't quite make sense; I think you left out some words. I would have changed it myself, but I wasn't sure what you were trying to say! NoahB (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope I've made it clearer now.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Goeznovius, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goeznovius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Williams Page

If you remove the following link one more time, I'm going to phone Jimmy Wales personally and tell him what you're up to. There's not one damn thing for sale at that site. Your twice now referring to it as spam is simply outlandish. I did however remove a link that truly was spam to the CW Society which, like nearly all literally societies, exists for the sole purpose of getting people's money.

Please do not try to threaten me. Perhaps your link was not spam in the strictest definition, but it's certainly not appropriate here per our external link guideline: the photographs do not add anything essential to the reader's understanding of the subject, so the site should not be linked to. I will go through the other links at some point and weed out other unnecessary links as well. Also, calling people personally about Wikipedia business is generally looked down upon; you should take it up through appropriate venues here instead, beginning with the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I decide to threaten you kid. Please conduct yourself like an adult to some small degree. If you keep calling my home phone you're only asking for trouble. LEAVE ME ALONE! Quit following me around on the Net. Quit calling my house. Get something better to do with your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storch6308 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Following you around and calling your home phone? I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. If you are just trolling, I ask you to find something else to do.--Cúchullain t/c 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Cuchullain!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower
Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!


Not neutrally worded

The language was taken almost verbatim from the source. I'm not sure what's not neutral about it. Could you perhaps reword it instead of just removing it altogether? Arrow740 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there needs to be any more than is already said. I tried to reduce that section to the basics of the story, with some commentary by historians. The rest belongs at the article dedicated to Safiyya.--Cúchullain t/c 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Zaynab material, his critics were suspicious when he came out with the verses justifying the marriage. That's why the criticism didn't stop. If you'd like to truncate that please keep what Rodinson says in mind. Arrow740 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything by Rodinson. That must have been Bless Sins et al. All I did was try to summarize the stories themselves, while keeping the interpretations by scholars intact (the interpretations cited to reliable secondary sources, that is. I did remove some apologetical material, for instance Maududi, who attributed the story to rumors spread by Muhammad's critics.)--Cúchullain t/c 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Earthly Paradise"

I have nominated "Earthly Paradise" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mubarakpuri

The source you reinstated is this. It's not a work of history, as you can see from the first sentence. BS insists on using it despite this. Arrow740 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it per your recommendation. It was not listed in the references section, and seemed like pretty contentious but minor information anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
He is a reliable source, atleast as reliable as Rodinson. The reason for this that since 1988 he has been a scholar at the research institute at the Islamic University of Medina. He also taught at Jamiah Salafiah in Banares. Finally the book he wrote won a world-wide competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979, by the Muslim World League.Bless sins (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That work does not look like a reliable source to me at all. It begins, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism." Come on, Bless, I'm sure you can find a better source to cite that phrase to. However, this is not the best place to continue this discussion, I'm going to comment at the article page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And what's wrong with the above statement? That is presents explicitly the Muslim POV without any hesitation? I'll concede that Mubarakpuri, a researcher at a major university, is biased. Does this mean we are to reject other professors and researchers that are biased/contentious as well?Bless sins (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not a reliable source. If you found a reliable secondary source discussing his views then that secondary source could be considered. Arrow740 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Such language is not at all indicative of a neutral and objective source. Clearly the goal is to only use the very best sources that are available, and weed out the biased, contentious ones.--Cúchullain t/c 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm only troubled by the fact that sources are biased are bieng rejected when Muslim (as is now), but embraced when they are non-Muslim (e.g. Spencer is used in some parts of wikipedia). Why? Spencer (who calls Islam "the world's most intolerant religion") is atleast as biased as Mubarakpuri, if not more.Bless sins (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't know anything about that. But it is not appropriate to add more biased sources you like to balance out biased sources you don't like. The solution is to remove all the bad sources. I'll look into your allegation about Spencer if you wish.--Cúchullain t/c 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I've removed Mubarakpuri, so I'm no longer adding him. Secondly, I'd really appreciate if you looked into Spencer.Bless sins (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, just tell me where to start. Which articles use him?--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and removed some sketchy links and cites to Spencer, but I haven't found much that actually uses him as a source for anything except his own view. The one that bothers me more is Bat Ye'or, but she's much harder to deal with, as, quite unlike Spencer, she has actual degrees in the field and there seems to be international recognition of her expertise, if not her opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking Criticism of the Qur'an. Yes, I know that Ye'or, is higher on the reliability scale than Spencer. In some cases, where her book is published by an academic press, she is quite reliable. But this is not true for Spencer.Bless sins (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you are under no obligation to remove Spencer, or other unreliable source. But it would be much appreciated if you did that.Bless sins (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into Criticism of the Qur'an and see what I can do about Spencer. I'll respond to your below comment back at the article talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives

Hi Cuchullain,

Could you please explain [1]. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the sentence is supposed to mean either, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It mentions that a specific group (about whom there are many verses in the Qur'an) spread rumors about the marriage and criticized it. It also discusses the context for revelation of another verse relevant to the marriage. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I explained it in the edit summary: the sentence does not make sense, I could not figure out what you were trying to get across. "The suspicious of this group of the marriage"? The "context for revelation"?--Cúchullain t/c 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Let me quote the all the source says and leave it to you to kindly summarize it (the bolded texts are mine):

The communal debate is said to have preserved until two revelations established that "adopted sons are unlike real sons," and that "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men" (33:34, 33:40) Ibn Kathir and others call the revelation of 33:40 "the divine rejection of the hypocrites’ suspicion surrounding the Prophet's marriage with the wife of Zayd, his client and adopted son." This statement is important in that it identifies a prominent hostile faction that influenced the civic atmosphere in Medina during the fifth year after the hijra and in relation to which the largely negative public debate on the Prophet's marriage with Zaynab must be understood. The "hypocrites" of Medina were in name Muslims but in fact of unreliable loyalty to the Prophet. In times of Muslim military setbacks and other difficulties (such as the battle of Uhud in year 3 and the Meccan siege of Medina in year 5 after the hijra), hypocrites influence increased to the detriment of the Islamic cause. This group spread vicious rumors to divide the community and also harassed women, including the Prophet's wives, especially by night. According to the Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi, it was the core of hypocrite strategy to attack the Prophet through his wives, of which rumors surrounding Zaynab's marriage are but an example.

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the full text, I've summarized it. Feel free to make improvements.Bless sins (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with Stowasser's statements regarding the "hypocrites," but it shouldn't be overstated. She doesn't say that they spread rumors about Muhammad's amorousness. Arrow740 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. That should not be included (unless it is sourced to some other RS, of course.)--Cúchullain t/c 23:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please respond on the talk page, here. I'd appreciate if you responded to all the bullet points, sicne it appears you disagree with some.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will, but it will be a little while before I can, I've got to run right now.--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
How long will it be? As a practice, when you revert, you should give yourself time tor respond to others on talk. I guess I'll wait, but I have no clue what the justification for your edits is.Bless sins (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. Notice I didn't revert, I went through all your changes and did some rewording and reorganizing. The bottom line here is presentation: I think the information is better organized now. I did keep most of your original wording.--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what I disagree with. I strongly think we should present facts before we present myths.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemuse

Hi Bill,

Yesterday the "Freemuse" article (which you have now deleted) was updated and changed in seceral ways in order for it to live up to the requirements which had been mentioned. So I don't understand how you can just come in and delete it in the middle of that process, without further warning? Those administrators who previously wrote 'Delete' had not seen the article in its new form.

The article was in for deletion, yes, but no one so far had mentioned exactly when this would happen. What was the whole point of discussing, and correcting, and adding more info, then? Just a joke?

You certainly made a joke out of the time I put into this yesterday.

Is there a way to get the article back? Did you make a back-up? ...and if so, could you send it to me - at least so as to have the records straight.

Yours, Mik "musiccensorship" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiccensorship (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion are up for five days, after which they can be closed at any time. You should have brought up your changes at the AfD, but at any rate, they were too little too late. I don't believe it clearly demonstrate the subject's notability with reliable sources (most of the sources were to the site itself, and the two in the notability section were minor mentions. You also failed to convince any other editors even after your changes.
If you wish, I can undelete the page and move it to your user space, where you can continue to work on it. If, in the future, you are able to find enough external reliable sources to demonstrate notability, the article can be recreated. Barring that you can file at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

There is no ban on further reading sections, though they should be meaningful. In many cases the deletion of such sections is warranted. However, please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading.Bless sins (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However I think I was justified in removing the sections I did, considering they were mostly full of books by Islam critics with no direct relevance to the topic.--Cúchullain t/c 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability vs Content

Cuchullain, if a content adds value to the article, I think, even if it is not properly sourced, it should be kept until a better source is found. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. From WP:V: "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed". The caveat is that editors may object if they haven't had a chance to do that. That wasn't the case with anything I removed today, it was stuff that had been there for long enough.--Cúchullain t/c 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article status of Shining Path

As someone who heavily edited Shining Path, you may be interested to know that the article's status as a Good Article has been put on hold as a result of a review of it. The review was part of the "sweeps" of all Good Articles. Talk:Shining_Path#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold contains more information about the whole affair. --Descendall (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Regarding this, there is no Wikipedian policy that says "a person must be as notable as Martin Luther in order for their comments to be included". We arent including everyone's comments, because we cant. Not everyone is notable. Zwermer is notable ofcourse (has his own article). What is your justification for excluding him? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that says we must include the opinions of every person who has a Wikipedia article, either. Only the most notable and important criticisms should go into that article, and I don't see how Zwermer makes the cut.--Cúchullain t/c 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<r>Robert Spencer is pretty notable, yet we didnt use his opinion and you agreed. Notability is not the issue. Clearly, something else is. I feel we might be applying different standards when it comes to deciding who to keep and who not to keep. The sourcing on Islam related articles is very problematic. If a person doesnt have peer reviwed journals and is not known for scholarly input on Islam, should we exclude them? What if they're notable? Since you're an admin I'm asking your advice on what to do about this. We have to decide once and for all who should be kept in and who not, and what the fair standards are. Subjective opinion based standards wont work. Anyone can have those. We need some standards by which we can decide objectively if they deserve to be kept in Islam related articles or not. This has been a long standing problem in Islam related articles. Some of the people under scrutiny are:

These last 3 people are being used and we're not applying standards uniformly. The more you read these Islam articles, the more people you find who's reliabilty we cant be sure about. Something has to be done instead of battling this day in and day out. Do you have any suggestions? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In cases where a person isn't reliable themselves... if particular critiques of theirs are noteworthy, they will have been reported in reliable sources. The source for the Luther opinion for example, while dated, is comparatively reliable. ITAQALLAH 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, Matt. None of those authors seem to have anything about them to demonstrate they are reliable sources. No PhDs in Islamic studies, nothing but their own opinions and in some cases, popular history books. They should not be used to source anything other than their own opinions, or information about themselves. However, they are all notable, so sometimes their opinions will be notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia. Even in that case we still need to use reliable sources - that is, not their own books, but some other reliable, secondary source commenting on their opinion. This was the problem at Criticism of the Qur'an, it was basically just a list of Spencer's personal criticisms sourced to his own books. He does belong on that page, but he should be referred to as something like, "According to the New York Times, Spencer is one of the most prominent critics of the Quran. He has criticized so-and-so about it, according to this peer-reviewed article by a real Islam scholar." As for a policy on this, I don't think there needs to be much more than WP:SOURCES already says: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are plenty of these about. If you see any specific cases where an unreliable source is being used, please let me know, and I'll try to help rectify it.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I heard some "comments" when I first starting sending them out, so I stopped for awhile. But thanks for the support and subsequent comment as well. I just hope I live up to it all. :) John Carter (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

SGGK

Just wanted to make you aware that I'm pushing this toward FA status. I've got some good reviewers and copyeditors together on it, but I think you'd be another great addition. Feel free to drop by and offer comments or help out as it is currently undergoing a peer review. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Killer. I'll be sure to do whatever I can to help.--Cúchullain t/c 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Boruca

Why do you know/care about Boruca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg8472 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I visited my sister in Costa Rica about a year ago learned about them there. I figured they should have a Wikipedia article. I'm glad to see you've expanded the stub I created.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bastards (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated Bastards (disambiguation), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastards (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Eight (novel)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Eight (novel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Eight (novel). Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Neville

"(She is a notable author, which is asserted by the first sentence.)"[2]

I don't see that:

"Katherine Neville (born April 4, 1945) is an American author."

How does that assert notability? Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is implied by that sentence. Most other author bios start the same way. Herman Melville does not say the subject was a "notable American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and poet". Now, you can argue that Neville isn't actually notable, but the article surely implies that she is. The appropriate way to deal with this would be AfD or putting a tag on it and waiting for someone to expand it. Looking around, it will be hard to argue she isn't notable, since The Eight was reviewed by any number of reliable papers, such as the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a key difference. No one said that the first sentance of the Herman Melville article is "asserted by the first sentence." His notability is asserted by "his longest novel...one of the chief literary masterpieces of both American and world literature." That's backed up by refs to The Cambridge Companion to Herman Melville. That is an assertion of notability.
Notability is not asserted in the rest of the article either. It lists three of her novels, with no hint of significance, where she was born, previous non-notable jobs and who her partner is.
Failure to assert notability is A7 in speedy. Instead, I tagged it for improvment.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we disagree on this. I believe the article asserts her notability perfectly well - it's implied she's a noteworthy author, and she's written several novels of note, which have been reviewed by virtually every American paper that reviews books. Clearly you don't agree. I'm well aware of the SPEEDY criteria, and I don't think you'd have gotten very far trying to speedy it or the book, especially since you already know I contested your PROD. I think the real problem is that it's unreferenced, which is a related but separate issue. I'll be adding a few cites to both articles, hopefully that will resolve the issue.--Cúchullain t/c 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"I believe the article asserts her notability perfectly well - it's implied she's a noteworthy author,"
Implied is not asserted.
"and she's written several novels of note"
The notability of her novels is not asserted in the article about her or the one article about one of her novels.
"the real problem is that it's unreferenced"
Sure, it's unreferenced. That's a problem. That it does not "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is more serious.
I've tagged the articles and spelled out my concerns on their talk pages.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Norteamericano"

Hi. I changed the text because "norteamericano" isn't a translation of North American. That fact comes from América del Norte isn't the same that North America. So, an explanation must be maked about the Spanish meaning of the term. Reference of Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas was supporting this claim. Maybe other person with more English redaction skills than me could write it better. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel

Cuchullain, I'm from south Louisiana, but have never heard of this singer named Johnny Rebel. I'm sure that more than likely you are correct about his music being racist type recordings. However, short of a reference characterising his genre as such, I think, that you are injecting a bias in wording which is contrary to Wikipedia policy and also contrary to your CSB userbox views. I understand that some may call this guy a racist, but others may characterize him differently, which is why I think we need neutral wording (which you refer to as weasel words). Sf46 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you were trying for neutral wording, but some of what you were doing is not the way to go about it. First off, the guy's only claim to notability is a couple of songs he recorded decades ago, which were quite objectively racist (they exalt one race and denigrate others). All of the sources say this or something very close to this. Your changes to the diambig page introduced syntax errors and made it unclear why exactly the guy was notable - what exactly are "racially charged issues"? It's much clearer to note the racist character of his songs. And when I called your changes to the singer's page weasel words, that means a very specific thing - a word used to avoid making a straitforward statement - who are the "many" who deem his music racist? Such words only give the semblance of neutrality. This isn't a statement of opinion, but of fact - he is a racist by the definition of the term, and I imagine he'd want to be known as that. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page so others may weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Cuchullain, I'm not going to get into this with you. You're displaying a bias, and you should take down your CBS box down because this whole situation is exactly what you "claim" to be against. How's it feel to now be a part of the bias machine? Sf46 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I already explained why the adjective is appropriate, and why your changes were not. And the CSB box states that I'm a member of a WikiProject about Countering Systemic Bias, that's a very specific thing.--Cúchullain t/c 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Cuchullain, I concur with you that Sf46's alteration of the word "racist" to "anti-African American" constitutes the use of weasel words. As such, I have reverted his recent reversion of your reversion (!), and should he make the change again, I will request mediation in the matter. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Some people just don't get the difference between actual neutral language and unspecified statements of opinion. In fairness, "anti-African American" is much better than "what some might consider to be racist".
I don't approve of the phrase "what some might consider to be"; I think the single word "racist" is accurate. Do you concur? Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, weasel words should almost never be used.--Cúchullain t/c 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sf46 has changed the word from "racist" to "anti-African American" again, stating that he will restore "racist" if I can prove the subject was indeed a racist. I think I have done so in my reply. If he does not concur, however, I will ask for mediation, as I don't think many people would deny that someone who sings a song titled "Nigger Hatin' Me" is anything but a racist. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Hi,

I've now updated the section on the pre-Galfridian Arthur with corrections, full refs and some additional content. I've made 3rd person reference in the text to my own academic monograph, Concepts of Arthur, as it covers a number of factual issues only touched on elsewhere. I hope this is ok... Let me know what you think :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about using your book. I looked into it, and it seems pretty well received and provides us with a lot of good information not found elsewhere. As long as you're not trying to promote yourself at the expense of the encyclopedia, there's no conflict of interest.
Keep up the excellent work. If you wish, you should join the Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur - it's not very active right now, but it's always good to have people who know what they're talking about on board.--Cúchullain t/c 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- that's what I thought was the case but decided I better check, lol; just wanted to make sure I could cite it where necessary and appropriate as part of the updating and referencing process :) I'll keep going through the rest of the page until have got it all up-to-date and referenced. Have now joined the WikiProject :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been reading about FA status on various pages and was just curious about what would have to happen for the Arthur article to be worth nominating for this? I assume it would need some stability after my recent edits, but what else? Just curious :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's getting pretty close. There's a list of the criteria here. I'd say the main things to change will be introducing some images, including a bit more on post-medieval portrayals of him, and probably making some subsections within the longer sections. The intro will probably have to be tightened a bit as well. Articles are nominated at Featured Article Candidates, they are reviewed there. Generally other editors will offer suggestions for improvement, and the nominator and others working on the article will make the necessary changes. At this stage I'd imagine they'd bring up the things I just mentioned. You may want to talk to Wrad, he's currently working to get Sir Gawain and the Green Knight featured, so he'll know more about the process than I do.--Cúchullain t/c 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That all sounds achievable... I'll talk to Wrad. Thanks :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NeoPaganism article

Hi Cuchullain, I just wanted to let you know that user:Esimal randomly contacted me (as in he had no prior communication with me at all) on my Talk Page regarding your argument. As he asked for help, I added to the Administrator's Notice Board asking for advice regarding the situation as a neutral third party. I mean no disrespect, and it appears that Esimal is the one who is need of more information, and a good telling to regarding basic Etiquette.

That being said, I do feel that a paragraph on Neopaganism in the article should be created, considering its rate of growth, the unusual statistics of its worshipers, discrimination, important legal cases such as religion in prison, and the Patrick Stewart (soldier) controversy over the religious emblems on military tombstones etc. etc. A group consensus on its length, and what to summarize would be necessary of course. As you can see, there is no issue over not having enough content and legitimate sources to write about, is writing the article, and ensuring that the paragraph will be kept. Perhaps contacting WikiProject Neopaganism would garner more attention to what should and should not be included. If this is to be done, then using certain religious texts as references should be cited because frankly they detail the most information. Irregardless of the religion they are discussing.

I hope that this can be accomplished satisfactorily for all parties involved. :) Zidel333 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Zidel333 posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard and you posted your half of the discussion on WP:AN/I - a separate page. I've attempted to point the discussion to where Zidel333 started it, where I've also posted evidence of attempted canvassing and (to my mind) baseless accusations of bad faith on your part by Esimal; hopefully we won't end up with two discussions happening on two different pages! Regarding Zidel333's comments above I agree that a balanced, sourced paragraph on Neopaganism would not be out of place (though what do I know about the US, coming from the UK? ☺). Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Tony.--Cúchullain t/c 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. Tonywalton Talk 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Casanova

A tag has been placed on Casanova requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended/taken

When you are not face-to-face with someone, comments can be taken the wrong way. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. Keep up the good work. -- SECisek (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Celts

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Celts, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Celts.
You may sign up at the project members page.

Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur

Thank you for the kind comments, much appreciated :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stein and the Grail Bloodline in Richardson's article

Not that it matters much, Richardson was as mistaken about Stein as he was about Evola.

Quoting Richardson: "To create the concept of the bloodline, Evola's ideas were melded with one other source: the doctoral dissertation of Walter Johannes Stein, originally published in Germany in 1928: The Ninth Century: World History In the Light of the Holy Grail. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceridwen Goddess Not?

Hi Chuchullain. I was just wondering, are you sure that Ceridwen doesn't deserve the Goddess tag? If she was not considered a Goddess in ancient times, she certainly has had a number of idols being made of her, by neo-pagans. Pagan web outlets abound with them, for what it's worth.--AaronCarson (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Aaron, sorry I could not get back to you, but I've been travelling. It looks like Ceridwen is already in Category:Welsh goddesses. I don't think that that's an appropriate title for the category, as nearly all figures from Welsh mythology are not portrayed as gods in surviving texts even when that's obviously their origin. I'd prefer a category like Category:Characters of Welsh mythology or something like that. As for neopagans using her, perhaps she could go in Category:Neopagan goddesses or something if she's widespread.--Cúchullain t/c 12:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SGGK help

This article will be on the main page soon, so I may need help keeping the chaos under control. Wrad (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wrad, sorry I missed ya, but I've been travelling for the last ten days. I am really bummed I missed SGGK being on the front page (and not so sorry I missed out on controlling the chaos). Congratulations on getting the article featured!--Cúchullain t/c 12:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Duval County

I understand there are the beach communities and Baldwin which remain separate municipalities from the city of Jacksonville. However, which municipalities were annexed by the city? Was the rest of the land unincorporated at the time Jacksonville expanded? Or were there other municipalities which were annexed into Jacksonville? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the county besides the Beaches and Baldwin was unincorporated at the time.--Cúchullain t/c 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -24.149.193.49 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Susan Wiley

Please take a new look at my article on Genie the feral child here. I have now added full transcriptions from five articles so you can assure yourself that her name was, at the time, quite public and not shielded in any fashion.Wjhonson (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly something to consider (and you continue to do excellent work with your site, by the way). I'm going to suggest we seek additional input on this matter at the talk page as to whether or not we should keep the name.--Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cnut the Great

Hi there CuChullain. Its WikieWikieWikie here.

I require some assistance on the article Canute the Great. You are the last administrator I know of to show an interest in this article. There appers to be some sort of glitch. Basically, someone undid something I wrote (another story) while I was adding a reference and the page is now sever symptoms of conflict. It is cut in half at the point of the reference. Just look at it. Maybe a bot will sort it out or something, Im not sure. Maybe you know of this sort of thing.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Its allright now. I dont know what it was there. You can still see the glitch in some of the edits though. Phew.

Maybe there is something else though. If you look at the article on the kingship box there is another glitch where the names of Cnut's childeren do not align properly with the Issue thing. Can you maybe sort it out, or direct me to people who can?


WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't know all that much about templates. Hopefully it's just a formatting error.--Cúchullain t/c 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it looks like it's working fine right now.--Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The alignment of the Issue info is allright?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the way it looks on the other pages (Queen Elizabeth II, etc.)--Cúchullain t/c 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yea. I think it wasnt like that at one point though. I swear I saw it suddenly drop down a couple of months ago or something. Looks like there is a glitch on the entire system. Surely it is not meant to be like that?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about it. The template hasn't been altered significantly in several months, though, and it's obviously not a glitch. If you don't like how it looks you can discuss it at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty.--Cúchullain t/c 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Invite

I'm trying to start a taskforce in wikiproject Europe for Sub-Roman Britain, and as you seem to enjoy editing a lot of Sub-Roman Britain and Arthurian stuff (at least, I keep running into you there), I though you might be interested. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

prester john map reproduction - an inquiry

dear Cuchullain,

doing some research on the prester john legend i encountered your wikipedia upload of an old map associated with realm of this legendary king.

do you by any chance know where can one find a large-scale reproduction of this map?

your assistance on this matter will be much appreciated.

Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.92.117 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I got the image off the internet years ago, and it was in the public domain, so we could use it. You may be able to find a copy by doing a Google image search for Prester John.--Cúchullain t/c 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Cuchullain/Archive 8!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Celts as Barbarians?

Your thoughts and/or comments are requested here. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

I've been in touch with Stephen Buckley, and he does say their tests ruled out Chilean or Brazilian auricarian resin and they can link it to New Guinea or neighbours - although he does say that environment plays a big factor. I think therefore that the claim (not an assertion they've proved anything as the edits said) should be restored, and I'll do it sometime later today. I have a serious problem figuring out any sensible scenario for this however, and until more research is done I personally will see it as an interesting but unproven claim. I'll ask him if they used 12th century resin from New Guinea, which would be more convincing given his statement about environment (which he says will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming article in a main science journal). Doug Weller (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia removal from Great Wave off Kanagawa

Why did you remove the Microsoft-Word related trivia? It could be merged and put under another title inside the page.. --Sissyneck (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just not important enough to the subject to be included, and it had no source.--Cúchullain t/c 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitulation of Irvine

If you have the time and the inclination, can you take a look at this article, and tell me if you think it passes muster? I think it is highly troublesome, for a number of reasons, not least of which being the lack of references. Your thoughts? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of rabaleis reference on Gargantua disambig page

Can you please cite Wiki policy which states 1) only one blue link per entry, and 2) removal of reference without an article? Thanks --Bill Huston (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... I found it Bill Huston (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

lameh/lamech

Cuchullain, it seems you quickly removed a short note I added--because it was 'unsourced'? The reference is from S.A.J. Bradley's Anglo-Saxon Poetry (London: Dent, 1995): 41. I'm a bit surprised, since it appears that nothing in this article is, as yet, 'sourced.' I hope that that's enough for you to reinstate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not sourced, and also I didn't think the statement was particularly relevant, considering how late English versions of the Bible are. If you want to discuss it further, leave a comment at the Lamech talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did. I'm still waiting for a response. By the way, the "English versions of the Bible" I was basing my comments on aren't really that old--this is at least half a millennium before the King James.24.214.249.82 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Wave again..

Hi, I had also deleted the info about Quiksilver brand logo being inspired from the picture, but someone else wrote it back. Is it non-trivial? Especially when compared to the MS Word related info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sissyneck (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it's the official logo of a such a big brand, I'd say it's less trivial than the minor use in MS Word, but it's still unsourced, so I removed it again.--Cúchullain t/c 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Grail

Wikipedia articles are meant to be NPOV. If the Grail was identified as a stone in the earliest Grail Romances as well as chalice and a cup then that information should be included in the opening paragraph. Your refusal to include that information in the opening paragraph on the grounds of "confusion" just does not make sense and it is not good writing style. The Grail Romances were never "simple", it's a subject matter that the beginner strays in at their peril. Yes, I have read your comment that the reference to grail as stone is mentioned lower down in the article. Please do not bother repeating it to me yet again. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality issue, it's a clarity issue. The grail was identified as a stone only in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, written decades after the earliest grail romances. The whole thing is confusing, but as you apparently know, all of this is discussed where appropriate in the article, without the confusing wording you're trying to introduce.--Cúchullain t/c 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BNF Catalogue

And you are similarly mistaken over Library Catalogues. They are secondary sources. Ask any librarian. It's the books themselves that are the primary sources. This is not good editing from you. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is more appropriate at the article's talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_8&oldid=1140690100"