Paul Reubens

Click here to leave me a new message.

Holy Grail

Some commentators claim that Wolfram's Parzival dates from decades after Chretien's Perceval, while yet other commentators think that the works are contemporary. Like I said previously, the subject matter is an area where the beginners stray in at their peril. Nothing is "simple" about this subject matter (because of the uncertainty over dates and the different takes offered by the various authors) and it is no good trying to convey otherwise. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No commentator claims Parzival is "contemporary" to Chretien's work, it must have come after it, as it is based on it, and I have never heard a date earlier than the 13th century. At any rate, the other major versions from any time period (Robert de Boron, the Lancelot-Grail, the Post-Vulgate, Malory) have the grail as a cup or dish. The point of the intro is to summarize what the article says, currently it gives a concise and clear summary of what will come later. All the other versions are discussed in detail where it's appropriate in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikitruth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikitruth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

How or what did you mean when you said this? I'm not bothered by your edits there, just curious about that edit summary. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just a mistake, i hit the return key too quickly and it filled in the text from a previous edit summary. I meant to say "not only called American". The undo feature does not remove botched edit summaries, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That explains it. Guess it was a wierd coincidence that I happened to edit Tupac Amaru Shakur's article when I saw that edit summary at American (popped up on my watchlist). Actually, shouldn't there be a mention of the artist on Tupac Amaru (disambiguation)? Or should the Tupac dab be listed there instead? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur should not be listed on that page, as Tupac Amaru is only part of his name, according to the MOS. I don't think Tupac needs to go their either, as no one will type in or click on Tupac Amaru if they're only looking for Tupac, but that's just me. You might could add it to the See also section if you want.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done ;) I have also watchlisted that page in case of vandalism issues and such. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I

Lima's improvements will be welcome but not when she deletes wholesale and refuses to discuss. --Kabad (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; I wasn't comfortable reverting all her changes. It's just that her edit is good and bad at the same time. Please ask her to improve article without deleting sourced information. --Kabad (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sign an RFC

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Esimal. I believe this user has continued to engage in the disputed behavior, and I need another person to sign. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I chipped in. If you need more let me know. He certainly seems to be a long-term disruptive user.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention

If it is not too much trouble, I would like you to express your view. Not many people visit the page. Lima (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Percival edits

I've reverted your exclusion of the Monaco novels and the re-inclusion of the Rohmer film, and opened a discussion in the article discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fate/Stay Night

While I can applaud your enthusiasm about your chosen areas of expertise, I believe you're mistaken in trying to apply the logic that because a Christian artifact and King Arthur are in a game, that means the game revolves around Arthurian legends. The part does not make the whole, and the game itself is most certainly NOT about that. You're mistaking a small part for the whole, and I'd be just as set against adding Christian Mythology as a category, or any others that represent a part of the games background rather than the whole. If you really want to add the Category, put it on the discussion page and let's get some other input. I'd hate for this to turn into a revert war, after all. Better to discuss it than risk that. Nezu Chiza (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur = Airthir ?

Hi Cuchullain. The [C.E.L.T.] Annals of Ulster from Circa C5th to C13th quotes on: Cluain Airthir. Inc [U467.3] “Death of Uter Pendragon, king of England, to whom succeeded his son, King Arthur, who instituted the Round Table”: [U610.1] Death of Aed son of Colgu, king of Ind Airthir: [U625.2] Rónán son of Tuathal, king of Ind Airthir died: [U748.7]: The slaying of Congal son of Éicnech, king of Int Airthir, in Ráith Escla &c. Are these genealogical references to Arthurs; Irish Airthir descendants/Clans?Stephen2nd (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. The first one appears to just be an Irish copy of the British genealogies. The others seem to refer to the placename Airthir, which is in Airgíalla.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the existence of any historical person, as fact or fiction, research should not be unduly influenced in geographical location &/or such identities, ie British, Welsh, Irish, Scottish or English. {NB: W.I.S.E; Placenames and persons are often assosiated, by genealogical ancestries &/or descendancies.)

What I'm asking is - The Annals of Ulster verified King of England Uther Pendragon died 467ad, and his son King Arthur succeeded him and instituted the Round Table. Ergo, King Arthur actually succeeded as King of England in 467ad, and instituted his Round Table Knights in 467ad. In the many debates of whether King Arthur and the Round Table were fact or fiction. - Do these ‘facts’ quoted in a ‘verified’ and ‘reliable source,’ merit its inclusion in Wikepedia? Also, with respect to your academic knowledge of such historical research and studies, truthfully; King Arthur, fact or fiction? Round Table, ditto? Regards.Stephen2nd (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't take the Annals of Ulster as being pure fact, or any of the annals or even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Bias at the time especially by the Monks who compiled the annals, infusing them with Christian elements, make them bad sources for basing "facts" on. And yeah if you read the passage you get the answer on the Ind Aithir bit - it's clearly saying those are kings from a kingdom called Ind Aithir. Mabuska (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Annals of Ulster were not written until the 15th century, well after the period they're describing. In this case it seems clear the author is relying on earlier annals for his infomation about Arthur. It would be best to include a secondary source by a reliable modern scholar discussing whether or not this work (or any work) can be trusted.

As to whether Arthur was fact or fiction, that's long been a matter of debate. A fellow Wikipedia editor, Hrothgar cyning, has written a book in his real world capacity as a scholar that convincingly argues that Arthur never existed, but was rather a kind of folklore hero who was written into Britain's shadowy early history over time. Hrothgar would be a good person to talk to, but he's been busy. Other scholars have always argued that there was a historical person behind the legends, the most notable one I can think of is Geoffrey Ashe. Personally I'm agnostic about it - I think there may have been a real Arthur, but at this point we have almost nothing we can say about him with any certainty.

As to the Round Table, that's certainly fictional - it is not mentioned before Wace's Roman de Brut in the 12th century. However, many of the early stories describe Arthur's court as including great warriors from all over the place, so that's certainly where the idea of the Round Table started.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah Kalina

For such a major move, this needs discussion and be decided by consensus. There was absolutely no discussion on any talk page for this move. A couple of comments in an AfD for Noah Kalina that suggested a move is not in any way in process nor consensus. A proposed merge tag would be more proper. --Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but moving by copy and paste, as you did, is not proper - it destroys the page history. In order to move Everyday (video) back to Noah Kalina, an admin will have to do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing your point. But this does need to be reverted back as a non-admin simply moved the page with no discussion nor any kind of consensus. I opened a move discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who moved it in the first place, or why - moving it back requires admin powers (because deletion and undeletion is involved). That's the only way to preserve the page history. If you want it moved back to Noah Kalina you should go to requested moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries and statues

Hey, Cuch, I'm taking slight issue with your most recent edit to Jacksonville. Regarding the removal of the mention of the statue, I'm wondering what your reason was. Do you just think it's too trivial for the intro, or what? I'll leave it alone until you have a chance to respond.

The other edit—your removal of the word "almost" from the opening paragraph—I'm going to go ahead and revert. While the Jax City Council does have general authority over the entire county (acting essentially as the county board), I'm fairly certain that Baldwin and the Beaches are still cities on their own and are not located within the city limits of Jax propers. Regards, Unschool (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the city limits. The City of Jacksonville does have authority over the entire county, but the beaches and Baldwin do have their own governments and their own signs telling you when you're entering or leaving them. It's a pretty minor distinction, as Jacksonville still has authority over them even within their limits, since as you say it acts as the county. I'd like to see something definite about this.

And yes I thought the statue bit was way too trivial for the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for helping to make King Arthur one of the best articles on Wikipedia! It has slowly evolved into an excellent introduction regarding the legends of Arthur and your efforts were integral to that endeavor! Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Saturninus

Hey there, I just realized we've been reverting each other in regard to whether this page is a dab page or not. Sorry about that, I wasn't paying attention to the fact that I'd done it twice! I can turn this into a proper dab page, but if I do, there is quite a bit of content that will be lost regarding lesser saints that do not have articles. As a dab page, it will include very little information about these saints beyond the links to their articles, and I fear that for some of these entries, this is the only page where this content appears. I am not proficient enough on the topic to feel comfortable creating articles (or stubs) for all of them myself. What I can do is move the content to the talk page in case anyone wants to use it in the future. Please let me know if you don't like the way it turns out. I'm happy to have help in making it right! SlackerMom (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your changes are a great improvement. Most of the Saturnini listed there were never going to have their own articles, but if they end up getting one they can be added back easily. Good work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the confusion. I'm glad someone's keeping an eye on me! SlackerMom (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I appreciate that. At the same time, I have to say that I probably wouldn't have got much further than a couple of extra references without your encouragement, so I'm grateful for that too :) Anyhow, I'm proud of the article we've all produced at the end of this long process; it works well and seems balanced and suitably scholarly to me... I'll be interested to see what happens to the article afterwards now, and how much it continues to evolve and change from this point. On this latter point, I've played around to try and address Ottava's comments (from the Talk page) on overlapping images but can't figure out how to do it, though it does occur to me that whether they 'sandwich' text or not is entirely down to the screen resolution of each user; a lower resolution, as on my old stand-alone PC, would remove the overlap, whilst a higher one would increase it :-/ Incidentally, looking over the article I noticed that we have a 'Further Reading' section that I hadn't noticed before, which includes my monograph -- is this ok, given my role? (though not in this part of it) I tried hard to avoid any COI and POV when writing the article and don't want to leave us open to any question (hopefully I managed otherwise on these two points; I used it only where it seemed appropriate...); shall I remove? Warm regards, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Hrothgar. I'm also interested to see how the page changes from here on out, and I know Wrad, myself and others will try to make sure the changes are positive. As for Ottava's comments, I'm well past the point of listening to him about his personal nitpicks. As far as I can tell the sandwiching is, as you say, the result of screen resolution. It looks fine on my screen, so I can't tell what he's going on about. The "Further reading" section I went ahead and removed entirely, as all four books that appeared there were already used in the "references" section ("further reading" sections here are usually used to include useful sources that were not cited in the article.) Your name and your book obviously still appear in the article, but no one I've heard has even suggested that there's any conflict of interest or of POV. The article is excellent, and I'm happy to have worked with you on it. Cheers, my friend.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here, and thanks for that, I just wanted to make sure we were 100% beyond reproach :) I'm going to be less around for the next few weeks, as I finish off the last two chapters of a book and do the final edits on two articles before sending them back to their journals, but feel free to email me via the address on my webpage if anything comes up etc etc. All the very best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck with your book, I can't wait to read it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumbee

You seemed to have an interest in this. There is some drastic editing going on without any discussion on the Talk page. I reduced some of the POV language in the lead, but the lead is now all about the political process. He hasn't done too much to the narrative in terms of sourced materials, but decided it was all "biased".--Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumbee

Your additions to the Lumbee page are not only clearly uneducated but deliberately disparaging. Feel free to leave something constructive and unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas392 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: your recent edit

I saw you edited a post I made, and I wanted to cc you a message I sent to Itaqallah.

Hi,

I think we have a slight disagreement over an edit on the 'Muhammad's Wives' page, and I wanted to see if I could politely address some of your concerns.

You commented that the article I quoted was unreliable, and while FPM does have an editorial slant (as do the majority of think tanks, journals and magazines that deal with religious and political matters) the research quoted by Spencer and UNICEF was entirely accurate. If you think there were any specific innacuracies, I would appreciate it if you could point them out. The hadith dealing with Aisha's age of 9 at the time of consummation of marriage is cited by a number of Islamic scholars when defending marriage to children of that age. Iranian religious scholars have used this as the basis for Iran's current law stating that marriages can be consummated at this age. This is, sadly, a fact.

The concern over the relationship between Islamic law and child brides is not a 'fringe, minority perspective'. Many governments, including that of the UK, aswell as organisations such as UNICEF have expressed very deep concern over the issue.

You also mentioned that the issue was dealt with 'adequately in the relevant forum', however the article you directed me to (which I am grateful for, but I had already read) did raise briefly the issue of Aisha's age but made no mention of the ongoing significance of this hadith in justifying child marriages. This consequence of Muhammad's marriage is of immense significance, and is entirely relevant to a page dealing with his marriages.

If you feel I unfairly left out any perspectives or facts from this article, please feel free to add them.

This is intended as a friendly and non-personal message, and it'd be great if any differences could be solved through friendly, spirited debate.

Thanks, eja0012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eja0012 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Naimon vs Aymon

I noticed that you changed an edit I made concerning Naimon at Paladin. If you check out name indexes inOrlando Furioso or Orlando Innamorato, you will see that Namo and Rinaldo's father Duke Aymon are not the same person. In the modern French folio version of Les Quatre Fils Aymon (ISBN 2-07-037501-3) the difference between Naime and Aymon is clearly given on the first page. Thanks- NYArtsnWords (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Míkmaq/Mi'kmaq

The controversy is open again. Kwamikagami moved the pages, but Codex Sinaiticus just reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for discussion. If that fails (which, considering how Codex has behaved in the past, seems imminent), I'm going to start a page move request, which I think will likely succeed, considering that only Codex has ever expressed dissatisfaction with the move. Please do weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the note? -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mi'kmaq, sorry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanzee

The feasibility section has always been a tightrope. It's hard to explain sufficiently why people study the possibility of hybridization without wandering into OR. What I would love to find is a reliable secondary source that summarized why the genetic barriers are real but not proven to be insurmountable. That's really the point of that sectionKww (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paleo-Eskimo

I redirect that to Dorset culture. In part because Paleoeskimo and Palaeoeskimo already redirect there. But also because there appears to be some overlap, especially with the middle Paleoeskimo period and Dorset culture. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are various groups of indigenous arctic peoples that populated the area before the Dorset (and long before the Thule culture, which was the original target). It's better to have a stub that can be expanded than risk confusing people by redirecting to just one of the various cultures.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure why the one of them was a redirect to Thule. Somewhere I saw that there is a preference for one bersion of the spelling over another but I can't remember now which it was. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kubla Khan

Hi. Just checking whether you meant to unprotect the page at the same time, or just mistakenly removed the {{pp-semi-vandalism}} early. Probably unprotect, as it was only getting a few bad edits per week?

That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to remove it, thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chunkey

Thanks for the comments on my chunkey rewrite!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks

Hello. You seem to have repeatedly (1,2) removed a notable and well cited section of the Jordin Sparks article. Although you may feel the controversy behind her statement at the 2008 VMA is "lame" or "gossip", the incident did occur and there was significant coverage of it by reliable sources. I agree that the section has become "mangled", but this is because careless editors have added opinions and uncited information. However, since Wikipedia encourages editors to edit instead of delete, it would be more cooperative of you to revert the section to a previous version. I understand that this may take more time, but that would be much more productive then simply deleting information you may think is "lame", "gossip" or "mangled". Thanks! - Ektar (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that none of that "significant coverage" has made it into the article. It's not our job to unmangle mangled negative comments about living persons, it's our job to remove them when we see them. The current bit about Sparks being "criticized" for her comments does not say who criticized her, and the citation is not done correctly, and it greatly distends this incredibly minor occurrence in relation to other material. It needs to stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"The problem is that none of that "significant coverage" has made it into the article."

What do you mean by this? Look, the "significant coverage" can easily be seen by doing a simple search on Google News.

It's not our job to unmangle mangled negative comments about living persons, it's our job to remove them when we see them.

It may not be your "job" to unmangle things, but, like I said, it certainly is more productive to do so.

The current bit about Sparks being "criticized" for her comments does not say who criticized her, and the citation is not done correctly, and it greatly distends this incredibly minor occurrence in relation to other material. It needs to stay out.

If you were to read the article you would see that fans have criticized her. The direct quote is "While many fans have been supportive of her stance, others have been angered by the implication that those who don't abstain are "sluts"." The citation is done correctly according to wikipedia guidlines (see #2 Footnote). Finally, although you seem to think this is a "minor occurrence" you seem to be unable to prove that it does not meet wikipedia guidelines for notability. Before removing things please at least try and make an argument using something besides opinion to support your belief. -Ektar (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no significant coverage of criticism about Sparks' comments, at least judging by what has been added to the article. I count one single passing comment in one improperly formatted cite to an Australian news website (it is improperly cited, just a link is not a citation). And I fail to see how it could be considered "more productive" of me to rewrite rather than remove improperly cited material about a living person, when that material is of no importance to the topic of the article. As for the WP:GNG guideline you quoted, that has to do with the topic of an article, not the content of the article. That line is of no importance to the a biography, judging by the fact that no other sources have backed it up. If you believe it is in fact important, I would encourage you to find a source that directly discusses the supposed backlash Sparks has received over her comment, and doesn't just make a passing, unattributed reference to it. As it is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person, and needs to stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no significant coverage of criticism about Sparks' comments, at least judging by what has been added to the article. / As for the WP:GNG guideline you quoted, that has to do with the topic of an article, not the content of the article.

Significant coverage is a criteria for or against inclusion, not something which needs to be added to the article. And, yes, in general WP:GNG is a guideline for topics but it is also a guideline for what is worth mentioning within an article or not. If you think there is another guideline for that, PLEASE present it.

I count one single passing comment in one improperly formatted cite to an Australian news website (it is improperly cited, just a link is not a citation)

I gave you a source for various articles in which this is mentioned, did you read any of them? Or do you seriously expect EACH article to be cited for one sentence? And although the citation is not complete, it is not "improper" simply because it doesn't have EVERY attribute a footnote can have.

And I fail to see how it could be considered "more productive" of me to rewrite rather than remove improperly cited material about a living person, when that material is of no importance to the topic of the article.

Obviously your bias against including this is making it hard for you to see this. Obviously the material is of great enough importance that the issue has been big within Entertainment news, as proven by the link you decided to not read.

"That line is of no importance to the a biography, judging by the fact that no other sources have backed it up. / If you believe it is in fact important, I would encourage you to find a source that directly discusses the supposed backlash Sparks has received over her comment, and doesn't just make a passing, unattributed reference to it.

One single passing comment? Once again, did you even check the link I gave you? Exactly how many mentions do you need? [1], [2], [3], [4], this list just goes on and on.

As it is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person, and needs to stay out.

First, saying that it is poorly source does not negate that the source itself IS reliable (no worries though, I'll fix that). Second, NOTHING, especially nothing at WP:BLP, says that you should not include criticism about living people especially when done properly. Third, mentioning that there is a "backlash" (or "criticism" or "anger") against someone's statement is not negative especially when it ACTUALLY happened and the person even responded by saying that she wished had phrased it differently. - Ektar (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

-Ektar (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not look at the link you gave me, user talk is hardly the venue for discussing changes to articles. Why didn't you just correct the article in the first place? It was poorly sourced, controverted material, so I stand by my opinion that it should have been removed as it was. The onus is of users who want to include or re-introduce material to do the work of backing it up. It is now somewhat better, though I still think it greatly overemphasizes a very minor point that ought not be in a biography at all. At any rate the page is off my watchlist now, so good day.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slither

Hi. I've had a quick look at the three cites used for the Night of the Creeps thing. The first doesn't exist; the second notes "similarities" rather than direct influence; the third explicitly agrees with the IP (here): "James Gunn, who defended his film by saying he never saw Night of the Creeps until after his movie was made. He said his main inspiration was David Cronenberg's first film, 1975's Shivers" and "...definitely not a remake of Night of the Creeps, but it does have some parallels... If you really want to see where Slither came from, though, see Shivers, Basket Case (1982), Return of the Alien's Deadly Spawn (1983), Xtro (1983) and Society (1989)." Posted here to avoid unnecessary drama. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better. One thing though, why did you move around the other sections? Is that a style guideline thing?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the IP wasn't me :) I just have the article watchlisted from the big "box office bomb" edit war debate of 2007. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gisela

Hello Cuchullain, how did you establish that Gisela (daughter of Pepin the Short) is the best known Gisela ? Gisela is a common given name in Germany and there are number of other noteworthy Giselas. Inwind (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, she was the earliest, the most important entry at Gisela (disambiguation) (as far as I could tell), and the first to have an article here to my knowledge. However, I mostly reverted you because you left Gisela redirecting to Gisela (daughter of Pepin the Short), in which case there's no need for a longer title. Also, you did not include any link to Gisela (disambiguation) or change that dab page to reflect your move, so readers were left with a bit of a problem. It's not a big deal; the status quo just seemed like the easiest way to fix it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

read deleted material

Hello, can I view the material that was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Minichiello_Williams&action=edit&redlink=1 please. AWT (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to give me (or Travellingcari, who originally deleted the page) a good reason for why you want to see it. As it was originally deleted as an attack page and a BLP violation, and you're the one who wrote it, I am skeptical about why you want to view it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I want to see what information I put into it and completely re-write it (off wikipedia) and then get it authorised by someone like yourself for review before putting it up. I can assure you it will not be an attack article but I would really liek to see the info I used. But, if I did create another horrendous page then ban me. This is the only way I can asure you I will not do that I think. Hop ethis makes sense. AWT (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice. A new article will have to be just that - a new article, and will have to be reliably sourced, give an explanation for why it's notable, and not defamatory, if you hope it to be kept.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's return

Hey there, I've made a contribution to try and re-use some of the material in a more legitimate way; how does it look? ok? All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thomas. It looks much better now, hopefully this will finally convince Enaidmawr. I'll do some polishing work soon to get the article up to concert pitch; I want to get to expanding it as discussed at the talk page soon.

At any rate I hope all is well with you and your research.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all going fine atm - just finished proofing an article for Dumville's new journal. Enaidmawr has made a couple of edits to the piece again, which I wouldn't make, but I'll leave it with you now, unless you want me to weigh in again :) He has some interesting material and I think it would be very appropriate used elsewhere on the page and in wiki (the 'son of prophecy' page, perhaps), but we have to be careful not to read 12th century notions into 9th century texts etc etc. Cheers and all the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. I would def say that 'clear' needs removing - it is not that there is no 'clear' mention of return in the Englynion - there is no mention of it at all: it is only there if you add it from your own consideration of William of Newburgh etc...

removed facts

Hi!

I added a short notice about the Grail in one of Neil Gaiman's short stories under the section Modern retellings. You removed that and I would like to know why. If I have violated some policy about articles I apologise, but please inform me if that is the case.

Kind regards,

Iacobaeus (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was just one mention, I didn't think it was important enough for the article. We can't list every modern retelling (or modern story that uses some aspect of the Grail legend.) It's nothing personal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Criticism of Muhammad article edits

I'd like to invite both you and Peacekeeper-89 to discuss your ongoing "edit war" on the article's talk page to see if perhaps a solution can be found to the current situation, rather than the (in my opinion) pointless back and forth editing that's happening at the moment. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is more a case of reverting linkspam than edit warring. That user has made nearly no constructive edits, especially not to that article; most of his or her edits consist of adding those apologetics sites to that one article. I've responded to you on the talk page, but the links need to stay out until Peacekeeper has justified their inclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

You should make constructive edits rather than vandalizing pages by deleting whole sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjushri222 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's on you as the one introducing or re-introducing the controverted material to source it and make sure it is well written. It's not the job of everyone else to clean up after you, and I certainly don't appreciate my good edits being called "vandalism".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but it is vandalism to try to suppress the truth, why don't you live up to your Irish hero's name? (Manjushri222 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

you are so biased, stop vandalizing the page! (Manjushri222 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)).

Discussion on Aisha's age

Hi Cuchullain. Can you please continue the discussion talk page for "Aisha" so we can resolve the issue? I'd like to have a discussion so we can both agree to something that meets Wikipedia's standards, and move forward. I won't be able to check this page, so it'd be great if you can continue on the talk page. Omer (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I can I will respond to all your points at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: America

I find your actions and edits, obviously in support of a specific version at the 'America' disambiguation page, objectionable.[5][6] This [7] is uncalled for, since it's dealt with on the talk page. As well, please explicitly point out (with links) the consensus which supports the current version -- I suspect you can't or won't. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which version should be preferred. I reverted to the most establish version I could find; the version that was protected on September 28. Notice that as soon as that previous protection expired the page was once again subjected to edit warring, including by you. The only option was to protect the page again. I notice you have engaged in revert warring at that page several times under this IP alone. This time you will have to resolve the issue through discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have an opinion and preference, since you reverted and restored the prior version while invoking consensus which either doesn't exist or which you/others haven't demonstrated. You indicate you restored the 'most establish (sic) version', but just beforehand commented for said editor to "at least get the wording right", without giving any thought that the word change was actually intended. You also neglect that the prior versions prevailed for quite some time beforehand, until you, Kman... and Russ have apparently opted for another version and arguably have edit warred just the same. So, you too will have to explain yourself and, as yet (and particularly as an administrator), haven't. Next time, instead of giving a false impression of impartiality, perhaps you should let someone else intervene. I will edit accordingly. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. It wasn't a matter of enforcing whatever opinion you believe I have, it was a matter of finding the most consensual version I could and protecting the page from the ongoing revert wars. You can believe I protected the wrong version all you wish, but the protection was to stop the pointless revert warring you and others have been engaged in. You can voice your opinion on the talk page; I notice you haven't done that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment has been read. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latinoamerican, again

Would you please stop removing the Globalize tag? Hispanics live across the entire world, including the Philippines, Mexico, and Spain. Latinoamericans live in Latinoamerican societies, like Mexico and Colombia. Stop pushing neologisms.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861727807/hispanic.html

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/latinamerican?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/languages/es/toi_las/?view=uk

http://www.international.ucla.edu/lac/publications/las.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQqtgpqvHL0C&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=%22mexicans+are+americans%22&source=web&ots=d0BhkYu2Ag&sig=auR8b5RYUdDt-JNuD0yI1FmhgwY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Deepstratagem (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not stop removing tags you've placed in bad faith. You are well aware that the US sense of American is not a neologism but a perfectly legitimate use of the word, and the only one common in English. Those articles make it clear they are discussing American topics. If you can think of a better title, suggest that, but your tags are entirely inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on non-English sources

Hello! I wanted to point your attention towards this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#How_exactly_are_foreign_language_sources_verifiable.3F

And I started a new thread here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#When_is_an_.27English_verifiable.27_source_available.3F

I'd appreciate if you can also come on this (second thread), where I want to get other wikipedians' opinions on when is a non-English source admissible and when is it not.

Thanks. Omer (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I will definitely contribute, and hopefully we'll come to a resolution. Thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Horn (legend)

Would you mind taking a look at Red Horn (legend)? There is an editor making POV editions, original research, conflict of interest, etc. He wont respond on the talk page, he just keeps reverting everything I do to maintain the neutrality of the article. I'd justlike a second opinion, and maybe some advice/help dealing with it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll look into. If he won't discuss his changes, then we may have a problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)