Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Matter of Troy

Hi Cuchullain, I need some help, and perhaps you or some friendly and knowledgeable stalker can provide some. I'm working on Aeneas and some related articles, and was a bit surprised to see that Matter of Troy is not an article. I'm no expert on the later Middle Ages, but the term itself is widespread enough even if Jean Bodel does not give it a separate heading: I assume for him it was part of the Matter of Rome, but I have not read Bodel. I think for now I'm going to just make a redirect, and when the spirit moves me I'll make a note in the Rome article. But one question that I have not yet seen answered in the books and articles I looked at (haven't looked at that many): I think I'm right in saying that MofTroy is a subdivision of MofRome--do you agree? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Bodel was certainly thinking of material about Troy when he wrote about the "Matter of Rome". In fact, Troy and Aneas were the most common subjects in what is generally considered the "Matter of Rome". However, I wouldn't say that there was a distinct "Matter of Troy" that was a subdivision of the "Matter of Rome", I don't think that term is common.Cúchullain t/c 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I had heard it as a student, a long, long time ago, and I must have come across it in my reading. Google Books has plenty of mentions; I'm going to look deeper into it in the next couple of days. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It does appear to be fairly common. Sounds good to me. My only real objection would be referring to it as a "subdivision" of the Matter of Rome; the Matter of Rome was very loosely defined, and included works as widely separated in subject matter as the Alexander Romance, the Histoire ancienne jusqu'a Cesar, and the Roman de Thebes. I'd simply say that the Matter of Rome includes the Matter of Troy, or material on the Trojan War and its aftermath.--Cúchullain t/c 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough--thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Move of Black Caviar

Hi good fellow, er, you probably should see this first as closer, potentially sour news. The RM, and therefore the move, may be tainted. This is the complaint about archiving that made me check the Talk archive edits, it looks like the earlier RM was made invisible immediately prior to new RM by a Ho Chi Minh City IP. I'm not sure what other moves are affected. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI thats confirmed several other RMs, Talk:Inter Milan, etc. have the same IP archive bumping prior to RM launch problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:History of Champagne but not moved, Talk:Praha_hlavní_nádraží#IP_set_up_of_MiszaBot_Talk.2FRM_Archiving_prior_to_RM but not moved. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
By and large I'm not seeing much cause for concern here. There is nothing wrong with either archiving or starting new move requests. History of Champagne wasn't even archived until after the second request had closed. At Black Caviar, I was aware of the previous requests and commented on the clear change in consensus in my closing summary, and much of the input came after it was made clear this was the fourth move request.Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing remotely wrong with your close.
No, presumably because History of Champagne falls into the 2nd group of IP edits for future RMs which haven't happened yet. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking through these, it appears that the Ca Mau move is troublesome. Kauffner moved it without discussion here, though the title had been decided through a move request. Said move request had been archived after being tagged by one of the IPs here, giving Kauffner a plausible excuse for not having seen it. If the accounts are connected this is bad juju; if similar issues are present in other moves it's a problem. You may want to consider an WP:ANI report.Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Can I underline please that you mentioned the name of a specific User, I didn't. However, now you've mentioned the name of a User then you may be in a better position to compare articles listed in User:Kauffner/RM incubator with the RM archive resets by the cluster of Ho Chi Minh IPs:

( In ictu oculi (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, this is out of my/your hands now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeking administrator review of User:LFOlsnes-Lea

Yeah, I know I am an admin myself, but, frankly, I suck at putting together statements for AN/I regarding problematic users. The above named editor has on his/her userpage indicated that, after I think three and a half years of college, at least I think that's what s/he means, to have, basically, seems to believe s/he has solved the basic problems of the universe. These solutions, apparently, heavily involve Scientology as per the edit history here, and, perhaps, are not yet met by a similar ability to overcome the basic problems of grammar as Dougweller indicated at User talk:Dougweller/Archive 24#Enthusiasm!!!. The two articles the editor has shown the greatest interest in are Existence of God and Scientology. As you know, all Scientology related content is subject to discretionary sanctions by any uninvolved admin. There has been previous discussion concerning this editor, involving myself, Dougweller, and a few others at User talk:John Carter#Scientology talk page logorrhea and Doug's talk page above. On my talk page, Dougweller goes so far as to indicate he believes that there is a competency problem which justifies a site ban.

I haven't done many discretionary sanctions, so I don't know if a site ban is one of the options. I kind of doubt it, though. Also, as I said at the beginning, I really suck at putting together requests that are reasonably effective. Would it be asking too much of you to review the most recent talk page edits of the above editor for your opinion? John Carter (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly look into it. As far as discretionary sanctions go, this would be possible for Scientology-related articles, but an outright site ban really should be done at a community board. Let me give the situation a look and I'll get back to you.Cúchullain t/c 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply; I got caught up with some things in real life and on Wikipedia. I've reviewed this user's contributions; I believe that a topic ban from Scientology related articles is justified. Especially for the sensitive topic area that is Scientology, there are painfully obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues here, not to mention their evident promotion of the Scientology agenda and their bludgeoning the talk page with their rambling. Considering that they've continued with this pattern of behavior after Doug told them about the discretionary sanctions, I don't see much else to do. I'm happy to bring out the banhammer if that's the direction we want to take. However, if Doug thinks we should pursue an outright site ban I'd like to hear his input first.Cúchullain t/c 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long in replying. Although I think we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here, I'm a bit reluctant to jump to a site ban, which would also mean dragging an editor through a discussion I'm not sure is necessary. The editor may not be interested in any other topics, and if they are, and if they still show the same behavior, then it will be obvious that they haven't learned and a site ban will be appropriate. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. I'll issue a warning today and proceed according to their response.--Cúchullain t/c 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No objections here. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New template

I created a new template for listing old move discussions: {{Oldmoves}}, since I missed having it during the Cote d'Ivoire and other debates. Please take a look and tweak/change/improve. I've added it to a few articles Talk:Queen_Victoria, Talk:Ivory_Coast, Talk:Cần_Thơ as a pilot so you can see what it looks like; if you like it, you can add it to other articles you've worked on. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Robin at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nasrani_Hagbah. Oh, dear. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sergius and Bacchus

A voice of sanity as ever. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Contaldo. Unfortunately with this subject, we're just going to face issues like this periodically.--Cúchullain t/c 12:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dade County

I don't know where Fla.101 got the idea that Dade county is an example of some system of Spanish government lingering in Florida. From our article, "Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1956 that allowed the people of Dade County (as it was known then) to enact a home rule charter. Prior to this year, home rule did not exist in Florida, and all counties were limited to the same set of powers by the Florida Constitution and state law." I was there and remember it happening. Nothing to do with Spain. As for the Spanish not colonising Florida, a rose by any other name shall smell as sweet. Representation in the Cortes or not, Spain colonised Florida. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no clue why they're fixating so much on this, but it's been going on for years. I'd forgotten about the Dade County bit, talk about a stretch. I wonder if the Jacksonville Consolidation was based on Isabella and Ferdinand's unification of Spain?--Cúchullain t/c 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church

Recently many corrections were appearing on this page. At last, you have also made the excising and corrections without any discussion. I know that our web site is using “Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar” in English, but just below that, the translation in Malayalam is “Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church”, as it appears in the approved Constitution of the Church. If you had made the excising and corrections after discussion, it would have been different.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond at the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edouard Deldevez to Édouard Deldevez

Please explain your reasoning for your closure of the requested move Edouard Deldevez to Édouard Deldevez, as you did not give one when closing the debate. -- PBS (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain t/c 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons you gave are "obvious consensus this version is used in English sources, including high quality sources, and it satisfies WP:MOS-FR and other relevant policies and guidelines." Yet in a survey of English language sources used in the last 30 years only two out of dozens of sources used "É" So where do you get the "obvious consensus"? Secondly WP:MOS-FR is not a naming convention it is a MOS guideline which covers content not the title of an article (and so its advise should not be followed), It implies that you are not giving due weight to the article titles policy or following the guidance of WP:ENGLISH (which is also as stated in WP:MOS-FR]), therefore I think you shoudl reconsider you close. -- PBS (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the discussion, your Google Books search results appear flawed. For instance, running the same search you did I get only 18 hits for "Edouard-Deldevez" -"Édouard-Deldevez", about half of which are Wikipedia ripoffs, and at least two more ([1][2]) actually do use the diacritic. One editor found 10 sources available online that use it as well. It's clear this form is widespread in English sources, as such using it meets the relevant guidelines and policies. Beyond that, the consensus was very clear; every other participant agreed with the move.--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
PBS, did you even read what was posted there? You continue to trot out this theory about the two of english-language sources using the accent, but I provided about 10 different books that do so! You do realize that your searches cannot be taken at face value - Google will often return a result for "Edouard Deldevez" that is actually written "Édouard Deldevez" in the sources. OCR is not reliable for accents!!!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you could have run the same search that I did and because the string is complicated I have re-run the search as indicated by the link in the next sentence. The searches I used were based Google book search since 1990 on English text that is visible (Limited preview and full view ) Edouard-Deldevez -Édouard-Deldevez returns about 40 books, a search the other way around returns under 10. That gives a ratio of more than four to one in favour of Edouard-Deldevez (assuming that the number of books to be rejected -- as poor quality, bad string match etc -- in both searches are in the same ratio). -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have anything else to say about this close from over 3 months ago.Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks to some agreement: Gawain

Truly you are my favorite warrior, however, there are different points to his death before the regnum, some might say he vanished with Arthur to Avalon, but, it is not to assume other edits as idiotic, until then Cagwinn should not step into some users who believ it was from earlier sources, let us say we let this one go, however if you do let this one go,there is a source showing it was from Lancelot, however in any case all users must respect sources from earlier documents, or there is not anything "idiotic" as some user's naive opininated fact maybe. Thank you, Cuchullain;).--GoShow (...............) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Door furniture

I don't understand what you meant by "no opportunity for commonality". Door hardware seems to fit the bill, and while a few people suggested that maybe it didn't, the evidence seems clear to me. Powers T 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the statistics and comments of various other participants in the discussion, "door hardware" appears to be substantially less common in British English. I don't see it as an opportunity for commonality, rather a choice between a term that's uncommon in America versus a term that's uncommon in Britain.--Cúchullain t/c 12:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
That's misrepresenting the situation. "Door hardware" may be uncommon in the UK, but "Door furniture" is unheard of in the U.S. -- and ambiguous to boot (as "door furniture" often refers to furniture with doors). WP:COMMONALITY does not say we should choose a term that is common in both countries, but rather a term that is common to both countries. Even if that term is uncommon in one of them, as long as it's used and understood, that makes it superior to a term that is misunderstood in one of the countries. Powers T 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see evidence that "door hardware" is much better known in Britain than "door furniture" is the U.S., nor was there any kind of consensus for your view. The American use is glossed in the lead, which is also part of WP:COMMONALITY.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't strike me as a matter of opinion; it's a matter of facts. I didn't see anyone claim that "door hardware" is unknown in the UK, and Dicklyon's ngrams supported the view that, while uncommon, it's known. "Door furniture", on the other hand, is virtually unknown in the U.S., except where it's used to refer to something completely different. It's confusing and ambiguous, and it should be exchanged for a term that is more widely understood. That's the whole point of WP:COMMONALITY, and I don't understand why you insist on ignoring it. Powers T 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
That's really not the way to speak to someone you're trying to convince of your viewpoint.--Cúchullain t/c 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize that my tone came across poorly. I'm just trying to understand why you don't see the facts the same way I do. To me, WP:COMMONNALITY is quite clear on which we should choose. Powers T 13:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. However I don't see evidence that "door hardware" is all that much more common in the UK than "door furniture is in the US, to the point of being a "universally used term". Additionally, there just wasn't consensus in the discussion for that view. WP:COMMONALITY offers the additional remedy of glossing potentially confusing terms, which is done here.Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
With due respect, I think you're misreading the discussion. Only two editors explicitly opposed the move. Of them, Zzyzx11 predicated his/her oppose on "unless there is a suggestion for commonality". At least two readers suggested such commonality, and Zzyzx11 never returned to express an opinion one way or another on that. The other opposer was Zarcadia, who appears to have misinterpreted WP:COMMONALITY to mean that a title should be common in both countries, rather than common to both countries. You closed the discussion before I could question Zarcadia on that point. As for Dicklyon, he never explictly opposed, and his ngram evidence is flawed for reasons I pointed out in the discussion (and no one refuted). Powers T 14:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
By that token, only one other editor explicitly agreed with you on the commonality point. I respect your opinion, but I stand by my closure.--Cúchullain t/c 13:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't see a question of opinion here; we are discussing facts. As far as I can tell, the facts are that "door furniture" is never used to refer to this subject in the U.S., while "door hardware" is uncommonly used in the UK but at least understood to refer to the topic at hand. This is my understanding of the facts, and those facts, along with the guidance at WP:COMMONALITY, clearly point to choosing the common term over the unilateral one. What part of that reasoning do you dispute? Powers T 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As I explained, I don't see evidence that "door hardware" is significantly more common in the UK than "door furniture" is in the US, enough for to be a "universally used term". Nor was there consensus that this was the case.--Cúchullain t/c 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be "universal": "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences". "Door furniture" has a different meaning in the U.S. than the one intended; thus we should use a phrase that is understood (even if not common) in the UK and the U.S. It doesn't have to be "significantly" more common, just understood. Powers T 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"Universally used terms" is the language used in the guideline. Once again, I simply see no evidence your term is really much more "understood" in Britain than the current version is in America. I think I've said all I can say on the matter.Cúchullain t/c 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Baylor-TCU rivalry

I'm sorry if I was haste in moving Baylor–TCU football rivalry. This was the first article that I have requested a move for and I wasn't sure of what to do in the situation. From the get go I should have been bold and moved the article to it's present title. Another user asked why I couldn't have been bold. Reviewing the evidence I listed above in the move talk, I went ahead with the move. Looking back I should have let another user move the page.--Southronite (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. In that case the consensus was clear the move was appropriate, however with formal move requests there's a formal procedure for closure and it shouldn't be done by someone involved in the discussion. A move request isn't needed in cases where the move is uncontroversial (considering it drew some opposition it was probably better this one went through the discussion), but once they're started it's better to let the process proceed.--Cúchullain t/c 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom locations: Bla-Blac

Perhaps the Blacktonians of the UK are happy to move to Australia. Happens every time the dab is removed from EL Oz articles. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was already happening, as Blacktown was a redirect to the Australian town, not a dab page. At any rate I've changed the link to Blacktown, Newport; if you notice anymore let me know.--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Iowa State–Kansas State football rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for the page move on Jenna Bush Hager. JOJ Hutton 15:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you, Jojhutton. I think it was a fairly open and shut case though.--Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wachowskis

Could you help me out? I am trying to understand your recent behavior relating to The Wachowskis.

  • Why are you disregarding the plain meaning of MOS:IDENTITY? As has been pointed out to you twice[3][4], the noun you insist on using to refer to Lana is a gendered noun.
  • Why did you tell me to "continue the discussion on the talk page" "instead of reverting"[5], when I edited The Wachowskis only after you ignored what was my most recent edit[6] to to Talk:The Wachowskis? If you are going to evade dialogue, I can hardly be blamed for not talking to you, especially when you persistently violate the MOS.
  • Why are you characterizing my position as one of wanting to "avoid"[7] proper names altogether? I simply want to avoiding using a name that is not Lana's name to refer to Lana. As I have already told you[8], I would be happy to allow edits that indicate what Lana's former name was without referring to her as such; indeed this is what a number of editors have already done.

I log in to Wikipedia believing that every editor I encounter wants to make good faith edits and is willing to work with me and other editors in a spirit of compromise. Please do not abuse my trust.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia here, and I'm very happy to work with you to resolve the issue.
The crux of it is just that there's a miscommunication about what a "gendered noun" is, and what MOS:IDENTITY actually says. A personal name is not a gendered noun, and does not need to be avoided. That's simply not the intention of the MOS. If you need clarification from someone else on that point, I'm sure we can get it.
With that taken into account, your change just doesn't flow properly. Sources did not begin reporting that Lana was transitioning; the name Lana did not appear in the media until after that point. The reports say that the person known at that point as Larry Wachowski was transitioning, after which point she started using the name Lana. Your phrasing is bound to be confusing to readers. If you can come up with some compromise wording, I'm sure we can work something out that will be suitable to all parties.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
In other words, the issue of the name change would be the same even in cases where there is no issue of gender. For instance women who change their name when they get married. One would not say that "media began reporting that Portia DeGeneres married Ellen DeGeneres in 2008", one says "media began reporting that Portia de Rossi married Ellen DeGeneres in 2008, subsequently taking the name Portia DeGeneres".--Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter/Pedro III

  • Hi, this is a mass-produced message which means it may duplicate a message already on your Talk:page. As a result of the lack of reference to specific sources or guidelines such as WP:SOVEREIGN, User:Qwyrxian closed the RM at Talk:Peter III of Portugal but said a new RM could be started if new evidence was presented. This I have done after discussion with Qwyrxian and User:Lecen. This means that your previous support or oppose will not be counted, and must be resubmitted. However please note Qwyrxian's request that support/oppose be made with reference to specific arguments guidelines or sources, and (quote) especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, (unquote). Thanks for your time. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A Banstar for you

The Barnstar of Integrity
I was not particularly interested in adding the ACTA material myself to Higher education accreditation in the United States. My real concern was in not allowing a purely POV edit to remove that "slimy right-wing" organization from being cited in the article. Thank you so much for your acceptance of Leef as RS, and then going that important step further in providing counter-views to give proper weight. Well done.‎ S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Why thank you, Rich. All in a day's work.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Adams (sailor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merchant seaman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Company of Merchants Trading to Africa

Hello. I noticed that you recently created a redirect, Company of Merchants Trading to Africa. However, the redirect is broken, in that it redirects to itself. I have been unable to determine the intended target, otherwise I would have fixed it myself. Please could you take a look? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The correct article was African Company of Merchants.--Cúchullain t/c 21:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wdchk's talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

de Soto

Thanks for the semiprotect. Cheers, Heiro 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Communist Russia Redirect

There's a discussion about what the target of Communist Russia should be at Talk:Soviet Union#Communist Russia Redirect. You created the redirect so the discussion might be of interest to you. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Wolfkeeper sock?

Since you're more familiar with him, perhaps you care to comment at the latest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tijfo, I'll look into it.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Kevlar (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Constantine of Dumnonia

Hey there,

I deleted your statement that King Constantine of Dumnonia was a "minor" king. What proof do you have of him actually being a "minor" king? I am at the moment doing a research about him. We can not with certainty say if he alone ruled Dumnonia or if there was other kings in Dumnonia during this time. Dumnonia was a big kingdom during the time when Gildas wrote. So what proof do you have of him being a "minor" king? This is why I removed that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonde (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bonde. The sources characterize Constantine as minor figure; historically speaking, he's known only through Gildas and while Dumnonia may have been a large area very little is known about it in this period. It's not even known with total certainty that Constantine's "Damnonia" was Dumnonia. In contrast, there are a number of references to contemporaries like Maelgwn Gwynedd, suggesting he have been a more major figure.--Cúchullain t/c 15:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What other "sources"? The only contemporary source that mentions him is Gildas. I am doing a research on that work at this very moment. I agree on the other things that you mention here. Charles Thomas has written this about the king "Nothing is known of his life and career, geographically; it is impossible to say if this man ever used Tintagel Island or indeed if in the sixth century all of Dumnonia had a single ruler". This is on page 102 in Charles Thomas, Tintagel, Arthur and Archeology, English Heritage, London 1993. The King might have ruled as you say "large area" or there might have other kings as well. If he ruled Dumnonia alone he was not a king of a minor area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonde (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant the secondary sources (Lloyd, Bromwich, etc.) It's possible he may have ruled a fairly large area, but there's certainly no evidence of it. I would prefer we leave in the "minor king" reference, since he is, well, a minor figure.--Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Userbox question

Master Cuchallain, how does one but all his/her Userboxes in one area, as you have? --Bombadil.Esquire (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've messed with it, but the way I did it was placing a {{Boxboxtop|Userboxes}} template above the userboxes and a {{Boxboxbottom}} template below them.--Cúchullain t/c 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain

I'll leave the rest of the edit for later as I am busy right now. I am concerned that we don't have any primary sources to verify parts of the article. However - the category Roman Catholic saints is superfluous, given that they are already listed under their respective nationality. Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing that category is fine, now that you've explained why. For the rest of it, Wikipedia doesn't rely on primary sources, it relies on secondary sources written by the experts on the topic, and there were plenty of those in the content you removed. If you have further concerns, please bring them up on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 17:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luis Cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vera Cruz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nepalese Sign Language

Hi,

Could you give your reason for the move? You just said "per discussion", but there wasn't much reason in the discussion. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see: "more common". Maybe. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's right, though I said evidently more common. Based on the Google Books stats offered by DrKiernan in the discussion, the proposed title appeared to be significantly more common.--Cúchullain t/c 13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
He didn't link to his search results, so they're impossible to confirm. I can't replicate them: I get 24 hits for Nepali SL on GBooks,[9] and 16 for Nepalese,[10] which given the small number is probably not a significant difference. I can't get his results even by leaving out the quotes. And, as I noted, several RS's use "Nepalese" when speaking of Nepalese languages other than Nepali. You can confirm that on Gbooks, with a larger sample return than for the SL: "Nepali languages" almost always gets you a list of languages including Nepali, whereas "Nepalese languages" almost always gets you the languages of Nepal. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
These are my results: 783 vs. 49. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Those are the numbers I see too.--Cúchullain t/c 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
But those are the same results I got! They're just 24 and 16. You can't believe the numbers that pop up immediately: page forward until you come to the end of them. If you're at Google: Books, it will claim 783 and 49, and if you're instead at Books.Google it will number the same results as 29 and 18; either way, if you page to the end you'll find there are only 24 and 16 actual hits. There have been multiple demonstrations in RfC, RfM, MOS and ANI discussions of how Google search numbers are largely worthless. (For example, a more restrictive search may return more hits than a less restrictive search.) — kwami (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Working out the statistics, the number for 'Nepali' is greater than 'Nepalese' to 1σ. That is, there's about a 68% chance that 'Nepali Sign Language' is more common than 'Nepalese Sign Language'. That's not much of a claim. Better to go with sources. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No matter how you look at it, it appears "Nepali Sign Language" is more common. Even by your Gbooks numbers "Nepali Sign Language" is more common by a third again. About the same for Google Scholar ([11] vs. [12]) As far as sources go, both forms are obviously used, but as a gauge, my university's library has 14 hits for "Nepali Sign Language", versus 3 for "Nepalese Sign Language" (and two of those also turn up in the first search.) It looks to me like "nepali Sign Language" is more common by nearly any measure.--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the GBooks numbers indicate there is only a 70% chance that "Nepali" is more common. (I haven't done the stats for the others.) More to the point, we generally go by RS's, not raw GBook results. My point was that RS's use both names, but one is ambiguous and the other unambiguous. There's more to naming articles that just choosing whichever name may be marginally more common, assuming it even is more common. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "Nepali Sign Language" is ambiguous, at least not to the point that it should be avoided. As for which is more common, again, that appears to be "Nepali Sign Language" by any measure. I haven't seen anything suggesting that "Nepalese Sign Language" is as common or more common.Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The GBook search results you cited indicate that it could be as common: the results only differ by one standard deviation, which means there is only a 70% chance that Nepali is more common than Nepalese. There is a 30% chance that Nepalese is more common.
As for ambiguity, please note the numerous linguistic RSs which distinguish "Nepali" from "Nepalese", including journals of Nepalese linguistic organizations. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I certainly respect your knowledge of linguistics, but I remain convinced that "Nepali Sign Language" is the evident most appropriate title.Cúchullain t/c 23:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cerne Abbas Giant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gillingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football: "State Championships"

Your opinion is hereby requested: Talk:Florida Gators football#"State Championships". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gawain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Berger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Tech move

I have taken the issue to ANI for a community-wide decision and request the page be moved back pending the outcome of that discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not going to move the article back now, as I stand by my close, but I'm happy to accept whatever is decided in a review. However, I wish you'd spoken to me, and I'd suggest Move Review will be a better venue than ANI for a discussion of this nature.--Cúchullain t/c 16:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that MR is an appropriate forum: it's one of WP's ultimate backwaters, and this bold move deserves a wider discussion. MR asks that the discussion first take place with the editor who made the move. I do disagree with your move rationale: four editors do not represent an overwhelming consensus, and the bold move is inconsistent with our naming consensus for other "Techs." Rutgers is an exception that effectively proves the rule. Please see my comments at Talk:Virginia Tech. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that the ANI thread has been closed already, that's clearly not the better forum for this discussion. I also don't think that following that discussion and considering the applicable policies and guidelines that this can be characterized as a "bold move". I'll try to explain the rationale a bit more over at the talk page, so that it will be seen by more editors.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
While we both agree that ANI isn't the place for this discussion, given the controversy a while ago about "Pennsylvania State University" versus "The Pennsylvania State University" (should it be moved to "Penn State"?), or worse yet "the Beatles" versus "The Beatles", I'd call this move bold :). Naming issues are often the most intractable problems on WP, and I'm concerned that this one should have been exposed to a broader audience before being closed. I appreciate your willingness to discuss, and I'll look in at Talk:Virginia Tech. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hampton Catlin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hampton Catlin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Um

I hope you won't mind a very small cough, you are one of the most balanced editors/admins I see around, but this was a tad rough. I might also think such fuss over non-existent TV character's names is a waste of time, but you can't deny George Ho loves his TV articles, he's been all over that one improving it with refs and edits. Hope you don't mind me saying, for most users/editors I wouldn't cough. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, In ictu. My language may have been a bit terse, but that's his third RM at that article in 4 months (and he started it immediately after the previous one ended), and it has absolutely no hope of reaching a different outcome. As you know, I don't have much patience for frivolous use of the process. I do appreciate the work he's put into the article.--Cúchullain t/c 13:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I get it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of this, I'm pleased that there are currently no RMs in the backlog intended to fix surreptitious moves involving Vietnamese diacritics. As this has been a rare occurrence over the last several months, it's refreshing.Cúchullain t/c 15:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Which means either that no surreptitious moves are happening, or that I and a couple of others got the message from Labattblueboy taking it to ANI that editors consider RMs to revert surreptitious moves more disruptive than just turning a blind eye. I wonder which it is? ;). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the takeaway from that was that anyone making diacritics moves without discussion should be avoided. If there are more surreptitious moves (which I don't doubt), starting RMs discussions to correct them is still fine and I don't think anyone objects to that. I have no idea how Kauffner came out of that with no action; he has a charmed life despite his actions being monumentally disruptive to the encyclopedia.Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football

Hey, Cooch, I need some help. There are three separate users inserting problematic, unsourced text into the article regarding the vacated 1984 SEC championship, the purported SEC "championships" in 1985 and 1990 when the Gators were on NCAA probation and therefore ineligible, and the unclaimed, non-consensus, minority poll national "championships" in 1984 and 1985. Of course, none of these "championships" are claimed by the University Athletic Association, nor even winked at. As I'm sure you know, AD Jeremy Foley has run a tight ship, and the university and UAA now pride themselves on stringent NCAA compliance. It bears mentioning that the current 2012 Florida Football Media Guide does not in any way, shape or form lay claim to any of these "championships."

These three editors include the same guy who was trying to insert "state championships," a newly registered user with no prior edits, and a random IP user. I strongly suspect that the first two users (and perhaps all three) are really sock puppets of the same person. There has been a recent pattern of newly registered users making edits to college football rivalry and team articles, following the pattern of a previously banned sock puppet. Among other things, there is a pattern of inserting unsourced material and altering the colors used in the rivalry series records tables. All of these accounts are recently created, and non edit at the same time. Not exactly conclusive, I know, but . . . .

In any event, these editors seem determined to insert dubious material into the article. I am bumping up against the 3RR Rule, and will shortly have exhausted my allotted reversions. I am leaving messages on the user talk pages, but I do not expect the users to engage, because that has not been the pattern. I ask that you keep an eye on the article, give the appropriate warning, semi-protect it as necessary, and take other action you think appropriate.

Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it and comment over there.Cúchullain t/c 02:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've got one of them, Skn95, talking on his user talk page. He may be a legitimate alum who just wandered in. I'm still convinced that User:Ufbcschamps960608, User:Timtebow4he15man2007 and several others editing college football rivalry articles are all sock puppets. I've been watching these others for over a month; I'll get back to you with more concrete patterns in the next few days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The 99.22.65.123 is clearly Skn95, but it appears to me that Ufbcschamps960608 is a different user. They edited different parts of the article. It may be that Ufbcschamps, and potentially other accounts, are reincarnations of someone else; if you have evidence we may need to start an SPI.Cúchullain t/c 03:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fetch (folklore), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wraith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians

Hi,

I know that some of my contributions to STC have POV issues. I request your kind action to clean up the article, if you have some time to spare for this purpose. With regards AshLey Msg 13:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Is there anything specific you have in mind?--Cúchullain t/c 13:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida Gators football: Self-revert

Cooch, I have self-reverted my last change to the Florida Gators football article to remove the 3RR violation: [13]. I trust that you will make the necessary factual correction, because I don't want to be perceived as being cute, clever, or cavalier about following the rule (even though we are now outside the 3RR 24-hour window). Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I've re-reverted out the challenged material.--Cúchullain t/c 20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida college football "state championships"

Cooch, our friend is now adding this unsourced "state championship" nonsense to the Miami Hurricanes football and Florida State Seminoles football articles. I have removed the unsourced content from the Florida, Florida State and Miami football articles, but I have little doubt that User:Ufbcschamps960608 / User:Timtebow4he15man2007 will be back. As I mentioned before, I am convinced that these two users are really sock puppets of one and the same person. I also believe this same individual is using a veritable sock farm to edit various other college football rivalry articles. I am gathering the other user names and evidence, but I think we can start with these two accounts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see some similarities in what and how they edit. Perhaps an SPI is in order.--Cúchullain t/c 13:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Probable CFB sock puppets

User:Ufbcschamps960608 (November 18, 2012 – November 27, 2012)

  • No user page
  • No communication with other editors
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of CFB series record tables

User:Timtebow4he15man2007 (May 20, 2012 – November 16, 2012)

  • No user page
  • No communication with other editors
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of CFB series record tables

User:NyteLyfe14 (October 21, 2012 – November 25, 2012)

  • No user page
  • No communication with other editors
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of CFB series record tables

User:Gr8ass (November 14, 2012 – November 25, 2012)

  • No user page; oddly, "User:Gr8ass" cannot be found be using the search function, perhaps because user does not have a user page or user talk page. May access user's edit history through the revision history page of the Auburn Tigers football article
  • No communication with other editors
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of CFB series record tables

User:Bt8257 (September 25, 2012 – November 25, 2012)

  • No user page
  • Communication with other editors only initiated by others
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of CFB series record tables
  • Previously blocked for sock puppet activities under multiple user names and IP addresses on October 7, 2012 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bt8257/Archive); master account later unblocked by admin AuburnPilot
  • There are multiple other blocked socks, both user accounts and IP addresses, listed in the SPI for Bt8257

User:Nuggets56 (September 9, 2012 – September 28, 2012)

  • Blocked sock puppet of of User:Bt8257

User:108.227.117.39 (June 23, 2012 – November 17, 2012)

  • No user page
  • Communication with other editors only initiated by others
  • History of editing college football rivalry articles
  • History of changing established colors of templates and CFB series record tables
  • Previously blocked for inappropriate article moves involving CFB rivalries

Key points of commonality among the probable sock puppet accounts:

  • Immediate pattern of editing college football rivalry articles, which are fairly obscure, off-the-beaten-path CFB articles
  • History of editing established template and table colors -- not a sign of a novice editor with a newly created account
  • In many instances, history of editing the same articles over time
  • Usually does not create a user page
  • Does not initiate talk page communication, and usually fails to respond when other editors do
  • Usually does not include an edit summary
  • Similarity of naming patterns for user accounts

It is possible that these are not the same person, or that other precocious newbies have been caught in the same net. I suppose there is also an outside chance that we are dealing with TWO different sockmasters farming the same acreage. It's probably more likely, however, that these are just the tip of the iceberg, and that the same sockmaster has other sock puppet accounts that I have not found yet. Based on the evidence presented in the SPI for User:Bt8257, any IP address based in the Seattle/Bremerton/Tacoma area of Washington state, and following any of these editing patterns, should be deemed "suspect." Given the multiple IP addresses in multiple towns, that particular sockmaster was mobile. If this is a single person, and/or the same person as User:Bt8257, he is certainly displaying signs of obsessive behavior and is unlikely to stop until all avenues for Wikipedia editing are blocked.

I will follow your lead on initiating an SPI. I'm a complete SPI noob, but I can follow editing patterns and other obvious evidence trails pretty easily. Ultimately, this will probably require Checkuser to resolve whether these are all related socks, and to determine if there are other related socks we are missing. I will continue to search through the edit histories of other CFB rivalry articles to see what else I might discover. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like time to reopen the Bt8257 SPI. I'll get on arranging it based on your input.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I reopened the SPI here. You may need to add some diffs demonstrating a link between these accounts and Bt8257, and that this behavior is disruptive.--Cúchullain t/c 19:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we caught us some sock puppet, Cooch. All of the named users were implicated, EXCEPT Bt8257. Instead, through connections to a sock we missed (User:NewLife512), it appears that another notorious sockmaster (DragoLink08) is implicated as the culprit. Interesting stuff. If I had the spare time, I might sign up to be a full-time sock hunter. Not as much fun as playing Whack-a-Mole, but almost. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Some good detective work here, folks. I've reported several DragoLink08 socks myself but never dug up so many at once! JohnInDC (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to join the hunt, John. I'm still poring through college football rivalry articles looking for more of the same patterns that led me to finger this herd. I have noticed that Drago's MO seems to be evolving. He is now editing more team and player articles than he once did. What made him so easy to follow in the past was that he focused so heavily on messing with the colors of the coach and team navboxes. In these present incarnations, he was messing with the colors of some of the CFB rivalry record tables, but he found new ways to be disruptive by inserting incorrect and unsourced text that also had NPOV problems. He still does not respond to user or article talk page queries, one of his previous hallmarks, and almost always omits edit summaries of any kind.
BTW, I just recently created a declared alternate account so I could compile a separate watch list for the 700 or so U.S. Olympic swimmer articles I've been chewing on since the 2012 Olympics. It might be worth creating a similar alternate account and watch list for CFB rivalry articles and CFB navboxes so we can track Drago's future activities more easily. Drago previously drove Jrcla2 to distraction with his constant changes to the established team color schemes of the CFB and CBB navboxes. Jrcla spent a lot of time tracking and reverting Drago and his previous socks. If history has shown anything, it's that this OCD sockmaster will be back----and he's probably still here in some form that we haven't recognized yet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. He's like a mutating virus or something, gets past our defenses by looking like something else! I'll take a look at the newer style edits and learn the pattern. He's a pill, that's for sure; on the plus side, once he starts up on something, he's pretty easy to spot - JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly OCD, John, but he's not stupid by any means. And not all of his work is unconstructive or disruptive. One grand constant: he always returns to sports team color schemes eventually. I've started to set up the new Drago watch list under my new alternate account, "Dirtlawyer3: Sock Hunter," and I have already added all of the accounts used by his six most recent socks. I will also add the most heavily edited articles from his previous incarnations, too. When he starts editing again, his new socks should stand out like a sore thumb on the new watch list . . . all I have to do is check the list every few days. It goes without saying that I am adding all of the CFB rivalry articles and all of the CFB coach and team navboxes. He can't stay away; this stuff is like OCD catnip to him.

Oh, by the way, here's a weird twist for you: he's also into all of the female cartoon characters from the Japanese anime shows. There aren't many of those editing American college football articles. ~LOL~ Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work all around. Hopefully we'll get some reprieve from the disruption now!Cúchullain t/c 05:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro

Here has not been decided that the article is moved Talk:Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. He should have stayed an old title--Sokac121 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the reason for the move was that this form is evidently used in the one up-to-date source in the article.Cúchullain t/c 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_20&oldid=1257488803"