User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

Disruptive move renomination of 43rd Canadian federal election

You just closed this nomination and it's already been renominated by the same nominator in contempt of your closure and consensus. We need an administrator to deal with this disruptive nomination. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ribbet32. I've closed the second discussion and added a lengthy summary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I dispute this close. I would like to query under what grounds it has been made. AusLondonder (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How does the current title "better suit the spirit of WP:NC-GAL" when WP:NC-GAL states "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election"? AusLondonder (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave a lengthy explanation of the close. In the two discussions, several editors made several compelling arguments against the proposal, arguing for the present wording as more common, more precise, and more in line with how other articles on Canadian federal elections have been handled. It's also not so dissimilar to "Next Irish general election" that it's can't pass as "a form similar to" that phrasing. This is what I mean by "the spirit of WP:NC-GAL and the practice at related articles (ie, previous Canadian elections)".--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION states "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria". Canadian federal election, 2015 is the title not 42nd Canadian federal election. This was a procedurally flawed joke of a debate. However, what I do dispute is the speedy close and I again ask what criteria or policy that was done under. AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I explained why I closed the discussion abruptly in my summary: "There's no hard-and-fast rule about when a new RM can be started, but in general it's best to wait a fair period of time, or until some new development occurs. Clearly, the various commenters below feel this request is too soon and unproductive." What I didn't say was that participants reasonably felt the RM was disruptive, and that isn't acceptable even if you think your interpretation of the naming convention is correct.

The appropriate vehicle for challenging an RM close is not to start another RM, but discuss with the closer. If you're not satisfied, as I said in my close, move review is an option. Another would be waiting for a period of time - there's no set rule, but usually a few months is good - and opening a fresh RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Move review for 43rd Canadian federal election

An editor has asked for a Move review of 43rd Canadian federal election. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. AusLondonder (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Essex (1799 whaleship)

Hi Cuchullain, your move was totally unnecessary and disruptive. There are four American whaleships named Essex in the American National Maritime Digital Library's database. I don't have all my files at hand so I can't look up how many English whaleships were named Essex. Your move impeded anyone from creating a disambig page listing all the whaleships by that name, or later producing an article on one of them. It is just poor form to make a specific name a generic name. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Acad Ronin: I certainly didn't mean to upset you, and I can't see how the move could be "disruptive". Per WP:DAB, we disambiguate topics that are covered by Wikipedia, not all topics that exist. There were no other articles on whaleships named "Essex", and Essex (whaleship) still redirected to the article, meaning anyone who typed in or clicked on that phrase would be coming here regardless. There can't be a dab page until there are other articles to disambiguate from, otherwise we're just throwing roadblocks in readers' way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Williston station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway (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) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Fly Like an Eagle, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Kindly correct the citation error

Would you be kind enough to correct the citation error in Mar Thoma Syrian Church

The Mar Thoma Syrian Church or Mar Thoma Church is a Christian denomination based in the state of Kerala, India. Its members are part of the one of the Saint Thomas Christian community, which traces its origins to the missionary activity of Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century.Gregorios, Paulos; Roberson, Ronald G. (2008). "Syrian Orthodox Churches in India". In Fahlbusch, Erwin; Lochman, Jan Milič; Mbiti, John; Pelikan, Jaroslav; Vischer, Lukas. The Encyclopedia of Christianity 5. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 285–286. ISBN 0-8028-2417-X. Retrieved March 29, 2010.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.22.201 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma Church

Can you help with Fasts, Lents and Festivals of Marthoma Church, it seems having issues with formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.201.190 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron Munro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction (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) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Contest Move of Tigray-Tigrinya people

I would like to contest the move. As one of the main editors of the original page I did not see the request. (My fault of course) I apologize that I did not previously see this move request. This move request discussion did not incorporate prior move discussions regarding the title of the page. The page discusses a culture group. The culture group incorporates multiple geographic regions and multiple dialects of a single language. The most comprehensive of the culture group. As you can see with this ngram analysis (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tigrinya+people%2CTigrayan+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CTigrayan%20people%3B%2Cc0) Tigrinya is more common than Tigrayan people or Tigray people. Reading the previous discussion it is clear that "Tigrayan" only refers to a person from Tigray who as a set have a distinct history from the set beyond Tigray (e.g. in Eritrea). If this move is not made, to prevent confusion with a substantial subset of Tigrinya people, a new page should be started. Merhawie (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Merhawie: Well, someone has opened a new RM already, so it's too late to revisit the previous discussion. My recommendation would be to participate in the new RM and make the case for a new name there. It does appear that the previous hyphenated name is uncommon, however.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was the user who opened up the RM, however it was only done because Cúchullain rejected my objection to the move and insisted that I open up a new RM. If it helps I fully support contesting the initial move. Mesfin (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mesfin, what I did was revert your unilateral move that came immediately after the move discussion. You didn't broach the subject with me or on the talk page prior to starting the new RM. what I'd suggest at this point is that you close the RM, determine what the most common name is in the sources (clearly the hyphenated name is not common), and make your case in a new RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1) At no time did I edit the page nor did I move anything in the last few years; it is clear that you are referring to another. 2) Yes, I did broach the subject with you on the talk page (prior to starting the new RM). My objection was dismissed and I was told to create a new consensus, thus the following RM. Mesfin (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, yes, I mistook you for the editor who moved the page after the RM. things get hard to stay on top of when this happens. However, there does need to be a new consensus as the last one was fairly clear against the hyphenated title. It appears that Merhawie has a different suggestion entirely. I recommend coming together and figuring out which of the options is really most commonly used in the sources before proceeding.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VANDALS

Looking for an admin on duty: if you could stop by here and hand out some indefinite blocks, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Quis separabit? 17:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of already. Thanks anyway. Quis separabit? 17:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

glad to hear it. Sorry, I haven't been near my computer much today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Joaquin Street station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakersfield station (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) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Callahan (character)

Hi - thanks for closing this one. The photographer was clearly not the primarytopic of "Harry Callahan". As for the character article, though, would you explain how you found no consensus? Looks to me like there were four people explicitly in favor of that half of the RM, two or three neutral, and only one (In ictu) explicitly opposed. The IP really only seemed opposed to the photographer half of the RM ("Even if you move the character..."), and one of the neutrals was open to the character article move ("I see the logic"). Thanks for your response. Dohn joe (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

On review I've changed that part of it to "move". It does appear that there was little actual opposition, and a fair amount of support. Thanks for the comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Real Robot title

Hi. Since you participated in a recently closed (no consensus) move discussion for Real Robot, I’m just notifying you of an RFC on that title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please clean up the links when you move pages

Hello Cuchullain, could you keep in mind to clean up the links when you're moving pages, e.g. as for Lodi Railway Station. Thanks, --Midas02 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to get as many as I could but most incoming links were tied to templates that had in fact been updated. I've moved several more this morning; those that are still showing up seem to be template links, which are beyond my ability to fix.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] --Midas02 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks, Midas02.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Subbotniks

Hi Cuchllain, thank you for correcting the name at Subbotniks. I have recently become interested in the topic because it seems there are some mis-categorizations on wikipedia. As you noted in your recent etids there, Subbotniki is nothing but the Russian word for Sabbatarian Christians and I have discovered that most commonly when I ask a Russian about Subbotniks they consider one is talking about Seventh Day Adventists. Russian Subbotnik is the term one needs to clarify when one is not talking about any other Sabbatarian group but specifically the Subbatarians which evolved from Russia's native Molokan Spiritual Christianity otherwise known as Karaite-Subbotniks. Reading through the works of A. Lvov and Velvl Chernin I have discovered that until the 1800s there were no Talmudist Sabbatarians in Russia but that after Catherine the Great annexed lands where there were large numbers of Jews living, some groups of Sabbatarians in Russia began to be interested in the Talmud and eventually evolved into a group called Subbotnik Gers (converts) who until relatively recently were not considered to be real Jews by the majority of Jewish communities. The Subbotnik article still needs therefore a lot of disambiguation to sort out which groups are being referred to. Would you be interested in working with me to help disambiguate that page? YuHuw (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look, but I really don't know much about the subject. I wouldn't want to change links to wrong articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

When shall I re-propose the move? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs, I think the default answer is six months.

Personally, George, I have come close to commenting, but I think the phrasing is interchangeably

"It's the (End of the World) as We Know It" &

"It's the End of the (World as We Know It)"

and the classification of the word "as" is different in the two. i.e. It is a question without a defined answer. I think there is a defined class of such questions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, you should wait at least several months before opening a new RM, especially if you're just going to propose the same thing. It sounded like there was a lack of agreement about what the MOS really recommends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 March

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

• On the A Misfortune page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More MOS:DAB edits

I've cleaned up some more of your edits to dab pages. Rather that go through everything, please just look back at the changes (and of course, please correct any errors I or others have made). A few points:

• Don't forget the piping per MOS:DABPIPING (you neglected it at Alesta[2])
• Make sure to put entries in a sensible order per MOS:DABORDER. In general, topics with clarifiers in parentheses go first, followed by clarifiers with commas (ie place names), articles with the item as part of the name, and finally synonyms. Within groups stick to some order (importance, alphabetical, chronological, etc).
• Again, for blue links within the explanatory text instead of the entry name, pipe and format as you would in an article. For example, ""Villain", a 2005 song by Hedley from Hedley" rather than """Villain", a song by Hedley from Hedley (album)."
• Per WP:DABENTRY, entries should be in the form of a sentence fragment - so for instance, "Lush Life, a 2000 album by Bowery Electric" rather than "Lush Life, album by Bowery Electric 2000" (though for whatever reason, we don't include "a" or "an" for people per MOS:DABPEOPLE).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this, I will check on your Talk page for further encouragement and support. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Self-balancing two-wheeled board

Hi there, on this RM, you closed it saying "the only thing clear is that there's no consensus for the move at this time". However, employing a simple vote count, I see three clear supports (including the nominator) for the move (disregarding differences in case), and just one clear oppose. The other oppose is objecting mainly to the use of title case, without expressing a definitive opinion as to whether the move itself (if it were made to sentence case) is justified. By that token, it is certainly not clear that there is no consensus, and I think a more thorough examination of the arguments is required. The current title is not commonly used anywhere, whereas the proposed one is quite commonly used, and has the support of the majority of the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to add, but I'll reopen the RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Cuchullain, I object to this reopen. Users have already weighed in during a more than reasonable (in fact, an extremely lengthy open) period and there was ample time for "questions" from the date of the user-in-question's "oppose" vote way back on February 1 - over 2 months ago! Yet suddenly now there's a question? What's more, if we're now analyzing and parsing votes, one vote was simply the word "Agree," with no further commentary. Hardly as "clear" a vote as it's been characterized. In fact, the nominator never even weighed in to discuss/defend their motion once the debate began. But one vote was "strongly disagree" while the other was "Oppose current proposal." Both can only be interpreted as clear opposition. In fact, the user who requested this reopen has yet to even address my answer - made on March 2 - to their comment referencing me on March 1. But the bottomline remains unchanged: No broad-based support or even consensus for this proposal was established. You said so yourself, when you correctly noted: "the only thing clear is that there's no consensus for the move at this time." So I really object to this after-the-fact attempt at votestacking, long after the game has already been called for lack of interest. The time for questions was long - and long ago - and has long since passed. No explanation has even been offered for why any follow-up question wasn't asked on a timely basis. For two months! Please re-close this and leave it closed. Users are free to reopen at any time - but there's absolutely no legitimate basis for resurrecting this now. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Well as I say, I don't really have anything more to add on this one, so if some participants were unhappy with my initial close, I'm going to leave it to another admin to sort out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Cúchullain, it's like you're Switzerland!:) Now you're leaving it to someone else and after all this time? Well, many thanks for trying. (But just so you know... your instincts were right the first time!) Regards, my friend. X4n6 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Haiz

You know if you'd looked at what links there you'd have seen incoming links from a Yemen conflict template. So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haiz&type=revision&diff=713715698&oldid=713694299 this edit is not going to helpful. Frankly I think you're overstepping the boundaries a bit. Rather than recognize that an EP is not the natural meaning of Haiz and that some work needed to be done, you're zooming in on niggles. And it's beginning to be a little aggressive. If you want me to disappear from Wikipedia and never come back, then fine. I can do that. But if I stay you have to have a bit more perspective. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: First, let me apologize if my edits come across as aggressive. My only intention here is to clean up disambiguation, which is something I've been involved with for years, as you know. But I don't see any problems with that edit in particular. It was mostly formatting, removing unnecessary verbiage, and removing an entry that isn't covered anywhere on Wikipedia. I didn't change anything else with the EP.

And no, I certainly don't want you to disappear from Wikipedia. I've only been focusing on your edits recently because I'm seeing a lot recurring problems across an apparently wide scale. I'm not bringing these things up just to come down on you; the fact is that these errors make things unclear and inconsistent for readers, and create a lot of work for other editors to clean up after. Again, I don't mean to criticize, but it's getting a bit frustrating to see. These aren't niggles, they're basics of MOS:DAB and the disambiguation guidelines, and you simply make too many edits to the dab page not to follow them.

I consider you a highly valuable editor. My suggestion would be to slow down on your dab edits to make sure you're following the guidelines. There are also plenty of other areas that need improvement on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alien Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossover (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) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lamar station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City station (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) 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Leavenworth, WA (LWA)

Leavenworth, WA (LWA) is only locally known as Icicle station. It's known as Leavenworth, WA Everett, WA (EVR) Wenatchee, WA (WEN) ...all stations in Washington are named after their town, not some local invention. The only exception is Seattle - King Street Station, WA (SEA) is known as Seattle King Street Station. This is to prevent confusion with other stations in the Seattle metro area such as Seattle Union Station (SUS) or Tukwila (TUK).

It's the Icicle resort's attempt to re-name the station, not Amtrak. Please do not confuse potential riders.

Source:

Please revert your name change.  kgrr ^talk 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

kgrr: I moved the article because another editor, Secondarywaltz, expressed that "Icicle Station" is the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources (here). This seemed to be backed up with my own cursory look; even Amtrak's Great American Stations site (which includes the entry under "Leavenworth, WA") refers to it in the text as "Icicle Station". If we're to move it, we need more evidence of what the common name is, as that's what we go by.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

I would like to query why you deleted my edit. All information was from a cited primary source, there were no weasel words and everything stated was factually correct. It did not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines because no analysis was provided. The figures from a primary source were simply reported.

Barackaddict (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict: I see several editors have already responded at the talk page. I'll respond there as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Crossover in fiction

An editor has asked for a Move review of Crossover in fiction. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

More MOS:DAB problems

I know you don't want to here from me, but dab page edits like these are very much a problem. I've asked you before to follow the formatting of the guideline, stop adding entries that aren't covered anywhere on the encyclopedia, etc. I don't like being heavy handed, but you're creating a lot of work for yourself and even more for others. If you can't get the swing of editing dab pages, please just hold back on editing them until you can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hear not here. I was expanding a dab page. Your objection is that I hadn't completed it by checking every single reference was mentioned. Wikipedia is a work in progress and has a massive bias to WP:RECENT trivia. I was trying to address that. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You have some point. Ideally I would have gone on to add the mentions to the articles. But as before I think your belief that songwriters must not be mentioned doesn't help disambiguating songs recorded by multiple artists. But you're the boss. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the "boss". Your edits there just introduced a lot of problems that weren't there before: unclear descriptors, multiple blue links in entries, a substantial number of entries that aren't covered anywhere, etc. And they happened after I'd already brought up these issues with you several times.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Next time as you're following me around ping here on or on the talk page of the dab. Okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: First off, I'm not "following you around". Now, I can start pinging you at the dab pages if you want, but I'm not about to maintain a section of my talk page for addressing problems with your edits. The logical place for that is your page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have issues with an article, the place is the talk page of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)