User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority

Please note that your recent move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority to proposed title was against the outcome of the voting (no consensus). Your closure was reverted by me, please see my comment at Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't have the authority to unilaterally reverse my close, especially as it mangles the edit history between this page and Human rights in the Palestinian territories (disambiguation). I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, but as your move potentially affects the other page(s), it needs to be reversed. If you want to continue the discussion with me, seek another avenue, or open up another move request, of course that's fine.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, due to WP:GF, i thought that your closure of Human rights in the PNA was due to mistake of interpretation, considering the opinions on the discussion and unawareness of Emmette's alleged massive canvassing warning by Cptnono [1] and then an official compaint by myself [2], but it seems that in this case your administrator's role is merely the role of a judge who would give housing rights in ownership dispute to a person, who is meanwhile accused of falsifying evidence.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My role is to close the RM according to the consensus in the discussion and Wikipedia policy, period. I haven't looked into those complaints about other articles and I don't plan to, but in this discussion, no one did anything untoward so far as I can tell. As far as the content of the discussion, I stand by my reading of the consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note

I am converting the era tags on all articles related to the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. If you must revert my edit, please do so, but try to only change the era tag because I usually edit other information as well. Talk pages usually take a while, so I either just completely erase era tags until issues are resolved, or I convert them to a neutral form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your tweak a minute ago to Bắc Kạn. Most of these Province capital articles start at 1945, if they have a history section at all, but that's an illustration that there are plentiful sources for the 1880s and earlier. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just a few quick fixes as I came across them.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee Volunteers football

Hey, Cooch. The Charlie Strong and Tennessee Volunteers football articles need to be semi-protected. Word leaked that Strong is the first choice to be the new Vols coach, and the IP vandals have gone nuts. There's also at least one SPA vandal who could use a timeout (User:YeahBoyeeeeee). Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 2 weeks. I'm going to be out for the rest of the night, so if there's further trouble another admin will need to sort it out.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Gracias, jefe. Never a cop around when you need one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DragoLink sock puppet dujour

He's back, and now editing as User:Flabcschamps960608. It may be time to consider a range block. He's clearly using the USF computer systems or some other institutional network with multiple IP addresses in order to repeatedly create new accounts and evade the blocks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Auburnpilot's already taken care of this account. We may indeed need to look into a range block, but if he's on a school network it may not be the best idea. At this point they've been easy enough to spot.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Round 3 (or is it Round 4?): Now editing under User:User:Bonjourstupid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting pretty old. Fortunately he's been easy to spot.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cooch, he's back and up to his usual tricks: User:131.247.244.23. AuburnPilot has not checked in 24+ hours. It's on you, Chief. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Let me know if you see anymore from him.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• New DragoLink08 sock puppet: User:EveryMan12. Please do a rollback on all edits. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked and I've reverted all his edits, as they appeared to be just more screwing with the colors and formatting.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:Acoustics101, now recreating a verbatim copy of an article originally created by a DragoLink08 sock puppet and subsequently deleted at AfD on November 24, 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida–Alabama football rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've speedy deleted the page as a recreation, and indef blocked the sock. Impressive catch, Dirt.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cooch, I don't have my usual level of certainty, but this looks like a high probability candidate that fits Drago's established pattern: User:CompDude13. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

CompDude13 has continued the pattern since I left this message last night. I'm pretty sure it's our friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The DragoLink sock is still on the loose; the Latish redone sock got banned at SPI. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's yet another one: User:Balificboy. Up to his usual tricks, screwing up coordinated team color schemes. This guy is not going to stop and adding non-standard formatting. He's now creating new accounts every couple of days regardless of whether he's blocked or not. We're barely slowly him down. I think we need to confirm the IP addresses from which these accounts are created, and implement a range block. This guy has been doing this for two-plus years, and he's already outlasted the previous generations of the CFB posse that was tracking him. Something really needs to be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another old friend?

How about this one? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone The IP user is obviously a seasoned and bored wikitroller looking to stir things up, as seen in this silly deletion discussion and this even sillier ANI report which he immediately filed when I mentioned suspicions about his identity. An IP trace placed both the current IP and his old IP (as seen in this golden oldie) in Athens, GA with the same ISP. It's pretty obvious. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've been busy with the holidays. Hopefully this has been sorted out.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, after the holidays, Jaguars games, and a much needed vacation, I'm back. I see that the Latish redone business has been taken care of. I blocked Balificboy as an obvious Dragolink puppet, which was still active as of yesterday. However, I'm not totally sure about CompDude13. This account seems to behave somewhat differently from the others. Dirt, if it's still a problem, can you provide some direct evidence linking that account to the others?Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cooch, CompDude13 follows the usual account naming pattern, and engages in the usual behaviors of repetitive changes to multiple CFB articles, including rivalries, with a manipulation of team color schemes in templates and team articles that no genuine WP rookie knows how to do. I am much more firmly convinced now than I was when I first raised the issue during the holidays. However, if you still have doubts, let's reopen the DragoLink08 SPI and request a checkuser update. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the account traces back to a Tampa or other central Florida IP address. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

While they do make similar edits, there are differences too that weren't apparent in the more obvious socks. Re-opening the SPI may be a good idea.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: SPI Redux confirmed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Drago's last registered sock account blocked yesterday, and he just can't help himself. He's already editing from USF IP addresses: User:131.247.244.23. I think it's time to request a range block for USF IP addresses. The puppet master has been a nuisance for three years. Can this be done so that it only blocks unregistered IPs within the specified range? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it may be time to consider a range block. This isn't something I'll be able to do; let's bring it up at ANI. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

He just won't take the hint: User:131.247.27.197. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Oh well, it's high time for ANI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing from two separate USF IP addresses today:

• User:2607:FE50:0:8207:9A0C:82FF:FE6E:57C4; and
• User:131.247.224.56.

Not gonna stop. Ever. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

They may be 166.147.123.28. Let's bring up the problem at ANI.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another one, imo: User:131.247.25.132 Zeng8r (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's DragoLinks: User:131.247.244.21 and User:2607:FE50:0:820B:8CEF:FCC:C863:D14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked those two IPs and started a thread at ANI here. Please weigh in there.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cooch, I was typing a history of Drago's activities while you were making your report, and included a longer history of the activities and accounts involved. I also went a step further and requested appropriate range blocks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Cuchullain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

House of Aberffraw

Was my edit here reasonable?[3]. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Iolo can't be the only source for calling something traditional. And even if there are other sources, We dont need to Quote Iolo's version. I'll dig around to see if I can find anything else about it.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lewis

I saw that you closed a move request for Lewis a few days back as "no consensus." But my count shows 5 supports to 3 opposes (I do realize that consensus doesn't always follow numbers). At the very least, the discussion should've been relisted. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The RM ran for its full 7 days, with no new comments for a few days. The closer doesn't just take a tally, they consider the arguments as well as the consensus behind the relevant policies and guidelines. Given the strength of some of the opposes, I didn't see a consensus developing that that's not the primary topic, let a lone a consensus for any one of the other possible names.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Lewis

An editor has asked for a Move review of Lewis. 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. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Move

Cooch, can you move Henry Jamison Handy to Jam Handy per WP:COMMONNAME? Subject was universally known by his nickname during his sports and business careers. I can't move it; someone has apparently restricted the article. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. There was some minor edit history that was blocking the move.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dámaso Marte

Hi - I see you recently moved this title. I've been unsure myself about the correct spelling, and online usage seems to be inconsistent (I even found an MLB article in Spanish that uses both forms within a few lines of each other), though leaning toward the plain 'e', but it's been at the accented title for the last 6 years. Is there conclusive evidence that the unaccented 'e' is the right spelling? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't see anything definitive, but I have to believe removing the accent in "Marte" is right. All the sources used in the article, as well as those mentioned in the discussion, appear to eschew it, including the ones that use diacritics otherwise (eg, that use it in Dámaso). It's also my understanding that the name "Marte" is (usually) written without an accent in Spanish.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It does actually exist in French, but in this case was merely overcompensation in some US sources. Anyway that's not the reason I'm here. Re the old subject above despite having scrupulously avoiding naming names at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion a heads up that the most frequent misuser of the db-G6 route has been at it again on a large scale. Perhaps even from reading our exchange above? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen any examples of Kauffner doing that at an article whose title had been at RM or was otherwise discussed before?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) Yên Bái and Thanh Hóa have both been in the last week been moved a second time counter their listing as part of Talk:Cần Thơ RM result despite revert of earlier by db-G6 by admins GraemeBartlett and Edgar181 who hadn't seen the RM bot tag (since it had been deleted at the time).

(2) Those two are examples of old db-G6 which had been reverted by not locked by the admins. Though the second required a new db-G6 actioned by Amatulic to move the Talk page.

(3) There's another new db-G6 to move Yên Bái province a second time, actioned by admin DGG, having previously been db-G6 and reverted by GraemeBartlett.

In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral District

Districts are an abstract concept. They only exist when citizens recognize them as such. In this case a reputable news source and the city of Jacksonville itself identified the area as a special district. Not to mention some of the churches in the area themselves. I believe that enough evidence exist to proclaim that this area has a special identity and to not cite it would be leaving a hole in information regarding downtown. You seemed to have no problem with someone creating the King Street Distict page. I even find that to be a little ridiculous, but enough organizations recognize it as such that it has every right o exist. here are some more references to the Cathedral District.

• http://www.coj.net/departments/office-of-economic-development/docs/downtown-development/cathedral.aspx
• http://www.jaxcathedral.org/directions
• http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-may-exploring-downtowns-cathedral-district
• http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-sep-urban-neighborhoods-the-cathedral-district
• http://jaxpsychogeo.com/the-center-of-the-city/cathedral-district-the-bodies-in-billy-goat-hill/
• http://www.catholicdigest.com/newsworthy/upcoming_events/2011/05-19/2011-global-day-of-prayer-in-*jacksonville-florida
• http://redevelopment.net/diy-resources/best-practices/jacksonville/
• http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/052101/bum_6214848.html
• http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/031107/bus_8134649.shtml
• http://www.urbanjacksonville.info/2006/page/36/
• http://theurbancoredotcom.blogspot.com/2007/02/burrito-gallery-is-in-cathedral.html
• http://www.yellowpages.com/jacksonville-fl/mip/marshall-reese-12310217
• http://www.myrickpolicygroup.com/files/Ginnys-Bio.pdf
• http://www.eujacksonville.com/pages/12-13-07/downtownchurchtour.htm

These may not be some of the best sources, but I think it proves my point that at a citizen level the area is recognized as the Cathedral District, whether Downtown Vision or COJ list it or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew105601 (talk • contribs)

The five other areas (Downtown Core/Northbank, Southbank, Lavilla, Brooklyn/Riverside Avenue, and the Sports Complex) are the five divisions used by the city and various other entities and publications, including the source you cited in the article. They're well established and a good bit larger than the "Cathedral District". "Cathedral District" shouldn't be included along with the other well-known divisions, though it's probably still worth mentioning it. But it's really not any different than the "East Bay Street entertainment district" or Laura Street.

As for the King Street District, I do have an issue with that, and I brought it up with the creator on Metrojacksonville, though I don't see I ever mentioned it here. I plan on merging it into a new article on Riverside and Avondale when I get to it.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the Cathedral District is not as well-known, but as far as its size goes it is close to the size of Brooklyn and Lavilla. Both of these areas have a known history. The area we are referencing has a distinct character difference than with downtown proper. It is referenced by those who inhabit it, and the city has included it in some kind of master planning project. I agree that it is not a district like Southbank is a district, but passive distinctions are made and most urban dwellers in Jacksonville would understand what you meant if you mentioned the Cathedral District. I do not have an agenda here. I'm simple trying to thoughtfully define the place I live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew105601 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly how I wanted it to appear, but I am satisfied with the changes.Mathew105601 (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, you can sign your posts by typing four tildas (~~~~). That helps keep track of who's saying what.

I agree that the Cathedral District should be mentioned, but it's just not as prominent as the five big divisions usually used by the city and other publications. Especially since it wasn't included in the sources that listed the other five. I think what we're seeing is some sources identifying particular areas within what most people would consider Downtown proper or the Northbank. The Cathedral District isn't the only one, as you can see looking at the city's master plan. They also give the "Church District" (the area around First Baptist), the "Central Civic Core District" (the core of downtown arbitrarily west of Main) and the "Riverfront District", which is essentially the historical Bay Street district/Bay Street Entertainment District/"E-Town Zone" or whatever they're calling it this week. There's also the "Institutional District", which appears to just be the police building and Maxwell House. I think the issue here is that everyone is going to define all that stuff differently. I'd say at least the East Bay area ought to be mentioned if the Cathedral District is, though both of them may be better placed in the section for the Downtown Core.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Minneapolis wiki page has tackled this problem in there own way by creating an unofficial district sub heading. Taking from your last message, it may be a slippery slope if Jacksonville implemented the same topic. I have seen the mislabeled districts on google maps and bing. Why on earth would we need to call the police station the institutional district. It drives me crazy to see real estate sites advertising housing prices in the 'Institutional District' (I hear it's a still)Mathew105601 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing to do will be collect all the best sources we can find, and work from there. If some of these smaller "districts" emerge as noteworthy, we can figure out how to include them. I think at least the Cathedral District and whatever we want to call the Bay Street/Riverfront District should be mentioned, though they may be better placed under the Downtown Core section.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

Do you know why is making a story up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation/NVanMinh? NVanMinh (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lai_Chau_Province&diff=527703698&oldid=527653911 - This is indeed uncontroversial. Kauffner was the one who lower cased all the provinces, but now agrees with re-upper-casing. NVanMinh (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure it's Kauffner who's making up a story about you being a sock puppet? LittleBen (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

An article with two talk pages

OK, so the town of Hong Linh, Ha Tinh now has two talk pages, one here and one here. You don't see any problem with this setup? Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I do. But deleting one of them isn't the way to fix it.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps we should add a DAB to allow the reader to choose among the various talk pages. Kauffner (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper solution will probably be to move one or more of the current pages to an archive of what is ultimately decided to be the appropriate talk page.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain, I am sorry for loading up that secondary Talk page created by Efe's 04 Nov 2011 db-G6 with text objecting to db-G6 No#3. As far as I'm concerned if you wish you can bury what is now redundant chatter in the history under a redirect.

The original Talk Page is relatively unaffected. Efe never moved it, and it still has the WikiProject VN banner, and any content actually related to the town. The only thing missing is the article.

I apologise if this comment isn't helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nuts that a page can be moved controversially so many times without any discussion whatsoever. Here's what I'm going to do:

(1) Move the current contents of Talk:Hồng Lĩnh Township to an archive

(2) Move the current contents of Talk:Hong Linh, Ha Tinh to Talk:Hồng Lĩnh Township

(3) Move the united talk content back to Talk:Hong Linh, Ha Tinh to match the current location of the article. This is not an endorsement of the current title.

(4) Ask that In ictu, who doesn't like the current title, start an RM to determine the proper title through discussion

(5) Ask, yet again, that Kauffner stop performing or initiating controversial moves and use the process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I must say that IIO's Wikihounding has certainly gotten quite intense. Today, he followed me edit-by-edit to SPI, G6 and here. Why would anyone object to a page alignment? Kauffner (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cuchullain, thanks, honestly whatever you do is fine with me. You've already spent more time than deserved on this. I appreciate you allowing (4), but right now really can't face a VN RM running into Xmas Eve. So if you don't mind could we leave that until March, and do gather up a bag of any db-G6 moves Kauffner does between now and then. Or alternatively ask YigMgo or AjaxSmack to put in (4) as right now I can't face it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, again, the issue wasn't the alignment, it was the correct way to repair it after all these undiscussed moves. This is hardly the first time a time consuming issue has cropped up with one of your moves. In the future all this can be avoided if you stick to the process.

In ictu, don't worry about it if you don't want to bother with a move. The point was that any move in the future needs to be settled through discussion. Cheers, y'all.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After

Just want to thank you for the way you resolved this. I think the way you've tidied up and preserved the talk was done quite well. And is a better fit with process than simply moving the article back to where Efe left the Talk page. The article rather than the Talk page is the main thing after all. I also think this is perhaps something of a one-off case. The real problem here is not so much that Efe created 2 Talk pages on 04 November 2011, but that Efe himself isn't around to give legitimacy to clean up. In the case of the rest of the 500x db-G6 (Graeme Bartlett's number not mine) the original db-G6 admin is still around. So under normal circumstances we wouldn't have a orphan clean up issue. Cheers and best wishes with future administering :) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, usually that would be a job for the original admin to resolve, but Efe's not around. Fortunately, the dueling talk page issue doesn't appear to be all that common even in these undiscussed moves.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Doug! I hope you and your loved ones are having a great holiday season as well.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All good. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete page

Hello Respected Person, Actually, I have question that Why this page is Deleted from Wikipedia: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Barani_Institute_of_Information_Technology

I need information of this page. Please shoot me email address about this page on this email address: Crazyzoar@gmail.com

It is important for me. So, please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.27.255 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually like to discuss Wikipedia business off site without reason. Can you tell me what exactly you want to know about the article? I can tell you that it tagged for deletion under the proposed deletion policy on May 25, 2012. Under that policy, tagged articles are deleted after seven days if there are no objections. The article had no sources, and made no real claim to notability, which are required for inclusion on Wikipedia. I deleted it June 1.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Go Now (song) RM

I was going to leave BDD likes this. after your most recent comment at the "Go Now" RM, but that seemed a little juvenile, so I hope you'll accept it here. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, likes are always welcome here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Riksdag

Probably on your watchlist anyway since you restored it but FYI a different editor has just moved by cut and paste. (cur | prev) 14:38, 14 January 2013‎ Dagrqv (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,541 bytes) (+26,482)‎ . . (Making this main page, according to what is most common in the category for parliaments.) (undo) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've cleared it up now and left a note for the editor.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For excellent judgment in weighing policy and determining consensus in closing RMs, especially the recent one at Puducherry, I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Keep up the good work! BDD (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! It's nice to get positive feedback.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry/Pondicherry

Hi Cuchullain. While I agree that there is consensus to move the article, your close rationale is faulty and misreads consensus. Indian English is not a recognized variant of English on Wikipedia so arguing that this is a "clear-cut WP:ENGVAR issue" makes no sense. Discounting common name with "national ties" also flies against policy because WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and national ties guidelines (if any, I don't see anything that exists independent of English and nothing that exists pertaining to Indian English) are merely weak suggestions (cf. Burma/Myanmar). It would have been much better to use the common name data provided by various editors as well as the distinction between the city and the union territory for indicating a preference for Puducherry. Either way, the move itself seems justified so just consider this a thought. --regentspark (comment) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I do understand where you're coming from. However, I still stand by what I wrote. English, of course, is spoken and written in India, and Indian English, or English as it appears in Indian sources, or whatever we want to call it, has long been recognized on Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is part of a policy that also discusses what to do with topics that have strong national ties to English-speaking nations (here). And of course, national ties are further elaborated on at WP:TIES, which usually includes Indian examples. At any rate it seems clear that "Puducherry" has become far and away the COMMONNAME in Indian-based English sources, and increasingly common in foreign sources. I'm convinced this was the right move per the relevant policy.

Another element to the decision, which I chose not to get into in my closing summary, was that there never had been consensus for using "Pondicherry". In fact, the only RM it's ever been through rejected such a move in 2010, but the article was moved unilaterally anyway in November 2011. As such, the move just restored the article to where it was as of the last community discussion of the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Celtic fashion

I assume you know a variety about Celtic mythology, design and decoration, and I am hoping you would have known some examples or sources of Celtic fashion which may be useful to use for some information about hairstyle or makeup in fashion other than websources such as this source, would there be any more details of similarity in different hair fashions or any fashions, other than warriors would spiked their hair up with lime to show rank and status or nobility, compared to modern standards of spiked hair. Any record notes on fashion whenever, I am willing to talk about Celtic lifestyles, please reply, if nothing comes to affect, thanks anyway, mate. Cheers ----GoShow (............................) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Celtic hairstyles beyond some bits and pieces. I did find an entry on Celts in The Encyclopedia of Hair. It looks like it mostly discusses Gauls in the Iron Age and Roman eras. Additionally, in the Middle Ages, Irish and British monks adhering to the so-called "Celtic Christian" style had a distictive form of tonsure. It's not clear from the sources what exactly it looked like, but this article gives a good summary of the discussion about it, and suggests the tonsure was sort of a triangle running from ear to ear and to the forehead. Hope that helps.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrific! Keep in my sandbox revision, glad to hear from it. Thank you .--GoShow (............................) 21:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time. Glad I could help.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Content-comment

Concerning this comment: I'm not sure why you describe my comment as unrelated to behavior. Do you not agree that what Niemti is engaging in is the equivalent of "I don't care about what experts think"-nonsense? Is this kind of patronizing refusal to take gender studies seriously not a problem in your view?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The comment wasn't intended to be directed at you, but to Wikid77, who I think was focusing too much on the comment dispute rather than the behavioral issues.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Strained_yogurt#Motion_to_start_an_RM:_Redux

I was hoping for a more comprehensive closing statement for this RM, especially for a move.

• Where is the evidence that yogurt is "increasingly popular" in British English? If it's this article, a trend in British labelling is not the equivalent of a trend in British English. Comments on descriptive and prescriptive sources appear to have been ignored.
• How is it "clearly the most common spelling elsewhere" when there is an apparently stronger preference for yoghurt over yogurt in some other varieties of English, such as Australian English, than in British English?
• How is matching the "main article" relevant?

The concern with moving this article away from its original location is that it could become the new Yoghurt. SSR (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I'll try to give some more detail. The compelling reason to leave the article at the former location is WP:RETAIN. However, it was shown that "Yogurt" has become common in British English - as seen not just within the industry, but in the OED and other British dictionaries, and it appears to be increasing, according to the lexicographer quoted in that Telegraph article.

As for the "g" spelling being more common generally, I don't see any argument against that. This ngram was discussed in a previous section. Removing the word "strained", there's plenty of evidence that "yogurt" is much more common that "yoghurt". On top of that, several editors invoked WP:COMMONALITY; The Grammarist source you provided showed that "yogurt" is well established in British English and at least present in Australian English, while "yoghurt" is very rare in American and Canadian English.

At any rate, given "yogurt"'s establishment in Britain combined with the fact that it's more common in English sources generally, I see no reason not to defer to WP:COMMONNAME and the local consensus in the discussion. Also, consistency with the main article is not a reason to move, it's just a side benefit of the move.

In closing RMs as moves, I try to ask myself if the decision is likely to be overturned in a future RM. I don't think this one would be; I think things will (eventually) settle down, as they have at Yogurt, and this spelling will stick around.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the level of detail I desired! Copying this section to Talk:Strained yogurt as a supplementary closed discussion may help to clarify the reasoning behind the RM's closure for others. SSR (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

USF IPs

I saw your post at ANI re: DragoLink08. It seems that USF may have records that they could use to tie the IP addresses and times back to particular users or machines on their campus, depending on how they are set up. Has this been tried in the past with other schools or large orgs that we don't want to range-block? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe things like that have been done before, but someone more experienced in those matters than I will have to take the lead on it. That's a good idea.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of pursuing this option, but not to the exclusion of immediately blocking those specifically identified USF-registered IP addresses listed at ANI. Many of the listed IPs have a history of abusive edits dating back three years, have been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and sock-puppetry, and show little evidence of anyone using them for constructive editing over that time period. DragoLink seems to be the primary, if not the only Wikipedia "editor" using USF IPs, so I don't think we will be inconveniencing many would-be constructive editors by blocking the identified IPs. Given his history, it does appear that he has some affiliation with USF, either as a student or an employee, and I suspect that the USF computer services division could identify him from his editing history if they were so inclined to help. Being a large state university, you may find you have a hard time getting their attention unless the request is made by the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal counsel, or the like. Two of the most recent USF IPs are version 6 addresses, and the "who is" search indicates these two are wireless network access points somewhere on campus. I think we have more than enough documented history to justify taking some of the more extraordinary measures at this point. This guy is a long-term problem who has demonstrated an almost obsessive determination to continue doing what he is doing to the detriment of the project and annoyance of productive editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cooch, thank you for all of your help with this matter of the last several months. I think we did what we needed to do, and hopefully we can rely on the ANI regulars to do what should be done from here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully something productive will finally occur. As someone who got their start on Wikipedia in college, though, I'm not at all enthusiastic about blocking an entire large state school.Cúchullain ^t/c 05:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban closure?

Hello, Cuchullain. I have a question. Concerning this topic ban proposal, should we let this discussion continue or just move forward with this proposal as it has been one week since this ban was proposed and neither I nor Sergecross73 do not want to have this discussion to go off-topic. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to close it, but it will be on an uninvolved admin to close and implement the ban.Cúchullain ^t/c 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a request for closure here and on ANI. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reichstag

Please add text to your close to explain your thinking based on the policy and guidelines as to why you did not decide to move the article. -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a brief statement; at any rate I see another RM has been opened. Considering how interconnected the uses are, I'd recommend finding some hard evidence (Gbooks returns, library search, page view stats) to try to determine the best name for the article(s).Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise Holdings

Hello, a few weeks ago you closed a WP:RM discussion and moved Enterprise Holdings to Enterprise Rent-A-Car. I believe there was a consensus in that discussion to move my userspace draft at User:Kuyabribri/Enterprise Holdings to Enterprise Holdings. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to revisit that discussion and if you agree there is consensus, move my userspace draft into mainspace. Thanks for your help. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you're done with it I'll move it into article space. It had slipped my mind as I didn't see any further discussion about it. I'll move the article presently; I'd appreciate assistance checking incoming links to make sure they're going to the right article if you have time.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pondicherry and disambiguation

Hello, Cuchullain. When you moved Pondicherry (disambiguation) to the unqualified title, you may not have been aware that WP:FIXDABLINKS says --

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

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

There were a couple of hundred links to Pondicherry that were added to other articles before you decided to move the disambiguation page to this title. I see from your contributions that you fixed one of them; it would be appreciated if you would help with the rest. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of the incoming links; in fact they're the reason for the move. The title was formerly the location of, and then a redirect to, the article for the territory now titled Puducherry. Skinsmoke found that there was serious confusion in incoming links, so it use was broken already. I believe Skinsmoke's still working on them, and I repaired a few of them.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Amtrak lines edit broke something

Just letting you know that this edit apparently, for reasons beyond me, made the Michigan Amtrak trains all show up as the City of New Orleans, so I undid it. C628 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I don't know what the deal is either; I'll have to ask someone smarter than I am.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Riksdagen

It was interesting to read about primary topis, but I think your opinion about what would be considered primary topic of riksdag is wrong. 90.232.5.53 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's just how the articles are currently arranged. The article for the Swedish parliament is currently located at the title Riksdag, this makes it the de facto primary topic of that name (ie, it's the first thing readers find when typing in that name, meaning it's unlikely they're looking for it if they go to the disambiguation page). As such it goes above the other entries on the disambiguation page per the MOS:DAB.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page K-8 (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) 11:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

knock, knock

Hello Cuchullain, I've recently returned after a rather long break and just wanted to stop by and say hi. Looking around, things seem to have changed a bit, and stayed the same a bit, too. Hope all is going well for you, and we'll likely run across each other's path in the future. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to have you back, and yes, me and mine are very well. Yeah, there have been some changes around here, but nothing too hard to get used to, I hope. Unfortunately a number of good editors have moved on with their lives, or at least slowed up, but there are some newer faces picking up the slack. At any rate, I'm sure we'll cross paths soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08

Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll respond on their talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Prayer

If "no consensus" should be the result, then why am I feeling that 2nd relisting is needed? Song and album look equally popular, as the album is currently the primary topic. Nonetheless, more votes in my opinion should be needed, unless it's pointless. How long should I wait to create the new nomination? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I closed it as it had been open for two and a half weeks already, with no new input for seven days. I don't know that relisting or leaving it in the backlog would have changed the result. While the song does get more page views, there wasn't any agreement that it's really the primary topic (or at least, that it's worth moving.) If you want to take another stab at it, I'd recommend waiting a while - perhaps a few months - and seeing what the page views look like then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)