User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 18

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Nuuk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Moravian


 * University of Greenland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Moravian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayan War
I placed my vote there but that's all. He ignored an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page and will force his way through regardless of what others said. Opening a move request without listening to editors who actually contribute to the article (and to others related to it) reveals that he had and has no interest on talking; he just doesn't like the name and will do whatever he needs to change it. I can't deal with this kind of people, sorry. --Lecen (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lecen, I encourage you to take a break from this for a while. It's not worth getting upset about, and it's easy enough to return to something later with a clear head. For what it's worth, a dedicated move discussion is the proper process, and was suggested in the discussion as the way to go. It's much better than undending talk page discussion that doesn't resolve anything, and especially just unilateral page moves, which is what set this whole thing off. Nothing benefits from that.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that. I'll leave others share their thoughts. But I won't be surprised if the move happens. And I also won't be surprised when I see that once he got what he wanted, he'll leave the article as it is, abandoned. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The move request has been frauded. Take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. This is too much for me, I can't accept this kind of behavior. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some edits over there to be more clear what happened to any future participants and whatever admin has the unfortunate duty of closing that discussion. It seems odd that someone would go through all that trouble socking in that one move request. Fortunately it was pretty transparent. --Cúchullain t/ c 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity: you seem to oppose the move, but you haven't cast your vote yet. Why? --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did leave a comment explaining my position in detail, which as far as I'm concerned should be more useful than simply piling on a "support" or "oppose" vote without elaboration. I don't necessarily oppose the move (as far as I can tell both names are established and commonly used), I more oppose the rationale of the nominator and several other participants (and certainly some of the problematic behavior that's going on). I'll further explain my comment.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Astynax's last comment. I can't find a better explanation than his. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christian deletion
Hi Cuchullain,

There is again vandalism on the page Saint Thomas Christians. User: Ashley thomas80 is deleting even the term Nasrani from the page. It shows his hatred towards a people. If you are indeed a unique user and not Ashley himself as a sock Puppet then please look into it as this is against the consensus on which the pages Syrian Malabar  Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians were merged. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Robin, I will look into this. Right off the bat, however, you need to cease making personal comments immediately. It only heightens the tension and may result in blocks. Also, it's generally not wise to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet when you're trying to get them to help you. I can assure you that I'm not a sock puppet.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain,

I am glad that you would look into it. I understand it is not pleasant to be suspected as a sock puppet. Thanks for your reassurance. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I made small edits and left a note on the talk page. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/ c 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

It seems all your efforts in rewriting the section on Portuguese persecution of the Nasranis has been in vain. User:Ashley thomas80 has added all the material deleted by you to another page Synod of Diamper. This is stealth vandalism. I know I have been accused of engaging in personal attacks on editors. But the persistent adding of deleted materials by User:Ashley thomas80 is a demonstration of his bullying tactics. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up. This isn't a demonstration of "bullying tactics", Ashely just thinks the material is acceptable and useful. They can have that opinion, and we can disagree. I'll check out the material and respond at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Cuchullain, the portion of text that you wrote on portuguese persecution at the Saint Thomas Christians page has been completely deleted. The earlier text by Ashley that you removed has been added again. All this is done by an anonymous IP address. This indeed is bullying tactics. Of course there is no way to ascertain that the IP address is used by the said editor. But then that is the point. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's the same editor. They have different editing patterns. This IP is clearly the one who has been edit warring over there for the last several days.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the passage dealing with knanaya traditions need not be there in the section on portuguese persecution. However the sources are legitimate especially the one by Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem published in an academic Journal of Sociology. The text has to be added in the appropriate section. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Robin, the appropriate place for discussing article improvements is the article talk page (or else I'm liable to forget). I agree that the sources look legit, but I don't have a way of reading them myself, so I have no way of verifying the material and making sure it's not taken out of context.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is absurd that editor User:Ashley thomas80 calls some of the passages in the work of Professor Weil as arbitrary. The work by Weil S is published in a peer reviewed academic journal. It is not arbitrary. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look into that. Again, though, the best place to discuss changes to the article will be the articles talk page, to ensure the discussion occurs in one place. Also, please remember that I don't have access to that source, so I won't be able to read it myself, but it would certainly appear to be a reliable source.Cúchullain t/ c 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Ashley thomas80 has added a large section on socio-cultural status etc. The references do not state their year. This is not random. The year of publication has been systematically removed. And yes the sources are all outdated from pre-independence India. Using outdated sources is not legitimate to support claims. Yet he calls the reference of Prof Weil (1982) published in a peer reviewed academic journal as arbitrary and goes on to add large chunk of text after removing the publication year of outdated sources. Some of the sources referred are close to a century old. User:Ashley thomas80 is using outdated texts and private publications that are not published in peer reviewed academic journals to support his claims. This is misleading. They are not published in peer reviewed academic journals. However the one by Prof Weil on Knanaya Nasranis and Cochin Jews is from (1982) and is published in a peer reviewed academic journal of sociology. Wikipedia reliable references refers to research papers published in international peer reviewed academic journals as reliable sources. It is sad that when Ashley uses private archaic publications it is okay. But when actual peer reviewed academic research from intrenational peer reviewed academic journal is sourced, the passages are deleted as arbitrary. this is unfair and sad. I write on your talk page because I do not want to be bullied and engage in wasteful endless discussions. This is the first time I have come across an editor with such agenda who is relentless and also gets away with deleting genuine peer reviewed academic references and adding outdated sources sans publication years instead. A careful reading of all the sources provided by User:Ashley thomas80 would reveal that most of his sources are private publication and not peer reviewed academic works. In short most of the sources provided by User:Ashley thomas80 is not reliable according to wikipedia reliable sources. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'll take a look at it. I'm preparing some new material as well. Again, though, this is really a discussion for the article talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

These text are well sourced and yet have been deleted by User:Ashley thomas80.

It should be noted that according to Kerala Brahmin Namboothiri tradition and several scholars the kerala brahmin Namboothiris first settled in Kerala only in the eight century CE, while Christianity arrived in kerala in the first century CE, after St Thomas landed in Kerala in 52 CE to evangelize Jewish settlers in the Malabar Coast

please stop this vandalism. I dont know why he is given special treatment and allowed to add and delete passages with outdated and suspect sources and delete whatever he does not personally like. please stop this bullying. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, you really need to stop with the recriminations and accusatory language. It appears to me that Ashley is editing in good faith and being totally responsive on the talk page. I haven't had a chance to do more work on the article in a few days, but hopefully will today. We'll sort this out, but it makes it much more unpleasant with that attitude.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Daytona Beach ThunderBirds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indoor football (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) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, thank you so much! What a kind gesture. I really appreciate that.Cúchullain t/ c 04:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I don't know how much interest in religion/history generally you have, but am particularly impressed that in such a prickly area as Kerala Christianity (I speak as someone who has only visited Kerala once) someone would simply walk in with academic sources and WP policy foremost. There'd be many other Christian history pages which would benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Missouri French
Hello. I'm very skeptical about the assertion in this article that New England French is the same as Acadian French. Most francophones in New England are descended from Quebecers, not Acadians, as far as I know. I don't have access to the source you quoted. Could you please double check? Thanks. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The source's quote actually says "New England French, it should be noted, is basically a variant of Canadian French", not specifically Acadian French. I'll correct that. This source says that most New England French are of Quebecois extraction (though many also have some Acadian ancestors), and that Acadian ancestry is more common in certain areas such as northern Maine. It says that there are local varients even within New England, but so far as I can tell it doesn't specify which variety of "Canadian French" they're most closely related to. It may be time for a new article on New England French.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the redirect of New England French to point to Canadian French and added a very brief discussion there. In the future it should probably be expanded into its own article; sources are clearly available.Cúchullain t/ c 14:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadath (West Syrian Diocese)
Dear Cuchullain,

Could you please revert the destruction of the article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese), which someone has bodily moved into the article on the city of Hadath without the slightest consultation. The move, besides involving the deletion of several passages, has seriously unbalanced the Hadath article, and is a thoroughly unconstructive edit. I agree that there should be a mention in the Hadath article of the city's Christian heritage, but this should be addressed by a short paragraph containing a link to the main article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese). I will deal with this myself once the change has been reverted.

The article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese) is one of a series of articles on Syrian Orthodox dioceses I have been compiling (see Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church), and should never have been deleted.

I am becoming thoroughly sick of the ill-bred teenagers who seem to do most of the editing on Wikipedia these days, and I can't say I'm surprised that scholars like Roger Pearse have left as a result of this kind of vandalism. It's very sad that more can't be done to control unhelpful edits.

Thanks in advance.

Djwilms (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * David, I restored the page and did a little work, mostly to wikify the text, fill out the intro a bit, and change some wording. I don't think this is a case of vandalism or uncareful juvenile editing; Cplakidas is long time good editor. More than likely they just saw a rather short article and wasn't aware of all your work in progress, and thought the material might be suitable for a merger (note most of it was retained in the merge). It would have been helpful if they had left a comment though.
 * I totally understand your frustration, and it's something I consider periodically myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of utterly unproductive folks and outright bad editors who make editing Wikipedia harder than it needs to be for those who just want to build an encyclopedia. The Roger Pearse situation was a tragedy, but as there often is, there's a bit more to that story. Usually when I get to that point I take a break, or at least step away from the particular article or subject that causing the stress. I've found that bad editors typically don't stick around very long.
 * One thing that might help in the future is if you make sure to link to the key articles in your new articles (and add links to the new articles from them). In the least it will show passing readers, and therefore editors, that they are part of a developing series of articles, rather than something isolated. At any rate, your work is invaluable, and there are more than a few people around here who greatly appreciate all you do.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, Cuchullain, both for taking the trouble to restore this stuff and for your wise counsel. You are quite right, of course, as you normally are, and now that the weekend break has restored my good humour I can appreciate your words of wisdom.  It's just that I sometimes get tired of the sad waste of effort that is often involved in editing Wikipedia.  I veer between admiration for the democratic ethos of Wikipedia and nostalgia for elitist, top-down editing.  I suggested an amendment to one of the Nestorian articles in the online Encyclopedia Iranica a few months back, and was delighted to find that I was put in contact with the article's author and invited to justify my proposed amendment.  Both of us learned something from the encounter.  Now that it has reached critical mass in volume terms, Wikipedia might like to consider 'freezing' some of its better articles and placing the onus on contributors to justify proposed amendments.  A bit German, though ...


 * I'll sort out the Hadath article now.


 * Djwilms (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the situation can get frustrating. Whenever it gets too much for me I try to disengage and remember why I do this in the first place. "Top-down" work (like normal encyclopedias) is certainly more rewarding across the board, but what you don't get there is the sheer scope. I try to remember that in no other encyclopedia would I likely be able to write articles like Jacksonville Braves, "King Arthur and King Cornwall", Arwystli, or Northern Utina all in one place.
 * One thing that has developed though, is when articles achieve Good Article and Featured status, the threshold for new changes becomes much higher than typical articles, largely because people have come to the same realization you have. For example, one I've worked on, King Arthur (largely written by a scholar in the field, btw), has stayed stable for three and a half years now - with the only major changes being some additions by another scholar. Unfortunately, this is still only a tiny fraction of all Wikipedia articles, but for someone who's been here since the time that inline citations were a preference, not an expectation, I really do think Wikipedia has been moving in the right direction.
 * At any rate, happy editing, and let me know if I can do anything else.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A good point in your first paragraph, certainly.


 * On your second paragraph, I'm heartened by your experience with the King Arthur article, but I do think we still have a long way to go. Just to give a couple of examples from a field in which we are both interested, can you ever imagine the articles Church of the East and Saint Thomas Christians stabilising in the same way?  I can't, and the main reason I don't try to edit the first of those articles is that I know that anything I produced would be ripped to shreds within days.  I'm afraid I just don't see how extreme nationalists, religious zealots or all-round kooks can be kept at bay in such cases.  Maybe I should have a go one of these days, but your own recent experiences in trying to shed sweetness and light among the Saint Thomas Christians do not encourage me to be optimistic about the result.  You must have the patience of a saint.


 * I must look at the history of the King Arthur article, and see how its main author managed to keep intolerance at bay.


 * Djwilms (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot wrong with the way Wikipedia operates, but the Featured Article process yields pretty quality results nowadays. It's a difference of process and attention. Articles that go through the Good Article and Featured Article processes undergo a lot of work and scrutiny to meet the (currently pretty high) criteria. The various people who get them there (and others who take the initiative to maintain GA and FAs) tend to keep an eye on the articles to make sure they still meet the criteria, and there are well established editing practices in place (such as WP:OAS) that defend such stewardship over these articles. If and when Church of the East or Saint Thomas Christians reached the point that they could go through the GA or FA review process, the articles would be in a much better position to ward off partisan entropy. In the case of King Arthur, the primary author only edits sporadically and often goes many months without logging in, but myself and other stewards look after it, and the quality has been maintained for over three years.
 * As I say, I believe the real issue is the proportionately low number of folks working directly toward GA/FA status compared to the vast amount of work to be done. As such GAs and FAs make up only a tiny fraction of all Wikipedia articles. I know that I myself typically don't bother with it, largely because I rarely have large blocks of time to devote to Wikipedia.
 * I say all this because it's a damn shame that someone with your background feels disinclined to edit articles within his own field. Regardless, your contributions are extremely valuable to the encyclopedia, and appreciated by many folks who prefer accurate knowledge of the subjects.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, Cuchullain. And you are right, of course.  I'll have a go at writing a complete, properly-sourced article on the Church of the East on my computer at home, and when it's ready to my own satisfaction I'll try pasting it in in one go and see what happens.  Rather like throwing a grenade, I imagine.
 * By the way, I loved your expression 'partisan entropy'! I've been trying to think up a term that exactly describes the gradual deterioration of a much-loved Wikipedia article, and that sums it up perfectly.  I am presently suffering 'partisan entropy' with the article Sino-French War, and at present I can't summon up the energy to correct relatively harmless disimprovements.  Some guy is simply text-dumping quotes from one of the sources I used into the footnotes.  It doesn't do any harm, but it does detract from the overall impression given by the article.  One of these days I will take it up with him, but not today ...
 * I think of defending Wikipedia articles I am interested in as a kind of guerilla war. Every now and then, when the sniping becomes intolerable, you have to make a sweep and clear out all the unhelpful edits.  Then you return to your base and after a few weeks the guerillas re-emerge and the whole process starts all over again.
 * Djwilms (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Sumorsaete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindred (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) 10:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayan languages
Hello. Some time ago, you made this edit to the article on Paraguay, which states that only 8% speak Guaraní, as opposed to the 92% that speak Spanish. Which suggests that no one (or hardly anyone) speaks both languages. I think you've made a misstep here. The sentence leads with "official languages are Spanish and Guaraní, both being widely spoken in the country" (emphasis mine).

Please note that I don't pretend to know what the exact figures are. But a brief Google suggests that Guarani is not the minority language that the article now states it is. --Several Pending (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe I thought I was fixing vandalism, but looking at the history I don't see why I would have thought that. It may just be a total error on my part. At any rate I just went ahead and reverted it; I don't know what's the correct figure, but 8% definitely seems wrong.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Cuchullain,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds very interesting. I'd certainly be up for participating.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Olympic swimmer David Larson article
Cooch, we have a problem with an IP user who has made a series of edits to the David Larson article. The same user started editing the article under multiple IP addresses 24 hours ago, and is now editing under at least two newly registered accounts, Sandalmaster and Sandalm. The user has inserted odd and unsourced anecdotes about a purported child of Larson's, and seems to be pushing the edges of the envelope to see what he can get away with by inserting more unsourced statements about the article's subject. I would be grateful if you could put this one on your watch list. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooch, Dirtlawyer is obviously attempting to revert true information. To what purpose, I know not. It is true that there is no citable source to the information edited onto the page. However, if you will notice, the page ratings have risen significantly. I'm sure that this could only lead to one logical conclusion: The addition is true and known to a select few. This must be changed. After all, Wikipedia's core values are based on sharing little known information with the entire world. According to logic, the first person to possess information cannot cite any source except himself. He is then used as the source by which other people cite their information. I am the first source. If you would like, I could have the person the page is featured on, David Larson, contact you in some way to assert the information. Thank you very much for your attention and time. You can contact me directly at this email: nlopezcon@aim.com.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.178.201 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously the material is inappropriate by any measure. Dirt, the page is now semi-protected, which hopefully will put an end to it. I've added the article to my watchlist; if you see any more of this silliness, let me or the other admins know.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Saint Thomas Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic empires (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) 10:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, thank you for the barnstar. To answer your question, looking through the article history, it was added by an anonymous editor,, on November 10, 2011. I can't tell you any more about it, unfortunately.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Shining Path
Looks like you are one of the few people who was around during the mediation for Shining Path that is still active on wikipedia. Check out my contribs and you can see just how active I am. Anyway, Shining Path has been edited so that the narrative voice of the article bluntly states that they were terrorists, and the article Internal Conflict in Peru has been moved to Terrorism in Peru. I've requested that it be moved back. I don't know if you have any interest in participating in these discussions. --Descendall (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Decendall, good to hear from you. I was involved in the discussions about the Shining Path article way back when, but have been much less active the last few years. I'll take a look into it and see what I can do.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians
Dear Cuchullain, I have made some changes to the very 1st sentence of the article. I firmly believe the term Syrian Christians needs more attention since it is used in most of the govt records. For example, in my School Certificates, the community name is Roman Catholic Syrian Christian. I request you to review the changes, especially the word "colloquial" in the new edit pl. Now only I'm seeing the accusations on me by user Robin. Actually I respect his knowledge in the area of Jewish traditions but helpless to co-operate with him in many aspects. Hope for better things ahead. -- AshLey  Msg 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the first sentence I think we should be as simple as possible; we already explain the various other terms in more detail in the "Terminology" section. I agree that "Syrian Christians" should probably be there. The only real issue is that outside of India it can refer to literally any Syrian Christian. As for Robin klein, his comments are seriously out of line, and quite surprising from someone with such a long and productive tenure at Wikipedia. I hope he will take a break and come back with a clearer head; if not, dispute resolution may be necessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Thank you. I agree, it's better to explain in terminology section, but many facts lack reliable and accessible sources for proper citation even though it's well known in the local sphere. I'll try to find some census records for citation. - AshLey  Msg 06:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't say anything we don't have a citation for, whether or not it's locally well known. If you do find anything please do add it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain and Ashley,

This is the first time in a long time that I had so much edit problems. It is possible that I might have been forceful. But I think we all play our part and have to be sensitive to each other. If I have been offensive then I should and do indeed apologize. Yes I too look forward for a better future with edits on this page. One last, I am removing the last remaining portion of WP:SYN that was left as hidden text after my addition of supposed WP:SYN was deleted. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you Robin. I hoped for a resolution such as this, and I hope we can move forward without falling back into old habits. I plan on doing a bit more work on the article soon, and will look through that material to see if I can incorporate some of it. I look forward to working with you productively as we continue.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

There is vandalism deletion of infobox/table on the page Saint Thomas Christians by User:Linguisticgeek. Please help in sorting this vandalism. He is constantly deleting and reverting. Need your help to stop deletion of inforbox/table. Thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like this has ended before I could get to it. I will look into the issues he raised with the images. However, as I've told you multiple times before, please stop calling edits "vandalism" that clearly don't meet the definition at WP:VAND. This is a content dispute and edit warring; it is not vandalism. I hope you will refrain from this in the future.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Florida cultural events
Hello Cuchullain :-)

I now live in Saint Augustine, Florida, and plan to work with cultural heritage organizations and institutions in the area. I'm reaching out to you because you edit loads of articles about FL and you live close by to me.

Do you have any interest in doing either outreach to cultural heritage organizations in FL or on wiki assistance to new editors from this sector.

In particular, I want to get the ball rolling planning Florida events related to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 that will happen in September 2012. This years focus in the US is images of places on the National Register of Historic Places. While living in Kentucky, my husband and I took and uploaded images of places on the NRHP so I have a general idea of the process. I'm most interested in finding the gaps in coverage of historical sites in FL, and figuring out the best way to get these covered with local events. Maybe road trips to get some images in the outlying areas. We have a good amount of lead time so I think that this is doable.

Additionally, I plan to work with the Saint Augustine 450 Commemoration (a four year initiative to celebrate the founding of Saint Augustine and settlement of FL through educational and legacy projects) to see how that we can add value to their current events, and possibly plan some joint initiatives.

I'm also working with User:LoriLee, the U.S. Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation, to create an listing of cultural organizations and institutions in the United States, and WMF volunteers interested in working with these organizations. The beginning stages of it are at GLAM/US/Connect. We also plan to have State specific pages that link to the Wikiproject for each state.

Would love to hear your thoughts and idea, and to see if you have an interest in one or more of these projects? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, welcome to the neighborhood, Flo. Sorry for the delay in response. I would certainly be interested in helping out with these projects. I have some contacts with people and organizations that may be willing to help, though I don't know how fruitful that would turn out to be. I admit I really don't know much about GLAM or Wiki Loves Monuments, but they sound like great initiatives, and I'd be happy to contribute my time and resources. As far as monuments go, I think we'll find plenty to do for that just in the greater Jacksonville area - it's crazy how many historical sites there are in St. Augustine alone! - and I'd certainly be willing to visit other areas as well.
 * Unfortunately, WP:FLA isn't particularly active now, but there are quite a few editors who actively contribute to Florida articles (including several who contribute to North Florida specifically). --Cúchullain t/ c 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! The US GLAM project is finding its legs now. Some folks are working behind the scene to better organize the project, so that it will be more helpful to GLAM professionals and Wikipedia editors. I went to GLAMcamp DC to help get the ball rolling. We made progress by developing some materials to use in outreach to GLAM organizations and a place on Wikipedia English that they can get information. We are also working on a state specific resource pages for Wikipedia editors. For all of this to work we need to connect with local people who are interested in doing outreach to GLAMS or helping on wiki, so I'm thrilled that you're interested and want to help. :-)


 * This is the first year that the United States has participated in Wiki Loves Monuments, so it is a new thing to all of us here in the United States. The decision was made to focus on places on the NRHP because they are across every state and already have an id number so it will be easier to record as people upload new images. Some Florida Wikipedia editors have done a good job getting loads of images already, but there are gaps especially in historic districts. I'm sorting out now the places that need more images.


 * If you like, you can email me the names of GLAM organizations that you think we should contact. We can sort out the best approach to use. Looking forward to working with you, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Florida–Georgia
Hey, Cooch. Hope you're doing well. Small bone to pick: could you use the established citation format in the article, rather than rearranging the publication date to match one of the WP cite templates? There are already 50+ newspaper footnote cites formatted consistently within the article, as well as consistently with the vast majority of other Florida Gators articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll get on it when I get a minute.Cúchullain t/ c 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited First Coast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast (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) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Call Me Burroughs
When you have a moment, can you move this from my subpage (User:RepublicanJacobite/Call Me Burroughs) into article space? Thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 19:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I already did it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you were wanting the edit histories merged, I can do that if you wish.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just thinking about that, thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 20:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. Cheers,--Cúchullain t/ c 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Interverview
Hello Cuchullain, I hope you are enjoying this wonderful weather (hopefully where you are!). I was messaging you to ask if you would like to be interview through email about what it is like to be a Wikipedia Admin. I am doing this for a project through Wikipedia's Education Program. I am a Junior at Michigan State University and I would be representing the University for this interview. I would like to interview you some time next week. I could send you the questions and you could answer them as you would like. So far, it seems that the format will be that I allow you to review the questions before I ask you to answer and then you can send them back to me. If anything changes, I will let you know. You can contact me formally through my MSU email at armste11@msu.edu. I look forward to hearing from you!

SpartyParty (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Carolina Mudcats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Charleston and Southern League


 * Pensacola Blue Wahoos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Charleston and Southern League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Durham club's branding
The Durham Bulls brand themselves as the "The Triangle's Team" which represents the whole Research Triangle. It says it on their banner of their website (Durham Bulls site). Respectfully, it should be that the Mudcats share the fanbase with the Bulls. C.J. Ratt (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but according WP:NOR, we'd have to have a reliable source that specifically says that. We can't draw our own interpretations. If you find such a source, it would be fine to include.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well, thank you so much! This is unexpected. I really appreciate that, as I appreciate the work you've done to make the article better. Thanks again!--Cúchullain t/ c 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, we all have our disagreements from time to time, but I appreciate the fact that we can work together through calm, reasonable discussion to resolve issues that arise. And I think that kind of behavior deserves notice and commendation! Keep up the good work. -Jhortman (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Email Interview
Hello Cuchullain,

Its been a while since I've spoken to you. I emailed you the questions for the interview last saturday. We must have lost touch so I was wondering if you've received my email?

Thank you,

Letia Armstead

SpartyParty (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the late response. I've emailed you back.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitchiti
This might interest you. Your reversion here - see  and. I've put a COI warning on his talk page and edited one article, but there's still quite a bit of this for instance left in that article and I have only looked at a couple of his edits. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is the "Mayans in Georgia" guy. We will definitely need to review all those edits. I recall reverting him at Hitchiti; that article does have major problems, but his version didn't include any sources and introduced some pretty incorrect material. We certainly shouldn't be using him as a source.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ryou-Un Maru
Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians
I've done a fair amount of clearing out etc at STC but since you are editing now, I'll leave it for a few hours & let you get on with things. No point in hitting edit conflicts etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I should be done shortly. You've done some excellent and much needed work over there; thanks a lot.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is no big deal. However, be prepared for some screaming when I really get going - I have a habit of following policies and it causes problems. I am really not too happy about some of the sources etc and they may well be outed. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard that, man. At any rate it's much appreciated.Cúchullain t/ c 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic because it is not about STC, but it does relates to another contributor to the article. Can you make sense of the argument at User talk:Ashley thomas80? I can and will take it to RSN if necessary but I think that this is just another fundamental misunderstanding of how we work, which is alas quite common with that contributor. I'd rather not waste the time of people at RSN for no real reason at all. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it. Ashely has done some good work at the STC article, and has been understanding when I've had to fix some of the rough edges caused by general misunderstandings and the language barrier.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. And also for your comments on the STC talk page. I'll wait on other comments there before doing anything. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

---
 * We do have source that specifically say that the Northists also have claims that trace their descent from converted Jewish people from the malabar coast. Here is the quote from Shalva Weil, page 182. "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196). As a postscript to this she states "..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196.  thanks Robin klein (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

--

STC disruption
I put in a semi-protection request at WP:RFPP some hours ago wrt the anon disruption at Saint Thomas Christians. As far as I am concerned, this now constitutes vandalism and I will be using rollback. It seems clear to me that there is either some campaign going on or a quite dramatic bit of IP hopping. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I just left a note at WP:ANI. It's clearly either socks or meat puppets, as you say. At any rate, continuing to revert the edits will just exacerbate the edit war; it's best just to let the admins (uninvolved ones) take care of it and then we can get back to work.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The present IPs are doing things somewhat differently from the two previously registered users, which creates a problem for the duck test, and SPI will not connect IPs to usernames. Aside from perhaps spurring the RFPP process, I am not sure what can be achieved at ANI. I suspect they'll just direct you someplace else. Anyway, we'll see what happens and, yes, it is pointless reverting them every couple of minutes. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Outdated template"
Yes, the NALL template was outdated. However, I updated it and restored it to its pages. (Next time, when a template's outdated, update it, don't remove it!) Tom Danson (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The template's really not salvageable at this juncture. It contains virtually no useful information and a bunch of red links to teams that may or may not ever play a true season. This is why it's such a problem to have articles on ephemeral teams with no reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch
This was a good catch, although doubtless it will be inserted again. I had a word at User talk:Robin klein a few days ago re: obsessing with the Jewish connection, following this edit. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably should have been notified of this report at WP:DRN. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Matilda Betham
Hello there! Just to let you know I've deleted a redirect placed at Matilda Betham, given they are actually different authors (Matilda Betham-Edwards). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matilda_Betham-Edwards#Untitled FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't remember creating that redirect, but you're clearly right.Cúchullain t/ c 20:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:South Florida Metropolitan Area
Ummm, what was this about? 

I reverted your edit, because it didn't make any sense.  Horologium  (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake - I clicked the rollback button by accident. You caught it before I could correct it.Cúchullain t/ c 20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)