User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 23

Quick question
Hi. I have a question. If a user violates their non-interaction agreement (as is the case with a dynamic IP who stalked and harassed Yworo to the point of being community banned as a result), would they bring it up to ANI or contact an administrator? Also, would an interaction ban be nullified if there is a community ban placed on the user? I am only asking. Also, having been involved with Wikipedia for over 6 years with over 50,000 edits to my credit as well as 11 good articles and 10 featured articles, I am a well-respected and competent editor. If I have caused any issues with other users or if I was uncivil towards anyone, then I am deeply sorry. It was never my intention to hurt or upset anyone. By the way, some of the stress from being involved in a couple of disputes with disruptive users have got to me as well as the exam week over at my university, and as a result, I am taking a semi-Wikibreak to let off some steam. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ANI, to the best of my knowledge. A community ban prevents all participation, other than to appeal the ban. If someone is community banned and they are editing, then I would recommend either WP:AIV or WP:SPI, depending on if they are editing or have created a sock. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sjones, I'd really have to know more about the situation to give you proper advice. Generally speaking, an interaction ban means that an editor can't interact with or even discuss the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia. I'd have to know the nature of the community ban to comment. If you're talking about an appeal of a ban, the place to do it would be AN. If they just want to present evidence of a violation, they can bring it to an admin; I'd be happy to have a look. Is this the info you're looking for?--Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the information I was looking for. If a user violates their non-interaction agreement, I think its appropriate to report this to an administrator or ANI. Thanks! Also, I am and have always been happy to voluntarily stop interacting with some disruptive users if they are willing to do the same (as is the case with this AN discussion, in which I admit that I unintentionally went too far despite my best intentions to disengage from the thread), and I think that would be a non-interaction agreement as the interaction ban had no consensus. I was obviously insulted and heckled by Fladrif in that discussion as well as on my talk page. This is also prevalent in this comment, which I find to be very condescending, offensive and extremely resentful. Fortunately, Fladrif was blocked from editing Wikipedia because of his actions and that was already dealt with at ANI. But I do have exceptionally low tolerance for personal attacks (which I have an exceptionally strict policy advising against it, as well as using ad hominems which some users did to me to discredit my views) and comments which I find to be harassing, haranguing, accusatory, inflammatory, incivil, heckling, insulting, condescending, disrespectful, abusive, venomous, yelling, annoying, embarassing, temperamental, rude or threatening, or those that are full of vulgarity. All of these can create a power imbalance in communication and are considered detrimental to the discussion. Such comments are utterly disgraceful, as well as contentions confrontations, and these are one of the reasons why I refused to participate in that AN discussion or engage with some disruptive users (i.e. Niemti, Fladrif) out of fear of pushing the wrong buttons. That also played into my decision to avoid getting involved in contentions confrontations on Wikipedia. I'm sure I didn't mean to harass or provoke anyone (whether its unintentional or intentional). Also, some users have subjected me to personal abuse and repetitive uncivil behavior, and I resent that as well. That, combined with my frustration over Wikipedia's inability to deal with disruptive users and my approach in dealing with some of these users, as well as trying to deal with harassment off-wiki, pretty much emphasizes the fact that "some things are just not worth the risk", you know? Hopefully that AN discussion is finished for at least a long time and I don't have to make a fuss about it anymore. Once again, I am sorry if I was uncivil towards any user or have caused any issue with users in any way. To be perfectly honest, I didn't mean for some things to happen as I am a peaceable person by nature and I don't care if I get involved in any dispute... In fact, Ched, a fellow administrator, realized that he made some observations about me in a negative light (I get a little shaky when someone posts questionable aspects like that) and apologized to me after I apologized to him for what I might have done. But I digress. Yworo was being stalked and harassed by a dynamic IP hopper from North Carolina for a time since August 2011. Back in November 2011, the IP agreed to stop interacting with Yworo at ANI, and that was a non-interaction agreement (not an interaction ban). That made it easier for everyone. The IP violated the non-interaction agreement a few more times (especially on the Charlize Theron article, where Yworo was one of the regular contributors) and also ended up on ANI, resulting in Yworo being driven off of Wikipedia temporarily by the IP hopper's wikihounding for 14 hours. When Yworo returned, the IP hopper solicited Irolnire to instigate harassment against the user, resulting in another immediate violation of the non-interaction agreement and Irolnire was blocked. That eventually resulted in a community ban on the IP hopper at ANI due to his harassment of Yworo. Make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have the background on all that, and I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether Yworo should still follow the non-interaction agreement with the IP? They certainly shouldn't hesitate to report evidence of the anon harassing them, if that's what you mean.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was asking about the IP hopper who stalked Yworo and had some issues with him in the past and how to deal with that since the IP hopper is community banned. Banned edits, good or bad, can be reverted. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Red Bank Plantation House
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Thanks for reverting the IPs at Hajiri's page. I wanted to let you know that I have filed a protection request at WP:RFPP. Hopefully they will respond to it soon. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I semi-protected it indefinitely, hopefully that will help.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your swift action. Enjoy your weekend on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks as well for the swift action. I haven't been involved with that Hijiri88 thing lately since the user's departure and my diligent efforts in reporting some IP socks of JoshuSasori. I also appreciate your efforts for taking care of this situation, Cuchullain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Patriot War
Having recently bought and read a copy of Florida Fiasco by Rembert W. Patrick (1954), I was looking into writing an article about the Patriot War. There are reserve copies of The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida by James G. Cusick (2003) and The plot to steal Florida: James Madison's phony war by Joseph Burkholder Smith (1983) in local libraries. There is supposed to be a circulating copy of The Other War of 1812 in one library, which I have reserved, but it appears to be missing. There also appear to be downloadable copies of The plot to steal Florida, but I haven't tried to download one, yet.

Anyway, in searching for sources, I saw your sand-box start. Are you still interested in developing the article? I probably will work rather slowly on it, as I have gotten out of the habit of editing WP. In any case, with at least 3 books published on the subject, I think a fairly long article is appropriate. -- Donald Albury 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had pretty much forgotten about that. I was intending to just whip up a stub based on Gannon's History of Florida and a few other sources, and I got sidetracked and forgot about it. I'm afraid I don't have much to add at this point, but I will gladly help out as I can.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi
You took part in [closed] Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM. Please see suggestion for follow up at MOSKOS RfC?. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Magic Hat Brewery
The article clearly states an American Brewery now. This implies that the Brewery is American owned. I simply changed the first line to reflect a Costa Rican owned Brewery in America. I am unsure why this change offends you so much but I will post for moderator review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbparker40 (talk • contribs)
 * I have responded at the article talk page. The brewery itself is in the US, no matter who owns it. My updates to the article already make clear that it is owned by a Costa Rican company.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first line of the article states " is an American brewery in South Burlington, Vermont." Clearly saying an american Brewery. Its a Costa Rican owned American Brewery as it is under the proprietorship of the Costa Rican Brand. To say it is an american brewery is misleading at best. The Brand is costa rican. To make another analogy we don't claim that Honda is an american car manufacturer because it makes the cars in the USA.... Also the beer itself links to this page.Lbparker40 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We would say the factories themselves were American, because they would be. At any rate, I removed the word "American" which seems to be your biggest concern. Please continue any further discussion on the article talk page so others can see it.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Someone forgot to tell you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for San Marco (Jacksonville)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great job with San Marco (Jacksonville). Can't believe there wasn't an article on that a few months ago.  I guess there are still articles to write!. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thank you! I hope to work on articles for all of Jacksonville's urban core neighborhoods at some point.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557236645 your edit] to JTA Skyway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557694389 your edit] to University of Florida Health may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hi
New User - first edit removing Hangul from Korean girl band, then edits to cats of Dukes of Wellington, then mass undiscussed moves of Vietnam articles, with familiar pattern of redirect edit locks. From today my watchlist beeping like crazy (at the time I'm always out every Saturday) with articles I created being moved and locked. I put in for Tech revert. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please revert all of his undiscussed moved involving Vietnam-related articles, thank. ༆ (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was mostly inaccessible this weekend. From what I'm seeing this certainly looks like it could be a sock of Kauffner; I'll look into it more today.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like Kauffner to me. I've started a new SPI here.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2013 May
Can you close the "Harry S Truman" move review, please, or let it wait a little longer? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how to close move reviews, but I'll have a look and see what I can do. I think this process is seriously broken.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Canadian colonies" template needs renaming IMO
Please see Template_talk:Canadian_colonies and note recent undos/reversions on the template. I'm of the same opinion as you on the matter, noting your previous responses on the talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW
Noting it was you who closed the Lillooet/St'at'imc RM, is it viable that you can close the St'at'imc CfR? That was basically hinged on the result of that RM..Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience with CfDs, I'm afraid. Whatever is done with the category, should the article be moved to Sťáťimc (with the diacritics)? This is done with many other similar articles--Cúchullain t/ c 12:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The central issue, or one of the many side issues rather, was whether the term is used in English. It is, without the diacriticals, e.g. in newspapers and so on.  Publications of the St'at'imc themselves, including www.statimc.net use the diacritical forms.  Essentially the difference is between how it is used in English, and how it is properly written in St'at'imcets itself.  As with Category:Sto:lo  (the main article for which is Sto:lo people, though I would prefer the version Sto:lo, which is also very common in English now, official and media, the diacriticals are not used.  That was the point of my CfD in the first place; the old diacriticalized form even include special t-apostrophe characters, not "t"+"'".....Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know what's happened there, looks like someone has speedied the category back to the diacriticalized form despite the RM and CfD. I have guests and can't look into this, but when I started this, and even a few days ago, it was Sto:lo people for the article and I thought the CfD had adopted that and created Category:Sto:lo.  Adjourning for the night, it's 10pm...but somebody is moving the goalposts and starting the game over and it's really....really irritating.  The undiacriticalized forms are dmonstrably standard English in Canada now.  The use of the diacriticals are not.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked, the article is at Sto:lo people without diacriticals...I thought the CfR had been closed but it's still open. Again, the undiacriticalized form is the standard in Canadian English now; the diacriticalized form is not, though it is seen in some publications; but not in media or official usage.  The diacriticalized form is also used by only one of the Sto:lo tribal councils, either the Sto:lo Nation or the Sto:lo Tribal Council, and there are political issues as to why.  There are many independent bands, some use the one or the other.  But in "regular" media and normal print usage, the diacriticalized form is not used; if anything it's "politically correct", which also means that academic texts may still continue to use it.  It's quarter after ten pm now, the beer I bought for my friends who are departing is getting warm (it's 37 degrees here, despite it being dark).  Back tomorrow.Skookum1 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. In any event, I'd rather leave CsD closings to someone with more experience, though it may be worth noting that the main article has been moved.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558182660 your edit] to Gwriad ap Elidyr may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559277745 your edit] to Cormoran may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Giant-Killer" and awarded a belt on which was written:  {cite journal |last1= Spooner |first1= B. C.|year= 1965 |title= The Giants of Cornwall|journal=
 * him her store of eggs and butter. This both feeds the giant and makes Nancy's family rich. {cite journal |last1= Spooner |first1= B. C.|year= 1965 |title= The Giants of Cornwall|journal=

Talk:Born This Way
Can you give a closure rationale? I don't know how oppose arguments overcome support ones. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2013 April
It's been one month overdue; I hope you use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I closed the Dot the i review; hopefully I formatted it correctly. I'd rather not get involved in these in the future.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd
Greetings!

Seeing that once upon a time you requested notification should there ever be a Wikipedia Meetup in Gainesville, Florida, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dot the I (again)
Are you sure there's no consensus to overturn? I'd entreat you to look again at Move review/Log/2013 April. There seems to be little in the way of strong argument for ignoring our guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, after much consideration I don't consider there to be a strong enough consensus to overturn the original closure. The most I could see would be "'overturn' to no consensus" (which would have the same result - the article staying put - so I'm not going to do it) and possibly relisting, which I may have considered if we hadn't just gone through several months of discussion already. I think it's time for a breather on this one, you can start another RM down the road if you wish.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Overturning to no consensus would have a different result. In the wake of such controversy, surely we should be reverting to what our guidelines on naming conventions and MoS recommend, as there is certainly no consensus for WP:IAR.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, overturning the closure from "not moved" to "no consensus to move" would have the same result - the article stays put. Exceptions are sometimes made to put it back to the last stable version, but this article has been at "i" for 7 years. It's seriously time for a breather.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading through the move review once again, I think you have made the wrong call - there does seem to be consensus to overturn. And WP:TITLEFORMAT is policy - surely we should be following this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my closure.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 6 overturns, 2 endorse, and a couple of overturn to no consensus (and I'm not sure what George means!). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a headcount. No one seriously argued that Ed was out of their purview in their close, and at least two participants - including you - suggested "no consensus" would have been a palatable decision though it would have the same result. I'm getting 5 for overturn, 4 supporting the close, 1 neutral leaning overturn and George Ho's unclear comments that seem to lean endorse. This is hardly a strong consensus to overturn the last decision and the article's status quo. Again, I stand by my decision.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 endorse only - Smokey Joe moved towards overturn to no consensus. Not sure where you're getting the fourth from.  At least three of the "overturn" were surprised at the outcome considering the strength of the arguments, and Smokey Joe suggested that Ed shouldn't have closed it due to admission of non-confidence.  Read in conjunction with the original move, there are no strong WP:IAR arguments.  We need to revert to policy and guidelines here.  I think we're going to need a second opinion on this...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I count EdJohnston, Red Slash, Binksternet, and Smokey Joe, whose "Endorse, leaning Overturn (no consensus to rename)"/"no consensus to move" is a vote to uphold the standing status quo. Then of course there's your statement that "'no consensus' would have been reasonable", though it's now clear you didn't understand what "no consensus" means. Overturning a closure requires clear consensus to do so, and that doesn't exist here without parsing it into oblivion. Time to move on.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My point there was that had Ed closed with a "no consensus to move" I could have seen where he was coming from, although I would still have disagreed. However he closed it with a "consensus not to move", which was clearly not apparent from the arguments in the RM, and the MR backs up this view.  I'm surprised you can't see this.  We need a second opinion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cormoran, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bullock and Gogmagog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I asked Rschen, I would have thought it was simple enough, but evidently not]. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Garcilaso
Thanks for fixing this. I had been thinking of taking this to RM; did I read somewhere that a repeated bold move (which has been reverted and taken to ddiscussion per BRD) can be reversed as a technical move? I was looking through the RM talk pages, but had drawn a blank (and it may just be a figment of my rum-soaked imagination!) Anyway thanks; I've stated my objections at the RM discussion there. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Technical requests can be used to reverse an undiscussed move you can't do it yourself. That didn't seem to be an issue here, since you were able to move it back; Marshall just shouldn't have moved it the second time. At any rate it seems to be sorted now.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Art Institutes
Hello Cuchullain. I see that last week you reverted a deletion to The Art Institutes article, and thanks for doing so: it's certainly relevant information. (And at this writing you're still the most recent to have edited.) I also wanted to ask if you would be interested in looking at a new draft of the articl?. I'd like to be very clear: I am working on this page on behalf of Education Management Corporation, the parent company of The Art Institutes, and because of my financial COI I will not be making any mainspace edits. I recently left a request on the Talk page where I have explained my concerns with the current version and provided a link to the draft in my user space. Please take a look if you are interested. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you being up front, and your hard work. I think your edits look good.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right on, thanks. Because of my relationship to the subject, I won't be the one to make the edits myself. However, I'd also reached out to another editor at the same time (User:Ɱ) who also gave thumbs up and I think is going to make the move this weekend. Still, glad you also approve! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Northeast Florida
So i'm interested in hearing your take on the First Coast page. It seems that there is a struggle between the terms First Coast and Northeast Florida. They roughly have the same definition, but I'm concerned that the differences they do possess are blurred by the redirect and emphasis on First Coast. The term First Coast has a history of being used as a marketing tool, but the term leaves out a large chunk of the area population that may feel connected to the region, but not necessarily self identify with being a First Coaster. Northeast Florida being a geographical designation, and widely used by regional organizations to define an area larger than that of the Jacksonville metropolitan area, make it less loaded and more inclusive and cohesive. I don't believe two pages are needed, but a flip flop might be helpful. A history of the term First Coast should be included, but the more important encyclopedic topic is Norhteast Florida, to me. Let me know what you think. Mathew105601 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As usual, what we'd need are sources. We have two good ones for "First Coast" (the Lamme and Oldakowski paper and Calnan's Times-Union article), which give the same basic area. However, I haven't been able to find any good sources for "Northeast Florida". Lamme & Oldakowski include it, but they give it a much more restricted area (just Duval and Nassau Counties). Of course this doesn't track with common usage. The best I could find was the Enterprise Florida "regional" map, which includes metro Jacksonville as well as Putnam and Flagler. But the source isn't really about Northeast Florida as a region, it just mentions it, so we're basically using it as a primary source (and evidently Enterprise Florida now uses somewhat different names for the regions, making it less helpful here.) We can't (re)write an article just based on that. In other words, I think the current setup is the way to go until we find some good secondary sources giving a real description of Northeast Florida.--Cúchullain t/ c  16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, though it's just my own estimation at this point, I think "First Coast" is becoming more common throughout the region outside of Jacksonville. For instance you'll here references including Palm Coast and Flagler County in the "First Coast", and the name appears to be spreading to business there, as well as in Putnam County and even occasionally in the St. Mary's, Georgia area. At this point I think the terms "First Coast" and "Northeast Florida" increasingly describe the same area. Again, however, without sources this isn't something that can be added.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually a little torn as to whether it should be referred to as the First Coast or Northeast Florida. I think for outsiders it is easier to locate the region with the latter name. As far as the areas considered part of the region, I think you are missing a few very important references that set a huge precedent for the region. You have the Northeast Florida Regional Council and the Newly established Northeast Florida Regional Transportation Commission. These are growing organizations. Not to mention the list of other establishments that include Putnam and Flagler county into there internal references to Northeast Florida. I got the citations to establish Putnam and Flagler as part of the Northeast Florida?First Coast region. I think you even have Putnam County included in the combined statistical area of Jacksonville. That's why it was kind of perplexing that when you reverted the regional map you removed Palatka and left Palm Coast. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at cities in the infobox, I just restored whatever what there before to move your new image to the "Northeast Florida" section and restore the old one. I think I've taken care of it now. As for the sources for "Northeast Florida", again, those would all be primary sources rather than secondary sources, which are needed to write articles. Unlike "First Coast", we still don't have any good secondary sources - the one we do have gives a much more restricted definition than those organizations use. I think the name itself may be familiar, as it's self-explanatory, but the definition isn't necesarily; "First Coast" is pretty well known according to Lamme & Oldakowski. Again, I don't think we should perform a move or big rewrite until we can find appropriate sources for it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I sometimes let my personal preferences take control, especial when I go on an editing spree. I end up getting a message from you shortly after. I need to be reeled in sometimes. I will keep an eye out for more sources, but honestly it is not the most pressing issue. I have limited time to edit and I always have a list of things I want update or add. This is just one more on this list. I hope I don't come across as an ass. I forget that there is a person on the other side of this screen. I do appreciate the input. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's been a good discussion, and it's clarified some things about the article. I think sources for "Northeast Florida" with turn up as the term increases in popularity. I've added two sentences describing some of the organizations; I think that will do for now until we locate some additional sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
Hi, I just closed an RM at Hillary Clinton, but realized after the fact that the redirect is locked so I can't tag it for deletion. Would you mind enacting this move? Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oy vey, this is going to be a long morning. I'll look into this and the move review.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * don't worry, the admin action has been done, undone, redone already. If you want to weigh in at move review feel free but no other admin action is needed for Now - sorry should have struck the request above. Best --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tropical Hockey League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo (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) 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

St. Johns County, Florida
Good afternoon Cuchullain,

I am a Communications Specialist writing on behalf of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners. As the local government body serving St. Johns County, our organization has a vested interest in the content written on the Wikipedia page designated for our region. In our efforts to provide residents, visitors, and external viewers with the most up-to-date and factual information regarding St. Johns County, we recently established a Wikipedia account to offer edits and improvements to the page. Out of respect and consideration for the rules and guidelines detailed by Wikipedia, we have made consistent efforts to offer content which we feel supports Wikipedia’s goals of sharing unbiased, community based, and reference backed information. Though we are extremely proud of St. Johns County and would love to fill the Wikipedia page with endless accolades, we recognize our responsibility to offer site visitors neutral information. We welcome any feedback on how best to balance these efforts. As an example, we would like to share the fact that St. Johns County has been recognized as having the number one school district in the state. There are numerous references explaining this recognition, how it was established, and what it means for our residents and the future of St. Johns County. With your help, we hope to share this type of County fact on Wikipedia in an appropriate fashion. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceilingtile1234 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI... Ceilingtile1234 posted the same comments in this help desk thread they started. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey Cuchullain

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to move...
...Sunn O))) back per the deadmau5 discussion without a separate RM? I'm asking this because it isn't an analogous case (applies to another part of MOS:TM). Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 16:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if there's any potential of controversy it needs to go through a discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

British language
This is now the oldest case at WP:RM and I was thinking of closing it. For part of my reasoning I was going to say that British language was the long-term name of the article prior to June 19. Here are the logs I found:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/British_language (moved by User:ÓCorcráin to Old Brythonic (language) at 11:41 on 19 June)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Old_Brythonic_%28language%29 (moved by you to Brittonic language at 13:32 on 19 June)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Brittonic_language (moved by User:Angr to British language at 14:21 on 19 June)

Do you know if the long term name of this article prior to 19 June was British language? So far as I can tell all of the June 19 actions were bold moves and none of them were the result of discussions. Is my claim about the history correct? I don't know any way to look at the edit history and tell what name was used for the article at various times. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit history is very convoluted. The history is tied up with the article now at Brythonic languages and it has covered different things at different times. Here's what I can come up with:
 * The earliest use I can find was Brythonic language, created by PaulDrye on August 19, 2001. As it developed, it came to be about the wider language branch. Following the creation of a separate article for the original language, it was renamed Brythonic languages by Angr on April 22, 2006.
 * British language was originally a redirect to British English created in 2003. It was converted to a dab page (which didn't include this language) in 2004 and the dab page was moved to British language (disambiguation) on October 3, 2010.
 * Meanwhile, a separate article on the historical language itself, originally titled British (language), was created on December 18, 2005. It was renamed British language (Celtic) on December 26, 2005 and stayed there for most of its history.
 * From then until October 3, 2010, "British language" was the dab page, and the present article was at British language (Celtic); at that point the dab page was moved to "British language (disambiguation)" (without discussion) and the language article was moved to "British language".
 * After that the article didn't move until June, though it has caused quite a bit of confusion as can be told from the talk page and ÓCorcráin's move.
 * Your summary of the recent moves is right, with minor corrections: ÓCorcráin moved the page to Old Brythonic (language), I then moved it to Brittonic language. :While there hadn't been any previous RM for any of the moves, there have been several discussions (especially since 2010) and they appeared to favor "Brittonic" (here, here, and here), hence my move and subsequent RM nomination. As you can see, my opinion is that this name is more common in the sources and much less confusing to readers. I hope that's helpful.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I still see no evidence that the name "Brittonic language" is more common in the sources than "British language", and my opinion is that naming it "Brittonic language" will more confusing, not less, than keeping the name "British language" (or possibly "British language (Celtic)" so it's clearer it doesn't mean British English). Google-hit counts are meaningless because there's no way to separate "Brittonic language" when it means "the Celtic language spoken in Britain up to about the 5th century AD" from "Brittonic language" when it means "any language of the Brittonic branch of the Celtic language family". Nor do I see any consensus on "Brittonic language" (or anything else, for that matter) from the previous discussions you linked to above. Angr (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I have now fixed two mistakes in my original listing of the moves, above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it less confusing in that "British language" can refer to any language from Britain, including English, while "Brittonic language" can only refer to this language and its related descendents. This has confused readers for years as can be seen on the talk page. Though I didn't think it so the time, I'm increasingly of the opinion that "British language" really ought to be a dab page. As for prevalence, well, "Brittonic" seems to have the edge in the sources discussed in the RM.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it more confusing in that "Brittonic language" has two distinct meanings (mentioned in my post of 20:09), while "British language" has only one. And I still don't see that "Brittonic" has the edge in the sources discussed in the RM, since in those sources "Brittonic" is mostly used to refer to the language family, not the single language. Angr (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:Angr is the only one who clearly favors British language in the move discussion. If Angr and Cuchullain could reach an agreement here, it might be possible to wind up the move discussion with a compromise. Per Cagwinn, what is required is a suitable name for a specific language which at least one scholar has called 'archaic neo-Brittonic'. In the Wikipedia system, a plain vanilla name like 'British language' will have many associations for our readers other than a certain ancient language. If article titles are chosen so as to lead the reader quickly to the real topic they intend to search for, one can see the limitations of 'British language.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Notifying User:Cagwinn User:SmokeyJoe and User:Wilhelm meis since they are in the WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles run the risk of not being what users were first looking for. That's what hatnotes and dab pages are for. Nevertheless, I doubt that very many readers looking for info on British English are going to search for "British language" in the first instance. It's more a case of people stumbling across this article and finding it's about a different topic than the title would have led them to believe. That probably happens to people who stumble across Alabama language too, expecting from the title that it will be about Southern American English, but it isn't. And that isn't a reason to change the name of that article. Angr (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect a number of users look up Old English looking for information about the language of Shakespeare, but I would not say user search patterns should dictate a move to Anglo-Saxon. If, however, the majority of scholarly literature on that language called it Anglo-Saxon, then I would support a move per WP:COMMONNAME (but they don't and I don't). WP:COMMONNAME is based on usage in sources, not anticipating search patterns.  My only questions are 1) which name for the ancient Celtic language predominates among scholarly sources, and 2) how strongly it leads in scholarly usage.  The former indicates common name (though determining that seems tricky in this case, and may require nothing less than a qualitative study of scholarly sources), and the latter indicates stability. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more akin to Scottish language, which is in fact a dab page, or Canadian language, which redirects to an article about languages in Canada in general. And of course that's not the only reason to move the article. I'd certainly be amenable to finding a compromise. Basically, we have a language that is called three different things by scholars: British, Brythonic, and British. I now have access to more of my library following a recent move. So far I've found several relevant sources. The following use "Brittonic": These join the ones I already named in the RM: Christopher Snyder's The Britons, John Koch's The Gododdin of Aneirin, several other of Koch's works on Neo-Brittonic, and per Cagwinn, Kenneth Jackson's seminal Language and History in Early Britain. I found two that use "British" at least once: These join this work by Peter Schrijver I found on Google Books. Another, the Companion to Arthurian Literature, uses both "Brittonic" and "British" in the same passage, and a few more use "Brythonic". Several more use either "Brittonic" in a way that isn't clear whether the language or the branch (or both) is intended, and several others do the same with "Brythonic". In my collection, at least, "Brittonic" seems to be more common than "British". However, one thing I noticed was that several of the works using "Brittonic" call it "Common Brittonic" at least part of the time. Angr suggested a name like this may be acceptable. While I still feel that "Brittonic" is more common and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, I think that may be a workable title for this topic if we're still at a stalemate.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rachel Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein
 * Norris J. Lacy's Medieval Arthurian Literature: A Guide to Recent Research
 * Alexander Falileyev's Etymological Glossary of Old Welsh
 * Bammesberger & Wollmann's Britain 400-600: Language and History
 * The Heroic Poetry of Dark Age Britain by Stephen Stewart Evans
 * Brynley Roberts' Early Welsh Poetry: Studies in the Book of Aneirin.
 * Flint Johnson's The Origins of Arthurian Romances
 * T.M. Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons: 350-1064
 * Yes, I'd be much happier with Common Brittonic than with Brittonic language. Angr (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments here, I'm planning to close the move discussion with Common Brittonic as the result. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. After the move, British language should continue to redirect to Common Brittonic until all the links have been fixed, after which it should probably redirect to the dab page British. Angr (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Cúchullain has made the case for both common name and natural disambiguation from the family branch. Might be a good idea to copy this thread into the RM discussion for the benefit of future move requesters. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm, thanks for the suggestion. I copied this thread over to the RM and put it in a collapse box at the bottom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused
Since you were the closing admin for a relevant prior move discussion, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2013_June
Your closing summary of Move_review/Log/2013_June did not address the substantive point I was making. If it had, then the comment you have place in the close is meaningless. Please adjust the close to do so namely that closes should be based on policies and guidelines not on a personal preference. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think my statement is sufficient.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Jacksonville
Cuchullain, your last undo was to a edit that I feel is needed. "Southside, across the river to the south", gives no point of reference. Are you on the Westside giving your first hand account. It needs a point of reference. "east" gave it that point.Mathew105601 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But east of what? I was using the same point of reference as the others (downtown, which is how the term originates).Cúchullain t/ c 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't want to write an essay on this. I understand the point you are making, but it would be clearer if you used downtown in that statement or indicated to which side of the river you are referring to. You did mention downtown in the two previous regions listed, then you omitted downtown from Southside. When stating "east of the river", the river becomes the point of reference. When saying "across the river", one has to ask themselves, which direction. That's my grammar lesson for the day. I'll leave it up to you, I don't really have a choice in the matter. I edit something and you come in and reedit the whole thing. Mathew105601 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That change sounds good to me. My only issue with "east" is that Arlington is also east of the river (the edit didn't have a point of reference either). I hope my "reedits" don't bother you. It's the practice around here, and I think we've been collaborating well together.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your reedits. It helps clarify my entries, sometimes. It does get a little frustrating when I've spent time working out a format and I post the edit, only to return an hour later to find all my data has been reworked. I know that is what wiki is about, but there is a degree of ownership and pride that comes with an edit. I've also been on edge today. Didn't mean to snap. I just felt like there was this glaring problem that was not fixable unless I wrote an essay explaining it. I like the new version. It reads well. Sorry I'm crazy Mathew105601 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565611307 your edit] to Aula Maxima, Maynooth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * *The Field