User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 27

Move review for Budweiser
An editor has asked for a Move review of Budweiser. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Budweiser move - I see no consensus
Before I go to WP:MR, I would like to understand why you thought there was a consensus in favour of a move. It seemed very clear to me that there was no such consensus: the three options proposed received broadly equal votes, though the Anheuser Busch option received least. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. As I said, this was a very difficult close and I put a lot of thought into it. By my count there were 3 participants who wanted the dab page to stay at the base name: In ictu oculi, IJA, and Yaksar (I actually miscounted this in my close; a fourth participant, Edwardx, went on to support one of the move options). Several of these fail to take into account English-language use, and I considered their arguments less convincing. The other 12 participants favored one or the other move options. Of them, the majority, 7, favored the proposed move: Purplebackpack89, bd2412, Calidum, AjaxSmack, Red_Slash, Born2Cycle, and SilkTork. 5 more participants felt there should be a move of Budweiser trademark dispute (back) to Budweiser: 65.94.169.222, Jenks24, Wbm1058, Edwardx, and Gregkaye. In general, I found the arguments supporting a move to be stronger than those against. And of the two, the proposed move had the better support.
 * Leaving the dab page at the base name may initially seem like the obvious result, but it would have been going with an option favored by only 3 of 15 participants. There's also a matter I chose not to get into in my close, that the articles were recently moved around without discussion, which further confuses things. In other words, the proper result of a "no consensus" close would have been to move the concept dab page back to Budweiser, rather than leave the dab page there. This could be an acceptable result, but again, I felt consensus leaned roughly toward the proposed move: some move was clearly favored, and this was the best supported of the two discussed move options, it was the best supported individual option, and the !voters had strong arguments.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It was an excellent close. Well explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SmokeyJoe. It certainly took me a while ;)--Cúchullain t/ c 23:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me a long time to decide that I couldn't decide. In particular, I like the observation that the status quo was not well supported, and there was a rough consensus for a direction to go.  I recommend that any further discussion focus on developing a consensus for the next step.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable close IMO. Thanks for taking the time to make it, wouldn't have been an easy call whichever way you went. I probably didn't help much by muddying the waters and talking about restoring the concept dab. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jenks. And don't worry, the waters were plenty muddy already! Your suggestion was entirely reasonable and I strongly considered it, but ultimately decided to go with the option supported by more participants and their equally reasonable arguments. All in all, a very complex decision.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Due process
My understanding of the convention in dealing with RtM is this: unless there is a clear consensus for change, then the article stays as it is. It is not enough to say that you found the arguments convincing: you are not judge, jury and executioner. As an Administrator, you may only determine whether the Request has been managed fairly: you may only make a judgement call if there is a substantial majority but a small but noisy minority. That was not true in this case. You go on to assert that arguments against should be discounted because, in your opinion, "these fail to take into account English-language use". First, you have no right to discount votes like that [you may have confused yourself over the convention to use place names familiar to English speakers] and in any case I think you mean 'American language' use. Please remember that there is wide international readership for en.wikipedia because English is the most common second language. And for what its worth, many restaurants and up-market bars in the UK serve Budweiser Budvar rather than Bud. Finally, two wrongs don't make a right: I questioned the editor who moved this article to a simple disambig without consultation, but nobody but I and the mover showed any interest. I'm somewhat amazed by the number of editors that came out of the woodwork when a proposal was made to give a US corporation precedence, timed perfectly for the August holiday season in Europe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closers are absolutely expected to use their judgment to determine the quality of arguments in light of the relevant policies. Consensus is not a vote, and limited local discussions can't override the project-wide consensus behind the policies. As for English use, that's a key part of our naming policies and guidelines. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA all indicate that we rely on English use and sources (no, not "American language") in determining titles on the English Wikipedia (because we're trying to ensure that our English-speaking readership can find the information they want easily). Those opposing the proposed move made no argument that the Czech beers are commonly known as just "Budweiser" in English, which weakens their argument that they're so commonly known as "Budweiser" that the Busch product can't be the primary topic. But at any rate, the local consensus was against leaving the dab page as Budweiser; only 3 of 15 participants advocated that option.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reboot
We went through a long debate three years ago about whether a certain film was a reboot or a prequel. I see no use in opening the door to that debate again by mentioning original possible conceptions in the article. The film is a series reboot. Unless you're going to spend lots of space on explaining how it became a series reboot and was no longer a prequel by the time it entered production, no good will come from mentioning that word. You're not giving space to all the other decisions that went into its early development, so there's no need for this detail. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about debates that happened at other articles, but the problem is your edit didn't accurately follow the cited source. I'm fine with describing the movie as a "reboot" in the lead and most references, but a good portion of that interview is Jaffa and Silver talking about various possible conceptions of how it's related to Planet, and they're specifically non-committal about it being a "reboot". As such, saying it was "conceived as a reboot" isn't a fair representation of what they say. Your edit also introduced some unnecessary passive voice.
 * The key information to get across is that this is/was a(nother) stab at the franchise, but it's not another straightforward sequel or remake (like all the other films made before it). I used this source because I couldn't find any better ones. I found nothing from Variety, Hollywood Reporter or other quality sources, and I couldn't find anything but blogs, middling entertainment websites, and press releases, which I'd like to avoid as we prepare for a GA/FA push. At least this piece is an interview with the writers themselves. If you can find a better source for the early part of the film's writing and development, I'd be amenable to changing the wording.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly the main point is that this was another relaunch. My edit was accurate to that point. Don't say it was inaccurate because it left something out - something that is unnecessary and confusing to the reader. Once you open the prequel door, you have to spend time closing it. Either do that, or remove the prequel question entirely. It's unnecessary in an article on the whole franchise, and everyone involved knew it was a reboot before it got the green light. Jaffa even says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." So why do you want to open this door? There's no need to include it just because a good portion of that interview is Jaffa and Silver talking about various possible conceptions of how it's related to Planet. The article's not on that interview, it's on the franchise. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but we're using that interview as the source for how the project was conceived, and we have to follow it accurately. Unequivocally stating it was "conceived as a reboot" is simply not an accurate representation of that source. Unless you have a better source to discuss, there's really nothing else to do here.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Small details from a source are used all the time as a ref, without reflecting the overall scope of that source. But I'm sure you already know that. You have given no reason for why that detail needs to be in there. Again, Jaffa even says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." The idea that we can't get across that this was another relaunch without going into that detail because it's included in that one source is, to put it politely, invalid. The wording can be re-edited in any number of ways, leaving out prequel issues, and still be accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Small details can be taken from a source when they're accurate representations of what it says, and that's not. Both Jaffa and Silver are all over the place about what exactly it is and how it relates to the original. There is absolutely no reason we can't or shouldn't say "reboot or prequel"; it's a perfectly reasonable summary of their ambivalent comments. Again, unless you have a better source for how the script was conceived that says this wasn't a prequel, there's really nothing else to discuss here.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, Jaffa even says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." But if you insist on opening the issue, it has to be closed. Otherwise one could oppose the article as GA/FA on the grounds it fails to accurately classify the finished film. I'll add a quote to the article, which of course means it will be more lengthy. On this one detail. Which I tried to avoid. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That cherry-picked quote does not accurately represent the writers' entire discussion on this topic. "Reboot or prequel" does it adequately. I really don't know why you're fixating on this one thing out of all the more important things to do at the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's obviously not meant to represent the writers' entire discussion on this topic. And I've explained my position. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's meant to explain, very briefly, how the film was conceived. And yes, it absolutely must accurately represent the source. Here are other quotes from the same interview:
 * Jaffa: "We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, 'Well, it's a reinvention,' and someone quickly said, 'Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001,' you know? So, it's really hard to say."
 * [Silver and Jaffa ask the interviewer what he thinks, and he gives a complex musing about its relationship to the original] Silver: "I agree with you." Jaffa: "Well, I totally agree with that."
 * Jaffa: "Meaning, what's going on in our world today, that if the right dominoes were to line up, touch each other, it could lead to apes taking over the planet and, perhaps, getting Colonel Taylor on that beach in thirty-nine hundred years."
 * Jaffa: "where the Icarus [the fan-given name of Taylor's ship in the original Apes, alluded to in the new film] comes in has yet to be determined."
 * Again, saying unequivocally the movie was "conceived as a reboot" doesn't represent the source. I hate to take something so trivial to WP:DR, but I'm tired of going back and forth here.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So am I. I added the quote as a parenthetical, as that is the least verbose way to do it. The quote comes from your own favored source. The wording around it can be changed, but the issue cannot be left open. And do note Icarus was mentioned above. A number of people seem to think it is a worthy subject of interest. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating you went ahead with that addition, after I specifically objected to it and recommended we seek dispute resolution. Frankly, working with you has been frustrating in general. I'm going to file for WP:3O.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone reading the above can see you objected to "conceived as a reboot", and you wanted to take that to WP:DR even though I never proposed that on this Talk page. And that is not what I just put in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also objected to you adding that cherry-picked quote and gave a long explanation why. It's clear this is getting no where. I've started a WP:3O request.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Blacktown
Hi. What's the issue with moving Blacktown to Blacktown, NSW?

Sardaka (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sardaka, as I said, there was a requested move discussion (here) that resulted in the article being moved to Blacktown. Since the name was decided by a community discussion, it shouldn't be moved again without a new consensus. You can start another RM if you wish, but make sure you're up to date on the relevant naming conventions.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the discussion, I still think it's a load of crap. Sydney subs are always "Suburb, NSW". Can't see why Blacktown should get special treatment. Sardaka (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Sardaka: again, you're welcome to start another RM to get community input, but make sure you're up to speed on the naming conventions. The first place to start is WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Additionally, a cursory look shows that plenty of Sydney suburbs are under their names without "New South Wales": Bungarribee, Horningsea Park, Mount Pritchard, etc. It's possible the naming conventions have changed, though a lot of the articles will need the "NSW" to disambiguate them from other topics with the same name.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate
I can see that article probably getting quite heated very quickly and is tied in with current Sarkeesian events, so we may end up with another fork. Koncorde (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, possibly worse still it has been deleted, so expect some fallout on the Sarkeesian and Quinn articles. Don't agree with the deletion rationale used, it was far from an "attack" article - it was just weak. Koncorde (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that. What happened here?--Cúchullain t/ c 14:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GamerGate had an article span off, just a stub. No real content, but opened potential for people to push POV (which it almost entirely is anyway as most news media have only dealt with it in Op-Ed it seems). I raised concerns it was needless or should be part of parent articles such as gaming culture or gaming journalism where relevant / significant. In the end, creating articles for every meme or hashtag is a OTT. Someone rushed through a delete. My concern would be the usual accusations of suppression spilling over. Koncorde (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I can't say I'm overly worried about "suppression" accusations, considering that folks can continue the discussion in various venues so long as they play by the rules. I would definitely agree that splitting off the fork totally unnecessary, and probably counter productive to producing real encyclopedic coverage. As we saw with Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, we've now got a mostly redundant second article that's stayed in a perpetually crap state, and at the same time created a second thing to worry about for editors who could be devoting their attention to improving the main article. "GamerGate" would have been even worse, since it's a one-time news story most folks will lose interest in quickly. In general I don't see the deletion as nearly as much of a problem as the fork would have been.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's back up. I'll look into it.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I began the GamerGate article which was deleted (I think in error), and quickly replaced. As things now stand I want to thank you for WP:GOLDLOCK. A difficult editing environment is one thing, but GamerGate is not just radioactive, it's radioactive in ways I haven't seen in my eight years as a Wikipedian! Quite the learning experience, that. kencf0618 (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have pictured that, sadly. I'm sure things will die down once it passes through the media cycle. Then the trick is maintaining it through the years when fewer editors are interested.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has gotten more coverage in the business press (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html) and even in the The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest), so the media cycle's not quite over yet. kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with a lot of these it starts getting to the weekly and monthly dead tree press after it's already cycled through online; they then write about "the story so far", then about the reaction to their story on the story so far, etc. In this case it may go even longer, since "GamerGate" isn't even the real story, it's just a convenient point where the ongoing stories of misogyny in digital culture and ethics in video game journalism intersected. As with anything, though, it will eventually die down, and we've got to be vigilant in maintaining order.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please semi-protect Depression Quest as well. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is quickly becoming a cesspit. Needs attention from a broader swath of editors to avoid BLP disaster, more or less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO Wikipedia is being intentionally trolled (and successfully) on a scale I haven't seen since Benghazi. The AfD is rife with socking and SPAs. Reliable sources seem to indicate GamerGate is a hashtag campaign created on 4chan intended to distract the gaming press from the recent reprehensible actions of a fair number of irresponsible users. The pedia is being made complicit. I'm genuinely concerned. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you seem to be totally right. There's no reason all these anons and sleeper accounts - and even several established editors, unfortunately - would all come out of the wordwork at the same time promoting the same things (often even repeating the same mistakes) if there wasn't a concerted effort. My hope would be that a proactive admin will close the "GamerGate" as delete and we can protect the other pages until things die down.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no difficulty with User:Masem's involvement; I actually am happy that someone deeply involved with VG page improvement is leading a charge. There are many other longtime editors who are asserting keep, and I assume good faith that these editors, like myself, want to improve the pedia. But to my reading, the vast majority of keep assertions are coming from editors with very small edit counts, apparently SPAs or sleeper accounts brought into the light by this issue. I'm biased of course, but to my reading most of the policy-based assertions (even Masem's) tend me toward a delete outcome. I'm unhappy that this will likely end up as a no consensus outcome, and like Enyclopedia Dramatica, will become a flashpoint and magnet to "consensus by troll" activity. I would have zero difficulty if this truncated content were to become part of a larger article on gamer-community-related media reactions, but as a stand-alone page, it's a likely time bomb for the pedia (very much like a publicized hoax). BusterD (talk)
 * I certainly did not mean Masem. I actually largely agree with some of their points - that there are deeper, notable issues this controversy sort of emblematizes, though I strongly disagree that a distinct article on the concocted "GamerGate" controversy is the best way to cover them. I meant the several other editors, at that page and related ones, who've taken to behaving in a fashion distressingly similar to the SPAs.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Freedom
Hi Cuchullain! It seems that when you moved Freedom to Freedom (disambiguation), and then changed Freedom to redirect to Liberty, you didn't take into account all the pages that were linking to Freedom, such as Freedom (song). A bot "" the double redirect by changing Freedom (song) from linking to Freedom to Liberty, which doesn't exist. Instead, it should have changed it to Freedom (disambiguation). This is one of 14 bad edits that the bot made, which I am now fixing. When moving disambiguation pages in the future, could you please remember to change all the incoming links before a bot messes them up? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I usually try to catch that. Thanks for the reminder.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planet of the Apes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Mooney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you so much, Peter Isotalo. It's appreciated more than you know.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn
Cuchullain, I altered your recent pending changes restriction on this page; the recent persistent disruption certainly needs to be dealt with and using PC2 seems like a sensible WP:IAR solution to me, however with PC2 being contentious I think indefinite use is stretching the protection policy a bit far and have added a 60 day expiration to the PC setting. Please ping me if you want to discuss. — xaosflux  Talk 14:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux, That's fine by me. We discussed pending changes at ANI for related articles as a way to avoid long term full protection (editors with auto confirmed accounts have been nearly as disruptive to the articles as the anons and new accounts). However, when the pending changes protection expires we need to make sure semi protection is restored or we're just inviting trouble.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Luckily with PC its a different counter, so when PC2 expires, the SPP will still be in effect. (Unless I'm grossly missing something) — xaosflux  Talk 16:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Burton Barrs
I am looking for info on friend Burton Barrs we are trying to write obituary. . He passed away last week. We believe he was class of 1955 and would have graduated Lee. Don't know how to verify that. Don't know anyone with yearbooks Can you help? Pat. ( fletcher grad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.187.134 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you may be looking for someone else. I'm afraid I don't know anyone of that name.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate
There was another "supports" that should be changed to "supporters" that you missed. The "Some supports believe..." towards the end of the section.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I found some more minor fixes that need doing described at Talk:GamerGate if you're not busy.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on it.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian article
Hey, did you see my recent comment on the talk page about additional sources regarding criticism of Sarkeesian?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a response to your points on the sources a few days ago.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian page
Hi... First time 'user' having signed up a while ago, but never edited or talked to anyone or anything.

Anywho, I was listening to the radio and heard a story about Gamergate, and decided to check on Wikipedia. The story I heard also mentioned Anita Sarkeesian, among other topics, that I'm not sure are truly connected to Gamergate. Regardless, I wanted to check the various topics. I know the details of Gamergate are not fully settled and it's a controversial subject, so I can appreciate difficulties there.

My real issue is with the Anita page.... There doesn't seem to be an objective 'criticisms' section. Having previously watched her feminist frequency videos, there were errors in her ... 'Reporting'?... On some of the games. I wanted to inquire whether I or someone else could right a sub-header for the article detailing this legitimate criticism, as her unnecessary and vile harassment already has an explanation on her page already.

Hope to hear back, or see the edited page soon.

Kiraklatoo (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC) kiraklatoo (?)


 * Kiraklatoo, thanks for the comment. There's an FAQ at the top of the the talk page at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian that explains most of your questions. Essentially, Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all other viewpoints.
 * If you have any additional sources you feel meet the above standards, feel free to bring them up on the article's talk page for the community to vet. You should search through the talk archives first to make sure the source hasn't already been discussed.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your close of the discussion at Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (NES game)
Hey Cuchullain. I don't know if you realized this in regards to the discussion: during the discussion prior to your close, the nominator moved the page to a different title than they had proposed. I'm not sure of you noticed this during your close, but I thought it would be wise to point this out, in case it affects your close in any way. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Steel1943. I didn't catch that the nominator was the one who moved it around. It seems odd, but I'm not going to move it back (unless you or anyone else sees an issue with it), considering that both the nominator and the only other participant supported "(NES game)", and gave solid arguments that the status quo title was insufficient.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Also, I have no opinion on the matter. Steel1943  (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No consensus
On the talk page for Wonder Pets!, there is no consensus on no move. There is the same amount of opposing as supporting users - it must continue until consensus is reached. Please reconsider your decision to close it. If pages such as "Yo Gabba Gabba!", "The Mighty B!" and "All Grown Up!" can have exclamation marks, it seems that it should too. Momsandy (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the discussion had been open for over two weeks, and it did not appear a consensus was emerging.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If a consensus never emerged, then I believe you should have waited a little longer - please, if you can, reopen the discussion. I have started a move review (I believe that the decision was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, and guidelines) on the matter, and (as stated earlier) if "Yo Gabba Gabba!", "The Mighty B!" and "All Grown Up!" can have exclamation marks, it seems that it should too. Thank you for your time. Momsandy (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * RM discussions are closed after 7 days have passed. In this case, it had been over 2 weeks, with no substantive new comments in the previous several days. I don't see that leaving the discussion in the backlog any longer would have reached a solid consensus one way or another, let alone a consensus to move the page.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I (along with Cyphoidbomb and others) still believe it should be moved - could you please find a way to do so, as no consensus was reached earlier? Thanks. Momsandy (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - no. There was no consensus to move, so it defaults to the status quo title. If you still want it moved, your best bet will be to wait a while and start a new RM discussion, and try to develop a consensus that your proposed title is better according to the relevant guidelines and policies. There's also move review, but there you'll have to demonstrate that there was some problem with the closing decision.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring at GamerGate
Cuchullain, if you're really concerned about edit warring at Gamergate controversy, you could give a warning call to User:Tarc who has broken the three revert rule today, as well as s/he did several times in the past weeks. Not that one or two of their edits of today were not justified, but rules have to be the same for all and the 3RR is a hard limit. Diego (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego Moya, yes I'll give a warning to Tarc as well.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I gave Tarc a touch the other day for this and it seemed to moderate their excessive reverts, so I hope a gentle reminder should do the trick again. Diego (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 2 of the reverts were for the "private mailing list" junk, one was to remove some bad idiomatic prose, and the most recent was the removal of a malformed link to an off-site image. If you wish to make hay of that, WP:AN3 is thataway. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes protection on Zoe Quinn
Hi Cuchullain, just saw your pending changes level 2 (require review permission) of and wanted to let you know that there is currently no consensus to use that protection level on enwiki, see WP:PP. I haven't changed it, but I thought I'd let you know in case you weren't already aware. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment Callanecc. The issue came up at ANI and there was support for implementing flagged changes as a way of dealing with the rather unusual conditions at these articles. As you can see from the edit history, semi-protection wasn't working due to the use of auto-confirmed SPAs and sock accounts. The next solution would have been long-term full protection, which no one wants. I regard this as a temporary, stop-gap ignore all rules solution to an atypical disruption problem. The issue also came up at RFPP, where a request to change the protection was denied.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Weirdness
Hey, Cooch. I'm not even sure how this redirect (see ) can exist in parallel with an article with an identical page title (see List of University of Florida alumni), but I'm pretty sure the redirect needs to be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer1 - looks like it's just a slight mispelling. I'll go ahead and delete it as an unlikely search term.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Optical trick. I looked at that redirect three or four times before I caught the missing "i".  Thanks for the "delete".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello Cuchullain. As one of the admins who has fully protected the page in the past, you might have an opinion on the proposal for a 1RR restriction that was advanced by User:Callanecc. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EdJohnston. I'll respond there.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Raven (disambiguation)
In reference to the recent change you made to the Raven (disambiguation), I do not object at all to the change, but I am confused over the reason that you gave. I sorted the Film and television section into chronological order of newest first.

You reversed the order into chronological order of newest last, which is fine, but then you specified as your reason, "This should be either chronological, or alphabetical," which makes no sense when applied to the change you made to my change. We both sorted by chronological order, either ascending or descending. Who sorted by "alphabetical," though - where did that come from? Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * DeNoel, sorry, I didn't see what you were doing. "Chronological" in this context generally means oldest first, and that's one of the general ways dab pages are sorted (along with alphabetical order and order of prominence of the subjects). That's all I was going for; it looks like it was previously in alpha order, but that got thrown off when one of the articles' names changed.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Cúchullain. I was actually wondering in which direction was the standard way to sort into chronological order. Now that I know it's oldest first, I will remember in future. 
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this morning's minor kerfluffle
I seeing a rising level of hostility to any contributions by new editors, established users seemingly reflexive in opposition to virtually any contribution. While I'm in full agreement with the last sentence of your statement here, and am equally apprehensive, I myself feel compelled to chart an editorial course towards maintaining civility even towards those with whom I strongly disagree. I am concerned that actions taken, even by those with whom I agree on the merits, do not cover us all in glory. That this semi-coordinated body of trolls and disruptors has beset several game related pages I agree, but I feel compelled to tell a colleague of my concern. The situation is filling perfectly good editors with anger and causing them to shoot off words not befitting civil discourse. In that case, trolls win. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * BusterD: it's certainly a concern, but unfortunately, I think it's the least of our troubles. Things never would have escalated like that if we'd deal with the real problem: the onslaught of SPAs coming in and disrupting the articles. Unfortunately Wikipedia's proven pretty dysfunctional in that regard. Even when dealing with the most obviously disruptive editors we find ways not to act. A community topic ban against a transparently disruptive editor failed. Recently an admin placed discretionary sanctions against one of the most disruptive people on Wikipedia, and it was overturned on a technicality. A discussion on implementing 1RR on some articles went nowhere. Until either the activists and their enablers lose interest, or admins get their act together and start implementing real sanctions, things aren't going to get any better.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian page
Thank you for your work on the page for Anita Sarkeesian. I gave up editing controversial pages because it was too unpleasant. I greatly appreciate people willing to maintain controversial pages. Espertus (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you ver much, Espertus. That's very encouraging. I hope you'll continue contributing as much as you feel able, the article could use all the help it can get.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Sarkeesian's Article
I'm sitting in my sandbox trying to come up with neutral language in an RFC for the AEI video's weight. Before I "release the hounds" if you will, can you check over my work? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the statement about your position, and add something along the lines of, "the video shows images of Sarkeesian, but does not refer to her or her work by name." The rest looks totally neutral to me. I'm not sure about going with an RfC, though. It would make more sense for the people who want the material included or expanded to propose the RfC.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Second look? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero Serenity: It looks neutral to me.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its 10AM over here. I'll probably post it sometime this afternoon. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And here we go. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ReadWrite quote
Cuchullain, the version of the ReadWrite reference with expanded quotes in the reference was the result of a consensus at Anita Sarkeesian. Removing it merely because the content is being refactored to a different place is showing very bad taste, not only because the content is no longer well explained (as I've tagged, your removal makes unclear what "the rest of her Kickstarter money" refers to), but because you're retracting from the consensus we reached at the time. Agreeing to a change as a way to reach a concession on my part, only to retract your side of the agreement later, is explicitly listed as one of the recognized ways of gaming the system, and you don't want to do that, right? Diego (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Diego Moya, but if there's any "gaming the system" going on here it's on your end. You're not "refactoring" anything from one place to another, that material has been there since the article was created and had used this same exact wording for months. You tried to remove the original wording as if it was the recently introduced change. And regardless, I recall no consensus at any article for including that lengthy and unnecessary quote in the citation. There was barely consensus to include that source at all. You need to stop reverting, especially when you've made no attempt to handle the issue on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a rough consensus here and here to move the repeated content from Anita Sarkeesian on the condition that the most recent version with all the agreed content was the one used, but now that you're rejecting the move it doesn't make sense to remove the content from there. If you're going to request us to establish separate consensuses for each related page where content is relocated, re-structuring the content between the pages is going to be impossible. Diego (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No one in either thread so much as suggested that the content must be exactly the same, least of all when it's already covered - in better form - in the other article. And even if they did it wouldn't give you fiat to replace established material with worse or unnecessary changes, which, again, weren't supported on the Sarkeesian page to begin with. As for your point on restructuring, you appear to be the one holding things up.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not established material - as you have pointed out, it's an outdated version that hasn't been updated since the article was created as a copy of the content at Anita Sarkeesian on late October 2013; but the content there was still in transition when the copy was made, and was reshaped to its final consensus form a few days later, which has remained mostly stable since november 2013 with an edit that you made yourself and settled the current wording, quotes in the reference section included and all. You have complained repeatedly that Tropes vs. Women in Video Games was a poorly made copy of Anita_Sarkeesian, yet now you're obstructing the attempt to bring it up to date. Diego (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly have a problem with the other wording, just the unnecessary and distracting quote in the citation. And again, you're the one reverting all the rest of the changes over this minor disagreement and issuing ultimatums on the talk page. Sorry, but the obstruction is entirely yours.--Cúchullain t/ c 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we can have the "estimated that equipment costs would be less than $15,000"'s wording by Bilby at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games? The long quote in the reference was only needed because you insisted on removing this point from the body. Diego (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you no longer believe the wording needs to be exactly the same? I applaud your newfound flexibility, but no, that particular suggestion is not an improvement.
 * Please spend a little more time reviewing the things you want to change before you start discussions like this. The Eördögh material has been in the Tropes article since it was created, here. The wording was characteristically poor, so - contrary to your statements - it was improved over time. Just before the move, it looked like this. The wording at Anita Sarkeesian was imported here, but it duplicated the material. Both versions of the article text are extremely similar and both are perfectly fine, though the "Sarkeesian version" is a bit tighter than the "Tropes version" and used the more neutral term "stated" instead of "confirmed", and is thus preferable overall. As such there was no objection from me or anyone else to using that version - and it currently appears in the article.
 * The only objection is to that overlong and unnecessary block quote in the footnote, which isn't done for any of the other 41 citations and adds nothing of significance. This is certainly not worth holding up necessary improvements over.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the movement between articles was kept as a closed transaction ("we're moving content from HERE to THERE") in order to maintain the existing consensus at the origin and make sure that we're doing just that, moving content, and that further desired improvements and refinements are discussed at the destination - not as surreptitious content dropping during the move. The problem is that the version at Sarkeesian is not the same as the one at Tropes vs. Women, the former includes a quotation in the footnote (duh!). That quotation compensates for your removal of Eördögh's analysis of the equipment costs. Had that footnote not been present at Sarkeesian, the part in the main text would have not been the final wording - I would have kept pursuing dispute resolution until the article properly reflected the source, which the version at Tropes vs. Women currently doesn't do.
 * If you're not agreeing to moving the content from one article to the other as is, there's no consensus for the merge, as it depends on us reusing the same content - without losing part of the previous agreements that we have been working for so hard in the past. This is not "a minor disagreement", it's the essence of the proposed restructuring. Diego (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't see that you're willing to concede any kind of flexibility on your "minor disagreement" in order to reach a major "necessary improvement". If your problem is with the length of the quotes, let's copy it and work from there on finding a shorter acceptable version. Diego (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're just passing the buck on your own actions. You're the one reverting the changes, issuing ultimatums, and invoking (nonexistent) consensuses to support what you "would prefer". If we're going to talk about "surreptitious content dropping" we can look at your edits, where you removed the established material while claiming it was the "duplicate content added in the merge". However, this conversation (and AGF) convince me that this was less intentional dodging than it was you not paying attention to what you're doing.
 * As far as "conceding", uh, what? I already explained that most of your change to the wording was fine and it's still in the article. Literally the only issue is that pointless and distracting quote in the citation you're so fixated on. Even after all of this you still haven't clearly explained why it's so important that you're holding up all other changes over it. It doesn't sound like you know yourself, considering your current argument is totally different than what you said yesterday.
 * Moving material wholecloth without changes simply isn't possible without just dumping a bunch of redundant material into the Tropes article, considering much of it is already there (and has been for months). Like it or not, we're going to have to make editorial decisions on what to say. We certainly shouldn't be replacing better material with worse material for the sake of arbitrarily making "a closed transaction".--Cúchullain t/ c 18:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know exactly why the content in the footnotes is important either in their current form or a simpler one, I was waiting for someone to engage in discussion about it rather than blind reverting, preferably starting with the version that was shaped by discussion and collaborative editing (and FYI this is not different from what I said yesterday - the role of the footnote is to explain what is "the first part of the money" that you deleted from the sentence). You say the footnote is not needed for matters of style, I say it's needed for neutrality and accurately representing the source. That's a disagreement, we're supposed to suggest versions that may be acceptable to all.
 * If you're not willing to work for a new consensus, we have a long stable situation - the obsolete version at Tropes vs Women, the more recent updated version that reached consensus in november at Sarkeesian; we'll stick to that, as the best arrangement we have ever agreed to have. Diego (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you don't get to hold two articles hostage based on your disagreements about your idiosyncratic citation preferences. I've already compromised on your change and, for the third time, I agreed that most of it was fine and actually an improvement and it's still in the article. That doesn't mean we must move over changes that make the article worse. Despite your repeated claims, there was never any discussion, let alone consensus, that including that long and distracting quote was in any way beneficial to the article. In fact, in this discussion you keep referring to, there was little if any consensus for including the source at all, and it was shown you'd misunderstood it and hadn't represented it accurately.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus =/= discussion, it is what happens when all editors agree to keep the article content stable. I agreed to let your last removal pass because the quote was in - otherwise I would have held your removal extremely harmful and reverted it. You don't get to say now that such version, the product of several editors working on it, didn't get consensus and can be changed into something closer to your preference while simultaneously defending a version that dismisses the concessions I made at the time, merely because you don't like the part that convinced me to reach an agreement. BTW what you call "showing I misunderstood it" is a mere disagreement on opinion on what parts of the article are more relevant, that I conceded your point doesn't mean that I was wrong on my position. Diego (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By your argument, then, your suggested changes to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games have failed to find consensus, and the established version stands. The content contributors will continue work on the articles with or without your participation.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Don't worry about TDA, the community is well aware of his behavior, as evidenced by fact that he got more voters weighing in on his candidacy than anyone else at the last Arbcom election: WP:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013. aprock (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's quite the opiner.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Paste magazine piece - personal opinion/column
We've been in a dialogue on the Tropes vs Women talk page and we didn't exactly agree on all arguments brought forward. Nevertheless i'd value your opinion on whether or not i should open a seperate section about the Paste magazine piece being a personal opinion/column and thus not a valid reference. I mainly brought it forward as an example of how we should stay alert if we're really holding positive and critical sources up to the same scrutiny. Being an involved administrator on pages related to gamergate must be a tough job and since i'm already involved in several discussion topics, i won't start a topic about this without your approval.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PizzaMan. I'm just acting as an editor here, not an admin. The folks who have the really hard job are the admins who have to come in and use the tools.
 * On the Paste piece, assuming you mean this, you can start a discussion if you want. However, my opinion is that it's a fine source to use. Per WP:RSOPINION, opinions of reliable, noteworthy writers are acceptable so long as the opinion is relevant and clearly attributed to them. That seems to be the case here. Additionally, Paste has an professional editorial staff and policy and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on relevant topics. The author is listed as a professional staff writer for the publication, and her column is listed as an official feature of the publication. This distinguishes the publication from blogs, personal webpages, and sites that take submissions from just anyone.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Perhaps, in such a hotly debated topic, it's wise not to include such opinion pieces. It might lead to a stream of proposed references and tedious debates on whether the writer is reliable or noteworthy and how good the source is. I'd say we've had enough of that ;-) But i'll leave it up to you if you consider such potential debates worth the added value of the Paste magazine piece or if you rather prevent them by proposing to remove this.PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object to removing weaker sources, but I don't think this is one of them. It's from an established journalist speaking as a professional staff member of an established publication. It's better than the IGN and ReadWrite sources, for example, and perhaps Daily Dot.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Nicollier
Hello, Sorry to disturb, I do not know what a "RM discussion" means, so I'd like to understand why you reverted this article to a non-French spelling. Nicollier is the legal official French name, Nicolier is the old Serbocroatian spelling (in Latin-alphabet Croatian, there should be a possible letter-to-letter match to the Cyrillic-alphabet Serbian, so Croatian is a rare language transcribing foreign names to true "phonetics" spelling, this is no more used in Croatian today, as a quick look to the Croat-language wikipedia (on the contrary, in Serbian with latin we still have Fransoa Oland for François Hollande). So would you be kind to explain how to open a "RM discussion" and where to view the previous one? Thanks in advance. Best regards. --— J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jfblanc: the current title was decided by a requested move discussion (RM), which you can check out on the talk page. As such, the article shouldn't be moved without a new community discussion. If you feel the title is wrong feel free to start a new one, but make sure to become familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines.-Cúchullain t/ c 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)