User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 9

Holy Grail
Some commentators claim that Wolfram's Parzival dates from decades after Chretien's Perceval, while yet other commentators think that the works are contemporary. Like I said previously, the subject matter is an area where the beginners stray in at their peril. Nothing is "simple" about this subject matter (because of the uncertainty over dates and the different takes offered by the various authors) and it is no good trying to convey otherwise. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No commentator claims Parzival is "contemporary" to Chretien's work, it must have come after it, as it is based on it, and I have never heard a date earlier than the 13th century. At any rate, the other major versions from any time period (Robert de Boron, the Lancelot-Grail, the Post-Vulgate, Malory) have the grail as a cup or dish. The point of the intro is to summarize what the article says, currently it gives a concise and clear summary of what will come later. All the other versions are discussed in detail where it's appropriate in the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikitruth
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikitruth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (6th nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand
How or what did you mean when you said this? I'm not bothered by your edits there, just curious about that edit summary. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was just a mistake, i hit the return key too quickly and it filled in the text from a previous edit summary. I meant to say "not only called American". The undo feature does not remove botched edit summaries, however.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That explains it. Guess it was a wierd coincidence that I happened to edit Tupac Amaru Shakur's article when I saw that edit summary at American (popped up on my watchlist). Actually, shouldn't there be a mention of the artist on Tupac Amaru (disambiguation)? Or should the Tupac dab be listed there instead? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tupac Shakur should not be listed on that page, as Tupac Amaru is only part of his name, according to the MOS. I don't think Tupac needs to go their either, as no one will type in or click on Tupac Amaru if they're only looking for Tupac, but that's just me. You might could add it to the See also section if you want.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done ;) I have also watchlisted that page in case of vandalism issues and such. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I
Lima's improvements will be welcome but not when she deletes wholesale and refuses to discuss. --Kabad (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; I wasn't comfortable reverting all her changes. It's just that her edit is good and bad at the same time. Please ask her to improve article without deleting sourced information. --Kabad (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sign an RFC
See Requests for comment/Esimal. I believe this user has continued to engage in the disputed behavior, and I need another person to sign. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I chipped in. If you need more let me know. He certainly seems to be a long-term disruptive user.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:War of Heaven
If it is not too much trouble, I would like you to express your view. Not many people visit the page. Lima (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Percival edits
I've reverted your exclusion of the Monaco novels and the re-inclusion of the Rohmer film, and opened a discussion in the article discussion. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fate/Stay Night
While I can applaud your enthusiasm about your chosen areas of expertise, I believe you're mistaken in trying to apply the logic that because a Christian artifact and King Arthur are in a game, that means the game revolves around Arthurian legends. The part does not make the whole, and the game itself is most certainly NOT about that. You're mistaking a small part for the whole, and I'd be just as set against adding Christian Mythology as a category, or any others that represent a part of the games background rather than the whole. If you really want to add the Category, put it on the discussion page and let's get some other input. I'd hate for this to turn into a revert war, after all. Better to discuss it than risk that. Nezu Chiza (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur = Airthir ?
Hi Cuchullain. The [C.E.L.T.] Annals of Ulster from Circa C5th to C13th quotes on: Cluain Airthir. Inc [U467.3] “Death of Uter Pendragon, king of England, to whom succeeded his son, King Arthur, who instituted the Round Table”: [U610.1] Death of Aed son of Colgu, king of Ind Airthir: [U625.2] Rónán son of Tuathal, king of Ind Airthir died: [U748.7]: The slaying of Congal son of Éicnech, king of Int Airthir, in Ráith Escla &c. Are these genealogical references to Arthurs; Irish Airthir descendants/Clans?Stephen2nd (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking. The first one appears to just be an Irish copy of the British genealogies. The others seem to refer to the placename Airthir, which is in Airgíalla.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the existence of any historical person, as fact or fiction, research should not be unduly influenced in geographical location &/or such identities, ie British, Welsh, Irish, Scottish or English. {NB: W.I.S.E; Placenames and persons are often assosiated, by genealogical ancestries &/or descendancies.)
 * What I'm asking is - The Annals of Ulster verified King of England Uther Pendragon died 467ad, and his son King Arthur succeeded him and instituted the Round Table. Ergo, King Arthur actually succeeded as King of England in 467ad, and instituted his Round Table Knights in 467ad. In the many debates of whether King Arthur and the Round Table were fact or fiction. - Do these ‘facts’ quoted in a ‘verified’ and ‘reliable source,’ merit its inclusion in Wikepedia? Also, with respect to your academic knowledge of such historical research and studies, truthfully; King Arthur, fact or fiction? Round Table, ditto? Regards.Stephen2nd (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't take the Annals of Ulster as being pure fact, or any of the annals or even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Bias at the time especially by the Monks who compiled the annals, infusing them with Christian elements, make them bad sources for basing "facts" on. And yeah if you read the passage you get the answer on the Ind Aithir bit - it's clearly saying those are kings from a kingdom called Ind Aithir. Mabuska (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Annals of Ulster were not written until the 15th century, well after the period they're describing. In this case it seems clear the author is relying on earlier annals for his infomation about Arthur. It would be best to include a secondary source by a reliable modern scholar discussing whether or not this work (or any work) can be trusted.


 * As to whether Arthur was fact or fiction, that's long been a matter of debate. A fellow Wikipedia editor, Hrothgar cyning, has written a book in his real world capacity as a scholar that convincingly argues that Arthur never existed, but was rather a kind of folklore hero who was written into Britain's shadowy early history over time. Hrothgar would be a good person to talk to, but he's been busy. Other scholars have always argued that there was a historical person behind the legends, the most notable one I can think of is Geoffrey Ashe. Personally I'm agnostic about it - I think there may have been a real Arthur, but at this point we have almost nothing we can say about him with any certainty.


 * As to the Round Table, that's certainly fictional - it is not mentioned before Wace's Roman de Brut in the 12th century. However, many of the early stories describe Arthur's court as including great warriors from all over the place, so that's certainly where the idea of the Round Table started.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah Kalina
For such a major move, this needs discussion and be decided by consensus. There was absolutely no discussion on any talk page for this move. A couple of comments in an AfD for Noah Kalina that suggested a move is not in any way in process nor consensus. A proposed merge tag would be more proper. --Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be, but moving by copy and paste, as you did, is not proper - it destroys the page history. In order to move Everyday (video) back to Noah Kalina, an admin will have to do it.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing your point. But this does need to be reverted back as a non-admin simply moved the page with no discussion nor any kind of consensus.  I opened a move discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who moved it in the first place, or why - moving it back requires admin powers (because deletion and undeletion is involved). That's the only way to preserve the page history. If you want it moved back to Noah Kalina you should go to requested moves.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries and statues
Hey, Cuch, I'm taking slight issue with your most recent edit to Jacksonville. Regarding the removal of the mention of the statue, I'm wondering what your reason was. Do you just think it's too trivial for the intro, or what? I'll leave it alone until you have a chance to respond.

The other edit—your removal of the word "almost" from the opening paragraph—I'm going to go ahead and revert. While the Jax City Council does have general authority over the entire county (acting essentially as the county board), I'm fairly certain that Baldwin and the Beaches are still cities on their own and are not located within the city limits of Jax propers. Regards, Unschool (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right about the city limits. The City of Jacksonville does have authority over the entire county, but the beaches and Baldwin do have their own governments and their own signs telling you when you're entering or leaving them. It's a pretty minor distinction, as Jacksonville still has authority over them even within their limits, since as you say it acts as the county. I'd like to see something definite about this.


 * And yes I thought the statue bit was way too trivial for the lead.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Saturninus
Hey there, I just realized we've been reverting each other in regard to whether this page is a dab page or not. Sorry about that, I wasn't paying attention to the fact that I'd done it twice! I can turn this into a proper dab page, but if I do, there is quite a bit of content that will be lost regarding lesser saints that do not have articles. As a dab page, it will include very little information about these saints beyond the links to their articles, and I fear that for some of these entries, this is the only page where this content appears. I am not proficient enough on the topic to feel comfortable creating articles (or stubs) for all of them myself. What I can do is move the content to the talk page in case anyone wants to use it in the future. Please let me know if you don't like the way it turns out. I'm happy to have help in making it right! SlackerMom (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your changes are a great improvement. Most of the Saturnini listed there were never going to have their own articles, but if they end up getting one they can be added back easily. Good work.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry about the confusion.  I'm glad someone's keeping an eye on me! SlackerMom (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, I appreciate that. At the same time, I have to say that I probably wouldn't have got much further than a couple of extra references without your encouragement, so I'm grateful for that too :) Anyhow, I'm proud of the article we've all produced at the end of this long process; it works well and seems balanced and suitably scholarly to me...  I'll be interested to see what happens to the article afterwards now, and how much it continues to evolve and change from this point.  On this latter point, I've played around to try and address Ottava's comments (from the Talk page) on overlapping images but can't figure out how to do it, though it does occur to me that whether they 'sandwich' text or not is entirely down to the screen resolution of each user; a lower resolution, as on my old stand-alone PC, would remove the overlap, whilst a higher one would increase it :-/  Incidentally, looking over the article I noticed that we have a 'Further Reading' section that I hadn't noticed before, which includes my monograph -- is this ok, given my role? (though not in this part of it) I tried hard to avoid any COI and POV when writing the article and don't want to leave us open to any question (hopefully I managed otherwise on these two points; I used it only where it seemed appropriate...); shall I remove? Warm regards, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, Hrothgar. I'm also interested to see how the page changes from here on out, and I know Wrad, myself and others will try to make sure the changes are positive. As for Ottava's comments, I'm well past the point of listening to him about his personal nitpicks. As far as I can tell the sandwiching is, as you say, the result of screen resolution. It looks fine on my screen, so I can't tell what he's going on about. The "Further reading" section I went ahead and removed entirely, as all four books that appeared there were already used in the "references" section ("further reading" sections here are usually used to include useful sources that were not cited in the article.) Your name and your book obviously still appear in the article, but no one I've heard has even suggested that there's any conflict of interest or of POV. The article is excellent, and I'm happy to have worked with you on it. Cheers, my friend.--Cúchullain t/ c  19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Same here, and thanks for that, I just wanted to make sure we were 100% beyond reproach :) I'm going to be less around for the next few weeks, as I finish off the last two chapters of a book and do the final edits on two articles before sending them back to their journals, but feel free to email me via the address on my webpage if anything comes up etc etc.  All the very best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Best of luck with your book, I can't wait to read it.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumbee
You seemed to have an interest in this. There is some drastic editing going on without any discussion on the Talk page. I reduced some of the POV language in the lead, but the lead is now all about the political process. He hasn't done too much to the narrative in terms of sourced materials, but decided it was all "biased".--Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumbee
Your additions to the Lumbee page are not only clearly uneducated but deliberately disparaging. Feel free to leave something constructive and unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas392 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: your recent edit
I saw you edited a post I made, and I wanted to cc you a message I sent to Itaqallah.

Hi,

I think we have a slight disagreement over an edit on the 'Muhammad's Wives' page, and I wanted to see if I could politely address some of your concerns.

You commented that the article I quoted was unreliable, and while FPM does have an editorial slant (as do the majority of think tanks, journals and magazines that deal with religious and political matters) the research quoted by Spencer and UNICEF was entirely accurate. If you think there were any specific innacuracies, I would appreciate it if you could point them out. The hadith dealing with Aisha's age of 9 at the time of consummation of marriage is cited by a number of Islamic scholars when defending marriage to children of that age. Iranian religious scholars have used this as the basis for Iran's current law stating that marriages can be consummated at this age. This is, sadly, a fact.

The concern over the relationship between Islamic law and child brides is not a 'fringe, minority perspective'. Many governments, including that of the UK, aswell as organisations such as UNICEF have expressed very deep concern over the issue.

You also mentioned that the issue was dealt with 'adequately in the relevant forum', however the article you directed me to (which I am grateful for, but I had already read) did raise briefly the issue of Aisha's age but made no mention of the ongoing significance of this hadith in justifying child marriages. This consequence of Muhammad's marriage is of immense significance, and is entirely relevant to a page dealing with his marriages.

If you feel I unfairly left out any perspectives or facts from this article, please feel free to add them.

This is intended as a friendly and non-personal message, and it'd be great if any differences could be solved through friendly, spirited debate.

Thanks, eja0012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eja0012 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Naimon vs Aymon
I noticed that you changed an edit I made concerning Naimon at Paladin. If you check out name indexes inOrlando Furioso or Orlando Innamorato, you will see that Namo and Rinaldo's father Duke Aymon are not the same person. In the modern French folio version of Les Quatre Fils Aymon (ISBN 2-07-037501-3) the difference between Naime and Aymon is clearly given on the first page. Thanks- NYArtsnWords (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Míkmaq/Mi'kmaq
The controversy is open again. Kwamikagami moved the pages, but Codex Sinaiticus just reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a note for discussion. If that fails (which, considering how Codex has behaved in the past, seems imminent), I'm going to start a page move request, which I think will likely succeed, considering that only Codex has ever expressed dissatisfaction with the move. Please do weigh in.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the note? -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Mi'kmaq, sorry.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanzee
The feasibility section has always been a tightrope. It's hard to explain sufficiently why people study the possibility of hybridization without wandering into OR. What I would love to find is a reliable secondary source that summarized why the genetic barriers are real but not proven to be insurmountable. That's really the point of that sectionKww (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paleo-Eskimo
I redirect that to Dorset culture. In part because Paleoeskimo and Palaeoeskimo already redirect there. But also because there appears to be some overlap, especially with the middle Paleoeskimo period and Dorset culture. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are various groups of indigenous arctic peoples that populated the area before the Dorset (and long before the Thule culture, which was the original target). It's better to have a stub that can be expanded than risk confusing people by redirecting to just one of the various cultures.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not sure why the one of them was a redirect to Thule. Somewhere I saw that there is a preference for one bersion of the spelling over another but I can't remember now which it was. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kubla Khan
Hi. Just checking whether you meant to unprotect the page at the same time, or just mistakenly removed the pp-semi-vandalism early. Probably unprotect, as it was only getting a few bad edits per week?

That's all :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't mean to remove it, thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chunkey
Thanks for the comments on my chunkey rewrite!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks
Hello. You seem to have repeatedly (1,2) removed a notable and well cited section of the Jordin Sparks article. Although you may feel the controversy behind her statement at the 2008 VMA is "lame" or "gossip", the incident did occur and there was significant coverage of it by reliable sources. I agree that the section has become "mangled", but this is because careless editors have added opinions and uncited information. However, since Wikipedia encourages editors to edit instead of delete, it would be more cooperative of you to revert the section to a previous version. I understand that this may take more time, but that would be much more productive then simply deleting information you may think is "lame", "gossip" or "mangled". Thanks! - Ektar (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that none of that "significant coverage" has made it into the article. It's not our job to unmangle mangled negative comments about living persons, it's our job to remove them when we see them. The current bit about Sparks being "criticized" for her comments does not say who criticized her, and the citation is not done correctly, and it greatly distends this incredibly minor occurrence in relation to other material. It needs to stay out.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The problem is that none of that "significant coverage" has made it into the article."
 * What do you mean by this? Look, the "significant coverage" can easily be seen by doing a simple search on Google News.
 * It's not our job to unmangle mangled negative comments about living persons, it's our job to remove them when we see them.
 * It may not be your "job" to unmangle things, but, like I said, it certainly is more productive to do so.
 * The current bit about Sparks being "criticized" for her comments does not say who criticized her, and the citation is not done correctly, and it greatly distends this incredibly minor occurrence in relation to other material. It needs to stay out.
 * If you were to read the article you would see that fans have criticized her. The direct quote is "While many fans have been supportive of her stance, others have been angered by the implication that those who don't abstain are "sluts"." The citation is done correctly according to wikipedia guidlines (see #2 Footnote). Finally, although you seem to think this is a "minor occurrence" you seem to be unable to prove that it does not meet wikipedia guidelines for notability. Before removing things please at least try and make an argument using something besides opinion to support your belief. -Ektar (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no significant coverage of criticism about Sparks' comments, at least judging by what has been added to the article. I count one single passing comment in one improperly formatted cite to an Australian news website (it is improperly cited, just a link is not a citation). And I fail to see how it could be considered "more productive" of me to rewrite rather than remove improperly cited material about a living person, when that material is of no importance to the topic of the article. As for the WP:GNG guideline you quoted, that has to do with the topic of an article, not the content of the article. That line is of no importance to the a biography, judging by the fact that no other sources have backed it up. If you believe it is in fact important, I would encourage you to find a source that directly discusses the supposed backlash Sparks has received over her comment, and doesn't just make a passing, unattributed reference to it. As it is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person, and needs to stay out.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no significant coverage of criticism about Sparks' comments, at least judging by what has been added to the article. / As for the WP:GNG guideline you quoted, that has to do with the topic of an article, not the content of the article.
 * Significant coverage is a criteria for or against inclusion, not something which needs to be added to the article. And, yes, in general WP:GNG is a guideline for topics but it is also a guideline for what is worth mentioning within an article or not. If you think there is another guideline for that, PLEASE present it.
 * I count one single passing comment in one improperly formatted cite to an Australian news website (it is improperly cited, just a link is not a citation)
 * I gave you a source for various articles in which this is mentioned, did you read any of them? Or do you seriously expect EACH article to be cited for one sentence? And although the citation is not complete, it is not "improper" simply because it doesn't have EVERY attribute a footnote can have.
 * And I fail to see how it could be considered "more productive" of me to rewrite rather than remove improperly cited material about a living person, when that material is of no importance to the topic of the article.
 * Obviously your bias against including this is making it hard for you to see this. Obviously the material is of great enough importance that the issue has been big within Entertainment news, as proven by the link you decided to not read.
 * "That line is of no importance to the a biography, judging by the fact that no other sources have backed it up. / If you believe it is in fact important, I would encourage you to find a source that directly discusses the supposed backlash Sparks has received over her comment, and doesn't just make a passing, unattributed reference to it.
 * One single passing comment? Once again, did you even check the link I gave you? Exactly how many mentions do you need?, , , , this list just goes on and on.
 * As it is it is poorly sourced negative material about a living person, and needs to stay out.
 * First, saying that it is poorly source does not negate that the source itself IS reliable (no worries though, I'll fix that). Second, NOTHING, especially nothing at WP:BLP, says that you should not include criticism about living people especially when done properly. Third, mentioning that there is a "backlash" (or "criticism" or "anger") against someone's statement is not negative especially when it ACTUALLY happened and the person even responded by saying that she wished had phrased it differently. - Ektar (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

-Ektar (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not look at the link you gave me, user talk is hardly the venue for discussing changes to articles. Why didn't you just correct the article in the first place? It was poorly sourced, controverted material, so I stand by my opinion that it should have been removed as it was. The onus is of users who want to include or re-introduce material to do the work of backing it up. It is now somewhat better, though I still think it greatly overemphasizes a very minor point that ought not be in a biography at all. At any rate the page is off my watchlist now, so good day.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slither
Hi. I've had a quick look at the three cites used for the Night of the Creeps thing. The first doesn't exist; the second notes "similarities" rather than direct influence; the third explicitly agrees with the IP (here): "James Gunn, who defended his film by saying he never saw Night of the Creeps until after his movie was made. He said his main inspiration was David Cronenberg's first film, 1975's Shivers" and "...definitely not a remake of Night of the Creeps, but it does have some parallels... If you really want to see where Slither came from, though, see Shivers, Basket Case (1982), Return of the Alien's Deadly Spawn (1983), Xtro (1983) and Society (1989)." Posted here to avoid unnecessary drama. All the best, Steve  T • C 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better. One thing though, why did you move around the other sections? Is that a style guideline thing?--Cúchullain t/ c 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, the IP wasn't me :) I just have the article watchlisted from the big "box office bomb" edit war debate of 2007. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gisela
Hello Cuchullain, how did you establish that Gisela (daughter of Pepin the Short) is the best known Gisela ? Gisela is a common given name in Germany and there are number of other noteworthy Giselas. Inwind (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, she was the earliest, the most important entry at Gisela (disambiguation) (as far as I could tell), and the first to have an article here to my knowledge. However, I mostly reverted you because you left Gisela redirecting to Gisela (daughter of Pepin the Short), in which case there's no need for a longer title. Also, you did not include any link to Gisela (disambiguation) or change that dab page to reflect your move, so readers were left with a bit of a problem. It's not a big deal; the status quo just seemed like the easiest way to fix it.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

read deleted material
Hello, can I view the material that was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Minichiello_Williams&action=edit&redlink=1 please. AWT (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll have to give me (or Travellingcari, who originally deleted the page) a good reason for why you want to see it. As it was originally deleted as an attack page and a BLP violation, and you're the one who wrote it, I am skeptical about why you want to view it.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I want to see what information I put into it and completely re-write it (off wikipedia) and then get it authorised by someone like yourself for review before putting it up. I can assure you it will not be an attack article but I would really liek to see the info I used. But, if I did create another horrendous page then ban me. This is the only way I can asure you I will not do that I think. Hop ethis makes sense. AWT (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no dice. A new article will have to be just that - a new article, and will have to be reliably sourced, give an explanation for why it's notable, and not defamatory, if you hope it to be kept.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's return

 * Hey there, I've made a contribution to try and re-use some of the material in a more legitimate way; how does it look? ok? All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Thomas. It looks much better now, hopefully this will finally convince Enaidmawr. I'll do some polishing work soon to get the article up to concert pitch; I want to get to expanding it as discussed at the talk page soon.


 * At any rate I hope all is well with you and your research.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all going fine atm - just finished proofing an article for Dumville's new journal. Enaidmawr has made a couple of edits to the piece again, which I wouldn't make, but I'll leave it with you now, unless you want me to weigh in again :)  He has some interesting material and I think it would be very appropriate used elsewhere on the page and in wiki (the 'son of prophecy' page, perhaps), but we have to be careful not to read 12th century notions into 9th century texts etc etc.  Cheers and all the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. I would def say that 'clear' needs removing - it is not that there is no 'clear' mention of return in the Englynion - there is no mention of it at all: it is only there if you add it from your own consideration of William of Newburgh etc...

removed facts
Hi!

I added a short notice about the Grail in one of Neil Gaiman's short stories under the section Modern retellings. You removed that and I would like to know why. If I have violated some policy about articles I apologise, but please inform me if that is the case.

Kind regards,

Iacobaeus (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it was just one mention, I didn't think it was important enough for the article. We can't list every modern retelling (or modern story that uses some aspect of the Grail legend.) It's nothing personal.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Criticism of Muhammad article edits
I'd like to invite both you and Peacekeeper-89 to discuss your ongoing "edit war" on the article's talk page to see if perhaps a solution can be found to the current situation, rather than the (in my opinion) pointless back and forth editing that's happening at the moment. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more a case of reverting linkspam than edit warring. That user has made nearly no constructive edits, especially not to that article; most of his or her edits consist of adding those apologetics sites to that one article. I've responded to you on the talk page, but the links need to stay out until Peacekeeper has justified their inclusion.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism
You should make constructive edits rather than vandalizing pages by deleting whole sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjushri222 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's on you as the one introducing or re-introducing the controverted material to source it and make sure it is well written. It's not the job of everyone else to clean up after you, and I certainly don't appreciate my good edits being called "vandalism".--Cúchullain t/ c 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but it is vandalism to try to suppress the truth, why don't you live up to your Irish hero's name? (Manjushri222 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

you are so biased, stop vandalizing the page! (Manjushri222 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)).

Discussion on Aisha's age
Hi Cuchullain. Can you please continue the discussion talk page for "Aisha" so we can resolve the issue? I'd like to have a discussion so we can both agree to something that meets Wikipedia's standards, and move forward. I won't be able to check this page, so it'd be great if you can continue on the talk page. Omer (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as I can I will respond to all your points at the article talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: America
I find your actions and edits, obviously in support of a specific version at the 'America' disambiguation page, objectionable. This  is uncalled for, since it's dealt with on the talk page. As well, please explicitly point out (with links) the consensus which supports the current version -- I suspect you can't or won't. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about which version should be preferred. I reverted to the most establish version I could find; the version that was protected on September 28. Notice that as soon as that previous protection expired the page was once again subjected to edit warring, including by you. The only option was to protect the page again. I notice you have engaged in revert warring at that page several times under this IP alone. This time you will have to resolve the issue through discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you have an opinion and preference, since you reverted and restored the prior version while invoking consensus which either doesn't exist or which you/others haven't demonstrated. You indicate you restored the 'most establish (sic) version', but just beforehand commented for said editor to "at least get the wording right", without giving any thought that the word change was actually intended.  You also neglect that the prior versions prevailed for quite some time beforehand, until you, Kman... and Russ have apparently opted for another version and arguably have edit warred just the same.  So, you too will have to explain yourself and, as yet (and particularly as an administrator), haven't.  Next time, instead of giving a false impression of impartiality, perhaps you should let someone else intervene.  I will edit accordingly. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down. It wasn't a matter of enforcing whatever opinion you believe I have, it was a matter of finding the most consensual version I could and protecting the page from the ongoing revert wars. You can believe I protected the wrong version all you wish, but the protection was to stop the pointless revert warring you and others have been engaged in. You can voice your opinion on the talk page; I notice you haven't done that.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment has been read. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latinoamerican, again
Would you please stop removing the Globalize tag? Hispanics live across the entire world, including the Philippines, Mexico, and Spain. Latinoamericans live in Latinoamerican societies, like Mexico and Colombia. Stop pushing neologisms.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861727807/hispanic.html

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/latinamerican?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/languages/es/toi_las/?view=uk

http://www.international.ucla.edu/lac/publications/las.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQqtgpqvHL0C&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=%22mexicans+are+americans%22&source=web&ots=d0BhkYu2Ag&sig=auR8b5RYUdDt-JNuD0yI1FmhgwY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Deepstratagem (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not stop removing tags you've placed in bad faith. You are well aware that the US sense of American is not a neologism but a perfectly legitimate use of the word, and the only one common in English. Those articles make it clear they are discussing American topics. If you can think of a better title, suggest that, but your tags are entirely inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded in my talk page here. Deepstratagem (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on non-English sources
Hello! I wanted to point your attention towards this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#How_exactly_are_foreign_language_sources_verifiable.3F

And I started a new thread here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#When_is_an_.27English_verifiable.27_source_available.3F

I'd appreciate if you can also come on this (second thread), where I want to get other wikipedians' opinions on when is a non-English source admissible and when is it not.

Thanks. Omer (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will definitely contribute, and hopefully we'll come to a resolution. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Horn (legend)
Would you mind taking a look at Red Horn (legend)? There is an editor making POV editions, original research, conflict of interest, etc. He wont respond on the talk page, he just keeps reverting everything I do to maintain the neutrality of the article. I'd justlike a second opinion, and maybe some advice/help dealing with it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, I'll look into. If he won't discuss his changes, then we may have a problem.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge notice on Ashley Todd
Hi I saw you added a merge proposal at the top of the Ashley Todd article, but you didn't follow up with the rationale on either the article talk page or the Presidential Election page. Unless you start the discussion, the tag should be removed, as there was no desire to to this during the AfD that happened the last two da. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I only placed the tag because someone had placed it at United States presidential election, 2008 already. I have no opinion either way, I was just trying to make sure both articles were included.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Witness Ministries
Hi, Thanks for giving the reasoning for the decision when closing the AfD debate - most helpful. Springnuts (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Merlin Literature References
I don't contribute to WP often so I only just noticed that you undid my edit that reinstated some references to the Merlin article.

I'm not really bothered one way or the other, but would appreciate a policy link that justifies your removal. You left the Harry Potter reference, even though it even states that Merlin isn't a major character, but removed two references: one of which has Merlin being revealed as a previous incarnation of the central character and the other of which had him as a recurring character.

I only reinstated the content because it had been deleted without any kind of explanatory edit summary and you did supply that, but I'd like to know what guidelines I should follow in the future. Thanks. --Rpeh•T•C•E• 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We decided on the talk page not to include every piece of fiction that includes Merlin, but only those that are either very important works as pieces of Arthurian literature, or in which Merlin is the main character. The applicable guidelines are WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't recall leaving reference to Harry Potter in there; I removed another one again today, as it's even less notable than the ones you reinstated, as Merlin never actually appears.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodwose
Are you going to add Valentine and Orson? Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to add a section on the development of the figure over time, and perhaps split the Celtic literature material into that.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gold digger
Thanks for sorting out those two disambigs - it was a bit of a mess. Millstream3 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it totally violated every POV policy...Gavin (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Galahad in popular culture (Code Geass)
Myself and another user made the following contribution to the "Galahad in popular culture" section in the past:

"Galahad is used as the name of a custom Knightmare in the anime series Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion. It is piloted by the character Bismarck Waldstein, who holds the highest title of "Knight of One" among the elite unit called The Knights of Rounds. Ironically, Galahad was struck down and destroyed by the Lancelot Albion."

I do not understand why it was reverted and deleted. Is this simply by your own personal distaste or are there other reasons? Please let me know, as I would rather prefer not to continually edit the Galahad article if we are at a disagreement about the entry. --Willsun (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was quite some time ago, yes? I removed it because it was unsourced, and as such it was impossible to verify whether it was important to the subject of the article or not. This is the main thing. However, by my personal knowledge of the Arthurian legend, I find it unlikely that such a citation will be found - "Code Geass" just has not made much impact on Arthurian literature or scholarship (clearly it might be important in other realms). Even in your statement, "Galahad" was only used as the name for a giant robot; Galahad himself does not appear, and so this is a passing mention rather than a modern reinterpretation. We can't list every pop culture item that has ever mentioned Galahad, or else this would be a trivia omnibus rather than an encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. I agree with your decision and edit. --Willsun (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A humble request for assistance
Hello Cuchullain, how are you? I sincerely hope the "messianic return" business is water under the bridge by now and that we are back where we were as fellow editors putting veracity and verifiablity above all else. I have a request to make. My interest in things Welsh led me to the article about the Biblical character Gomer a few months ago. I made a simple and innocuous edit (or so I thought) about the supposed Welsh connection. Should have watched the page, but didn't. Came across it again the other day to find the entire edit had been reverted as "unsourced POV", and that by an editor who, it would seem, has a very definite Biblical/traditional history POV to promote and apparently never gives references himself. I've since done a number of edits, duly referenced, only to find them pruned to the bone, reverted, or altered in an unacceptable fashion. All I sought to do in the paragraph in dispute was give the accepted mainstream opinion on Gomer and the Cimmeriaid as found in any decent book on Welsh/Celtic history and linguistics. Too many diffs to give them all, but the latest is typical:. Oh, and I now see he's just responded to my restoration of the edit and warning of taking it to mediation by slapping a POV-section tag. Could you please take a look and see what you think? If you are too busy or have no wish to get involved I quite understand but would appreciate some guidance as to where to turn for possible assistance without neccessarily going through a formal mediation process. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and now he's also slapped a 3RR warning on my talk page, without actually giving his signature. Ye gods! What a joke. Enaidmawr (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you, Enaidmawr. I will definitely take a look at that. I've run into that individual before, and I must say I found dealing with him extremely unpleasant. The first step will be engaging on the talk page (whether or not he cooperates, it'll be good to have that as a base). I'll go over everything and see what I can do. Hopefully he will listen to reason and we can resolve this amiably; if not, there are a few more simple forms of dispute resolution that won't involve a huge amount of work, such as Requests for Comment.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Diolch yn fawr, Cuchullain. It's getting rather late even for me, accustomed as I am to burning the proverbial midnight oil, but I'll get back tomorrow. Why should we give in to this sort of behaviour? Cofion cynnes, Enaidmawr (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning for Personal Attacks against me
You wrote (about me) on two distinct talkpages, including this one just above: ''"I've run into that individual before, and I must say I found dealing with him extremely unpleasant..." (etc)''

This sort of uncivil language about a fellow editor is not permitted by site policy, nor is it acceptable by any standard of decency, and it seems calculated only to infuriate. If you have not done so already, please read WP:CIV (This is a policy, not a guideline). When trying to reach agreement or compromise, I always comment on the wording of the article, and NEVER the editors themselves, and I strongly urge you to do the same. If you do make any further personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, appropriate steps will be taken. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down. First off, that wasn't two "distinct" statements, it was a single statement to a single editor which I copied to his page. And there's nothing uncivil about what I said, nor was it made to you - that statement is about as colorless as it could be. I have read WP:CIV a number of times, thank you, and nothing I said could be construed as uncivil, and it was certainly not a personal attack. However your revert warring against Enaidmawr demonstrated that you were ignoring the positions and conclusions of others, which is a violation of the civility policy. The fact that you got so defensive about this simple post, and about Enaid's good editing at Gomer, shows that you are far too invested in the page. You need to take a step back and reconsider what this whole dispute is about.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I wrote above. You copied the same personal attack to two distinct talkpages, as I stated.  It is indeed a gross violation of WP:CIV and I am sure anyone but yourself would share that assessment.  Wikipedia policy is indisputably to discuss edits, not editors, and you should be made aware of this. However, your response continues to make comments that seem calculated solely to antagonize and provoke and exacerbate this, which is all being noted, since the record speaks plainly for itself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I apologize if I offended you. However, I think the amount of offense you've taken is all out of proportion with what was actually said. I stand by my statements about your editing at Gomer.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood
Nice work on The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. I made one small tweak - Wyeth was an illustrator; the author was Paul Creswick who has so faded into the mist that there isn't even a stub about him in Wikipedia, though it's possible his Robin Hood has never been out of print (I'd have to check). - PKM (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice catch on Creswick, to my knowledge the source I used didn't say anything about him. Funny how these things work out.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I have an old edition of the Creswick.  His name isn't even on the title page, which just says "illustrated by N. C. Wyeth", though his name is on the spine. Poor man. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur
Could use your level head over at this article, if you have the time... Cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'll check it out.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw you thought Geoffry Ashe was a worthy reference on the Arthur historicity debate. From what I can gather his theories look resonable. Only one slight problem is he seems to disregard the extant Annales Cambriae and Historia Britonum, from what I read on the Wiki article Riothamus. His connection of Arthur with this Riothamus draws on the similarities of the Historia Regum Britanniae to the life of the latter, and vicer verser. This proves if anything Geoffry M's work references someone else, an actual king, other than Arthur, yet it still uses evidence of a real Arthur as a figure in British history to fit this continental hero's deeds with events in Britain. Can you suggest any reasons Arthur is of mention if he wasnt a real part of history in Britain? If he made use of Nennius, yet this man's work, or even he himself, was a figment of fantasy (a forgey with intent to forge, I think the agrgument is), dont you think his cause for the inclusion of Arthur in his story would have been null (if you consider the purpose of his book was to impose a chivalric romance of Christendom on the people of Britain, all familiar with the traditions of the past)?


 * The fact remains the Annales and Historia are the only extant texts on the legend which apparantly grew around them and the subject they record. If Arthurian theories rest on the mere possibility thesse may be void, in a climate of extreme scarcity of original documentation, along with their basic corroboration by the Regnum, dont you think this is beyond the pale of reasonableness? It is purely opinionation!! WikieWikieWikie (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggested a quote from Geoffrey Ashe because he is (a) one of the dwindling number of scholars who believe strongly in a historical Arthur, and (b) is widely respected by other scholars in his field. As for his theories, my understanding is that he proposes Riothamus was the historical Arthur, whose legend influenced the Historia Britanniae, the Annales Cambriae, and Geoffrey of Monmouth (according to him "Riothamus" was just a title). My point was, if we want a quote from a respected scholar who believes in a historical Arthur, he's probably the best around. Berresford-Ellis is just not as respected in the field, and Morris' book has been widely criticized.


 * I can't understand your last paragraph. If you are appealing to the Historia Britonum and the Annales as the only early sources for the legend, that's just wrong. As we've discussed on the talk page there are a number of earlier sources, and later ones that reference earlier material, which contain glimpses of the legend. The thing is, none of them treat Arthur as a historical leader who fought the Saxons. That only early Welsh sources that do that are the Historia Brittonum and works such as the Annales Cambriae which are based directly on it.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
I just saw that you got your degree; congratulations! - PKM (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, PKM!--Cúchullain t/ c 08:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Help!
Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your copying a notice to various editors about your dispute, please see CANVASS. In short, it's bad form to ask many random editors to enter into a content dispute. For my part, I know nothing about the subject so I can't help one way or another.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Mary (folklore)
I just now noticed this article had been gutted of almost all its content by an overzealous editor citing policies he didn't understand. Claiming that sections citing academic books that were fully sourced were somehow "original research" is clearly bogus. You said as much in your response to him, but got railroaded. I have the page on my watch list but somehow missed all this. I reverted the age back to the way it was before that guy showed up, and between the two of us we clearly have more of a consensus than he does. I'd appreciate if you keep an eye on it in the near future in case he tries to rip it apart again. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye on it. I initially let it go because (a) I was tired of dealing with it, and (b) one of the sources he removed, the Hutton book, doesn't actually comment on Bloody Mary in the context of the folk magic it discusses. I was planning on finding something that connected Bloody Mary to the broader divination ritual/game but I got busy doing other things. I'll continue to keep an eye on the page, I think it's clearly superior now, if incompletely sourced.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

King Arthur on frontpage...
Wow... Did you know this was due?! Nearly gave me heart-attack when logged in and saw the page unprotected and so many edits! I'm not even going to try and filter any legit changes (vandalism seems to be being reverted quickly) until the article drops off the main page, I'm thinking... Incidentally, congrats on the degree :-) All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea, last time I checked it wasn't even on the rotation yet. You're right about just waiting a bit to try and tune it back up to concert pitch; any good edit right now is just as likely as a bad one to get swallowed up in the deluge. Once again, many thanks and congratulations on the article being put up, it's clearly some of Wikipedia's finest work, and one of the best encyclopedia articles on Arthur that's out there.


 * And thanks about the degree, it was a long time coming.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, having taken the time to look it over, it seems that the King Arthur page has remained pretty much as it was, so there is little that needs reworking/revising -- although the deluge of dubious edits and necessary reverts continue! Incidentally, thank you for your kind words and your watchful eye over the page! What are you planning to do with the degree now you have it? All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's all working out. The FA version of the article still stands and there are several devoted editors keeping watch to make sure it doesn't suffer too much from mediocre revisions.


 * As for my degree, I've gotten a "real job" at my school (University of North Florida), which will help me pay for graduate school if I stay there. I plan on pursuing an MA in English literature with a focus on medieval literature, though this all depends on extenuating factors like time, money, and my girlfriend's plans.


 * I hope all is going well with your research. I try to keep up with the Arthurian world, but find myself having less free time these days. I recall you saying some time ago you were finishing up another book? How goes it with that?--Cúchullain t/ c 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, best of luck with the grad school if you do it -- I'm sure you'll do very well :-) As to my research, I've got a couple of new academic articles out and the new book is just about there, so it's all going pretty well atm -- my main problem is finding enough time to do everything I want/need to! One day I hope I'll manage to get around to working on another wiki article...! (am quite tempted by Havelok, as this has been the focus of some of my work recently). All the best as always, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDb and Wikipedia
Fellow user and admin: what is this sudden disparaging of IMDb? Look at the articles on films, they utilize the IMDb title numbers. Certainly IMDb can be a reliable source for determining who stars in one film or another. IMDb is comprehensive in its presentation of film data, and I would suppose it is for that reason that Wikipedia in the past has somewhat used IMDb data favorably. It is not only you that has edited out IMDb references but also others. Considering that Wikipedia is more easily edited than IMDb, isn't it a little disingenuous of us to disparage IMDb, which is more difficult for anyone to edit than Wikipedia? Granted, there seems to be a greater attention to resourcing data adequately, but I am not clear about what has made IMDb so inadequate all of a sudden. BTW, on a lighter note, I too am interested in Arthurian legend. I know that it is not part of Geoffrey Monmouth or Thomas Mallory or Tennison, but I like the line in Camelot of young Arthur to Merlin: "What should one do when one is sad?" to which Merlin replies, "The best thing to do when one is sad is to learn something." You have chosen a splendid vocation.--drb (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. As you note, it's not just me who's against using the IMDb in place of scholarly sources. My problem with it is that it's not compiled by the scholars of the field, and that it's a tertiary source. I do not object to using it along with secondary sources written by the scholars of the field, or with linking to it on film pages so the user can glean the info they cover which we do not. But it should never be used in place of real scholarly sources. The fact that the IMDb is harder to edit than Wikipedia doesn't matter, as Wikipedia does not use Wikipedia articles as sources. The bottom line is, in my opinion good tertiary sources, from Britannica to JSTOR, do not rely on other tertiary sources.
 * And I also quite like your quote from Merlin. While it did not come from Geoffrey or Malory or Tenyson, it did originate with one of the great masters, T. H. White ;) .--Cúchullain t/ c 02:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I would guess that the implimentation of a rigorous policy of providing good sourcing is in the wake of the accusation in past years that Wikipedia is a joke in the academic world. Scholars like you are working to make it the resource it should be in this respect. My fear, though, is this new rigor in imposing "notability" may prove counterproductive to the presentation of all there is to know in the world. In my first years in Wikipedia, which correspond to yours, the big rigor was in making Wikipedia NPOV, which is definitely a good goal; however, now the rigor is NOT, notability. Certainly one should exclude vanity pages of some of us, but one should not be so ready to condense everything down to the point that it does not contain every possible human thought. It is the inclusiveness of Wikipedia that causes it to popup on google searches in the first place. That is how I first discovered Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be the encyclopedia of the 21st century that contains everything. In that way it could be considered the Aristotle of the modern world. That is my desire; however, with proper primary, secondary, and tertiary sources ;)--drb (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear that it was from T.H.White's The Once and Future King and not only from the play and screenplay of Camelot; although, that would not be a bad source. I remember that when Arthurian legend was presented to me in high school that they used T.H. White to present Arthur's early life, Malory to present his young and middle adult life, and Tennyson to present his passing. Did you like the recent film Arthur? There was much speculation mixed in it. I was intrigued in that they even brought in patristic Christian theology into the mix.--drb (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Palamedes (romance)
Hi. I've nominated Palamedes (romance), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Flat Earth article
Thank you for your attention to the Flat Earth article. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the grammar of this quotation is correct. I had outlined my reasons for regarding the grammar as incorrect on the article's talk page immediately after my previous edit of the page, but unfortunately neglected to put a notice of the discussion in my edit summary. Please discuss the matter there. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, didn't see your comment. I'll respond over there.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Disambig-Class King Arthur pages
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Disambig-Class King Arthur pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Disambig-Class King Arthur pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Disambig-Class King Arthur pages, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'A'ishah
Hi. I think you moved 'A'ishah. There's now a circular redirect with no history, but from the Talk page there clearly was once a real article there. I'm a bit hazy about moves but I think you broke something! andy (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that. Some kind of error resulted in the deletion of all the page history. I've corrected it now (I think).--Cúchullain t/ c 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Coraline
Why was the dab not needed? Chocolate Bar 02:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Coraline just redirected to Coraline (novella), the parentheses were not needed.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)