User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

Talk:Gangsta.#Requested move 19 August 2015

Can you relist the discussion? Majority supported parenthetical disambiguation, while four opposed extra disambiguation. Period or no period, parenthetical disambiguation was favored. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be time to let it go. RMs are not a vote. Calidum 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How is a period well sufficient to distinct one from another? Wouldn't it be more comfortable for you to vote rather than close? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you decided to overturn the previous RM decision and then closed the recent RM as "no consensus". Wouldn't that make you involved or having COI? --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• As you closed the preceding Move Review, you should not have closed the RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he doesn't have to recuse himself per WP:INVOLVED and to suggest otherwise is wikilawyering. His only involvement in the matter is in a purely administrative role. I don't get why this one period upsets you guys so much. Calidum 15:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the close Cúchullain. (I personally have clarified my !vote.)

User:Calidum, WP:INVOLVED might be a bit strong a term here. Instead, I'd like to emphasize that WP:MR is a process of very high respect, and that standards there are higher than most other places. Cúchullain is an experienced and respected RM and MR participant and closer, and I don't want to suggest in the least that these rules are written for him. Consider instead a lesser closer taking this a precedent, closing a MR as overturn to something, and then closing the followup RM as the same something? There are obvious possibilities of bias reinforcement if this is OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)George Ho:No, I don't have a conflict of interest, and I've been involved here only in an admin capacity, which is not a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I had some time for Wikipedia and decided to use it helping clear out the RM backlog by closing a convoluted discussion I was already familiar with, and which seemed to be a clear-cut case of "no consensus". As I said in my closing statement, when looking at the strength of the arguments, and taking into consideration the arguments in the last discussion you started a month ago, it seemed obvious there was no consensus for a move, let alone for either of the two suggested moved options in particular.

While I think it's unlikely that letting the discussion sit open for more time would yield a consensus, I would have been amenable to re-opening and relisting the discussion. Your decision to start a move review now precludes that. It's especially frustrating that you said in the MR that I "turned down" your request to reopen and relist when the reality is that you jumped the gun before I could respond.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I've reverted. I didn't mean to jump to conclusions. I hope this doesn't affect your decision. George Ho (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving the discussion open a while longer. I'll relist it and leave a comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain, thanks for your work on this. —  AjaxSmack  22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• asked User:ConstitutionalRepublic on talk page if he/she is Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether you are willing to vote. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Midwife for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midwife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Celtic languages

Hi, could you please consider interceding on the Celtic languages article? A few editors, including the notorious troublemaker User:Kwamikagami, are edit warring with me in order to remove a perfectly accurate map of the modern Celtic countries with shaded regions for where Celtic languages are still actively spoken - all because one of these editors - who clearly doesn't have much knowledge of Celtic languages - said he didn't understand the map. This editor, User:Jeppiz has even reported me to WP for reverting the removal of the map. Cagwinn (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cagwinn: The concerns about the map look reasonable to me. Just at a glance it appears that a number of the dark green areas are wrong. Maps need sources just as text does.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rastafari), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

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

John Carter (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Earliest Pictish

The original Pictish language bears no connection with the later Brittonic dialects of Pictish at all. The original language was of Neolithic origin and what is known of its vocabulary is entirely different than Brythonic or Goidhelic! This has been proved by one with a degree in ancient languages. Also the case against non-Indo-European is error. If you have an issue with this, please leave a message on my talk page. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg: sorry, what's this in reference to?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cúchullain My due apologies for not clarifying the reference relating to the last clauses of the final sentence in the first paragraph of the Picts "spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brittonic language spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them."[1] An asterisk that I inserted to explain the difference between the earliest Pictish language and the more recent Brittonic one, was removed by 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'. So I scrolled down the edits until I found the UTC who added this reference. I was just scared that readers might assume that the original Pictish tribes also spoke an Iron Age Celtic dialect, because that would be error. For example, the words TAGONA (to be) and NAUKA (to possess) - almost synonymous with a totally unrelated language (to Celtic anyway) - Basque DAGO and NAUKA, are quite distinct from any part of the Celtic vocabulary. You would no doubt know that Ogham inscriptions were probably used on leather long before what is visible on stone. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Werdna Yrneh Yarg: What article are you referring to?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm going to keep an eye on this one. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

Could you please take a look at TAFI. I have nominated both Gustaf and Bill Skarsgård. Could need some more input. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil American

There is an ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPP#ITN system on deaths

I invite you to central discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Foreign Affairs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

IDHT concerns

Hi Cuchullain.

Posting here to avoid the drama of an ANI thread. I just want an admin to look into a potential problem on a GAR, and you're the only admin I know who is impartial (I don't recall us ever actually agreeing on a content dispute outside of the Ugetsu Monogatari RM three years ago; I don't know if you have any history with the other party), not involved in any other dispute anyone else involved is currently marred in, and likely to act in good faith (don't ask...)

About a month ago, User:CurtisNaito and I were both placed under a moratorium by Dennis Brown (here). We were told not to "push the boundaries of incivility, bludgeon discussions, violate WP:IDHT, act in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breach any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors" (emphasis mine). The result of a violation would be "either [Dennis Brown] or another admin should simply block[ing] for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks".

CurtisNaito has, I believe, engaged in the same kind of disruptive IDHT behaviour on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Japan/1 that led to the above numerous times since the moratorium, and has been called out for it by myself and several other users (these warnings were, ironically, ignored). He has been claiming that no one ever proved any sourcing problems with the article, that no edit-warring has taken place, that no editors have presented positive proposals for expanding the article, and so on, all of which are blatant IDHT.

Diffs are a bit hard for this, since the only way the diffs could be valid is if one looks at the background to see how they are IDHT, but the single worst example is probably the first one, and the most recent one (the one that has everyone annoyed at the moment) took place yesterday. Ctrl+F this page for the "IDHT" and you'll see him being called out by me, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey.

The CurtisNaito IDHT problem expands across about a half-dozen talk pages (all of which now have massive archives as a result) and was what led to what would otherwise seem like an overly harsh moratorium on such behaviour. I don't want to get into the details, but the moratorium and the recent edits should speak for themselves.

Sorry again for such a sudden, and likely burdensome request. And for such a long post. If you want to block me for bludgeoning your talk page, I understand, but I felt a thorough explanation was in order.

Best regards,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On an at best tangentially related point, there is a very good chance that an arbitration case regarding the conduct of many of the editors involved in this discussion and others will be opening shortly. I have no idea when it will be opened, but tend to think it might be only after one of three open cases reaches some point or other, but get the impression personally that it might be this weekend or early next week. You may wish to submit any evidence you might consider relevant at that time. As in the only other discussion I have had regarding the matter above, I have nothing to say about it directly, being basically uninvolved in that. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'll have a look at it, but my suggestion would be for you to disengage. The ARBCOM case is very likely to be taken up, and continuing the types of disputes that led to it is likely to cast you in a bad light. I'd step back before you make things worse for yourself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the ArbCom case has NOTHING to do with CurtisNaito and the history of Japan GAR. CurtisNaito (and one of his allies) just jumped in to the ArbCom case because he saw another opportunity to get rid of me. I don't think the CurtisNaito problem has reached the level where ArbCom is necessary yet -- if the ArbCom case didn't exist, the problem could just be taken to ANI where it would likely be resolved pretty quickly (I wouldn't even have to do it, since two or three other users agree with me). It therefore seems extremely unlikely that ArbCom would actually weigh in on the issue at hand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given that you have once again displayed in the above your remarkable tendency toward clearly paranoic insistence on assuming both bad faith of others, and in making a rather clearly over-the-top accusation that the sole purpose of others is to "get rid of you", and that you have displayed this same tendency of paranoic assumption of bad faith toward several people, I think it is reasonable for many others including perhaps the arbcom to question whether there exists one specific problem area, your personal behavior, which is consistently unacceptable and perhaps primary cause for the situation that now exists. Also, honestly, I rather doubt you have all the information ArbCom and others might on this subject, and also whether you, who are perhaps so clearly blinded by your own presuppositions, are even capable of judging the matters. Also, from what I remember, Curtis and TH chimed in at least a few discussions regarding Catflap, and although I haven't checked you may have even at least implicitly made the same sort of paranoic judgements there you did in the above. All that being the case, honestly, I think it very reasonable to question whether you as an individual are even remotely competent to determining what is and is not relevant to this particular problem. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, yet another prime example of holier-than-thou commentary from the Warlord of Mars himself. I do believe Hijiri is paranoid about sockpuppetry (and he had good reason to be until fairly recently), but paranoia is not the case here. CurtisNaito and TH1980 showed up at the last ANI to request a block/ban of Hijiri. That in no sense of the word makes them "involved". They were never part of any of the actual disputes or even the IBAN discussion. You and I are involved. The only reason I can think of to let both of them be noted as "involved" at ArbCom is to strengthen the case against Hijiri in the hopes that they'll be more lenient on Catflap. And FYI after the ArbCom case is closed and the ANI case against TH1980 is closed (so you can't accuse me of gaming again) I'll be filing for an IBAN between us. Also, I don't want you showing up on my talk page uninvited again (this means "don't show up on my talk page unless I ping you"). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, as I see it, the problem is less this particular "issue at hand" and more your tendency to get into the same types of disputes again and again. Whether you're right or wrong on the specifics of this dispute, you're not going to come across very sympathetically to ARBCOM if you let yourself get into another very similar conflict. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, "what am I doing that leads me to get into so many disputes with so many different people on Wikipedia?"--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)