User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

Jap

perhaps there should be an etymology and history section, in the same manner as the page on the word nigger ?

I don't think Jap is an abbreviation which some people consider to be offensive, it is primarily a racist slur which has its origins in an abbreviation. Nowadays it is used almost exclusively as a racist slur.

The page on the word nigger starts by saying it is a racist slur, then moves onto an etymology section.

I may edit this page in the future, to make it the same format as the nigger page, please contact me if you think they should not share the same format or if you have any other suggestions regarding the jap pageSennen goroshi 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It should have a usage section, but the etymology is obvious- it's short for "Japanese". The nigger article starts by defining the word as a "pejorative term used to refer to dark-skinned people, mostly those of African ancestry", then goes on to say the connotations have been negative for centuries. That is different with "jap", which is, as you say, primarily an ethnic slur today, but has not always been used as one. In World War II it was still largely an abreviation used in English-speaking newspapers, and before that, it wasn't disparaging at all. I also think "jap" is not considered nearly as offensive as "nigger", but more on the lines of spic or honky. The page could use some expanding, and the nigger article is probably the most apt model to follow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I also think that nigger was once an acceptable term in some countries, the term nigger brown was used without causing offence at one time. I guess it depends where you come from, jap is pretty offensive to me (living in Japan) and in Japan nigger isnt really used to offend people at all.

It might be nice if there were some verifiable sources regarding how offensive certain racial slurs are, I know there is one for obscene words but this doesnt concentrate on racial slurs.Sennen goroshi 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some additional sources, but I don't personally have any to provide. I don't know if there's a way to rank ethnic slurs by level of offensiveness, but "nigger" is widely considered one of the most offensive words in the English language, worse than other ethnic slurs and even curse words (in most contexts). But as the king of English ethnic slurs, its article is the best model to follow to expand on other articles on slurs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to be educated on the meaning of the word race, I thought it came down to if there were visible differences for a group of people (perhaps Im over-simplyfying that) but then again, Im also not 100% if there are differences between say Japanese and Korean people. first of all, is my understanding of the word race, correct? secondly, are there any differences between Japanese and Korean/Chinese? Perhaps if Japanese are not a race, then ethnic slur would be better? I won't bother changing that page again, until I make sure I'm using the correct term, or even if a there is a term that applies in this case.Sennen goroshi 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of semantics - I'm going by the dictionary definition of race, which says that it's a social construct based on a number of characteristics and background. Ethnicity, by contrast, is a group of people who identify with each other culturally, etc. Race is much broader and more abstract, while ethnicity is narrower and much easier to define. The Japanese are not a "race" (they would be grouped with other East Asian peoples by those who orginally defined the racial categories), but they are an ethnic group. Hence, "ethnic slur" is the correct way to describe "jap". I'm not the person to ask if there are differences between the Japanese and Koreans, I don't think there'd be much genetic difference, but they do have different languages and customs, and the "Chinese" are neither a race nor a single ethnic group, but rather a nation made out of many different ethnic groups, much like other large countries like the US.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry! I had am emotional reaction. That is the only time I have reverted a page in 27,000+ edits on Wikipedia, other than removing unquestioned vandalism or self-reverting because of a mistake. I was just very hurt that you removed the names, since other names are on there with fewer edits. I read the rules carefully on the page before I added the names. There was no mention of an edit limit. But I have realized for a long time that things are arbitrary here. It is your decision to allow other editors to be listed with fewer edits and not mine. So be it. It is your page. Regards, --Mattisse 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since I see everyone else is adding back names that break your rule, I will do the same tomorrow. I am sure you want to avoid such an appearance of undue prejudice on your part against me and will support me on this. Regards, --Mattisse 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my decision, it's everyone's, I just happen to have worked on the page the most. I repeat, the 1,000 edits "rule" is emphatically not mine, it was around before my time. It's just an arbitrary standard to make sure the list doesn't become far too long and full of only minor contributors. As for "undue prejudice", I really don't care about appearances here, I just remove names when I see them if they have under 1000 edits, or were banned, or have returned, etc., and every once in a while me or someone else goes through and weeds names out more thoroughly. I don't go out of my way to enforce "code" here, I could be editing articles.

You obviously don't agree with the rule, per your original additions and your edit summaries. Why don't we discuss on the talk page over there what to do now and in the future?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to your selective inforcement

If there is a rule, then enforce it for everyone. For some reason you removed my entries while allowing others to be added before and after mine that had less that 1000 edits. --Mattisse 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, Mattisse, there's nothing "selective" about my enforcement on this, and I am not the lone enforcer. It has nothing to do with you, I just happened to notice after you added them that they had less than 1000, I just missed the others (and haven't had time to check on all the ones you pointed out). I'll get to the others when I have time, but right now I'm going to get back to editing articles. But come on, if you have a real problem with the rule, why don't you bring it up over there? If not, I assure you I'll deal with it when I can, but it won't be right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another about the 1,000 edit rule as now I see the list is sterile and not meaningful. I object to your selective enforcement because I was given a revert warning for removing the less than 1,000. Then the person added his less than 1,000 and I could do nothing. Thus you encourage bullying by your selective enforcement. It is that sort of ugliness that I do not want to participate in. I will simply get that page off my watchlist. I certainly do not want to engage in a talk page discussion with people of that mentality. I have never gotten a revert warning before. --Mattisse 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Like I said, I'll get to it when I get to it, but I'm not taking any more time away from editing articles right now. I really am sorry you've been so upset by this, the only reason I edit the page is as a memorial to those who were once an important part of the community but are not any longer. I edit it the way I do because of consensus gathered from the talk page, the AfD, from the others who have maintained the page (some of whom sadly are no longer editing themselves). I didn't have anything to do with giving you the warning, but you were apparently editing out of resentment, and for my part I did try to apologize and explain myself to you. I wish you would reconsider unwatching the page, there is much work to be done, and fewer and fewer people interested in doing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised fewer and fewer people are interested in the page. You certainly turned me off to it. I would suggest that if you want people to be interested in the page, treat their contributions with value. Anyone who adds to that page does so for a reason. Don't treat them as you treated me and don't support bullying on the page as you do now. The page is off my watchlist and this converstion is at an end. --Mattisse 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't treat you any way at all, except to revert your first addition, and then attempt to explain why. Nor did I "support bullying" by not jumping up and editing as fast as you would have liked, I have other things to do, on and off Wikipedia. I suggest you not take things quite so personally, particularly if you're not going to discuss it on the dedicated talk page But your right, this conversation is over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: UNF

Thanks, Cúchullain; I'm quite partial to it. :) María (críticame) 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta

We've edited the same articles before, and I saw you post on Maria's talk page, so I figured I should drop this note here too. Me and a few other people, we're trying to get next year's Wikimania to Atlanta, and we're asking people if they can help, whether it be in online capacities or actually to help with preparation, setup and staffing next summer in Atlanta. Whatever you can do is appreciated. If you can do something, go to "Southeast team" about halfway down the page, click the link, and sign your name to "outside Atlanta." Here's the generic template I've been dropping on people's pages, which may or may not apply to you personally (it was originally geared toward Georgia contributors). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

TilaTequla HELP!

So i tried to update the ref tags with more info like you requested on the discussion page and somehow it got all messed up in the ref list at the bottom of the page.... uhh what the hell happened??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyRob926 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you just forgot a </ref>. No big deal, I've done that about a million times. However, it looks like the spam filter is blocking the Myspace blog now, preventing me from fixing it. I'll see what I can do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot! the spam filter is weird though, sometimes it lets myspace links go by other times it blocks them, its kind of random CrazyRob926 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville, Florida

Jacksonville, Florida has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a look.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

SGGK

Sir Gawain is now up for GA status. Wrad 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But....

You ain't the boss here. ANd i have just as much right to edit here as you do. Since when do you get the high and mighty desire to decide what's right and wrong around here? I'm a huge James Gunn fan. So I'm not out to harm the guy. But I'm a bigger wikipedia fan. Hence, I looked into your little edit war. It seems this is all about some quote. Well... according to wiki, a direct quote is preferred over your intrepretations of the quote. Your intrepretation is not NPOV. But a quote is NPOV. So stop trying to decide what's right or wrong. A sourced quote is superior to your opinion about it. If you don't like it, then find a quote that counters it. Otherwise, it's stays. K? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogabadaga (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quote is irrelevant, it's from some magazine, interpreting what studion insiders said. The magazine's opinion doesn't matter, it's the insider's opinion that should be there, but one particular user is intent on including as much negative material as he can about this guy and this film. It's not a "direct quote", it's the definition of an "indirect quote" - it comes from a third party, trying to sum up the opinion of someone, but we include it here for some reason. I'd be interested to know exactly where you read that "a direct quote is preferred" - that's almost the same thing this user said several months ago in trying to justify his adding it. As for the James Gun article, we have a very strict BLP policy prohibiting poorly sourced contentious material. As I said before, the information is not relevant to the biography.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You've already violated the 3RR rule on the James Gunn article. Please be more careful in the future or you will be reported. Jauerback 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at WP:AN/3RR, I didn't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Even if I had, 3RR doesn't apply to removing poorly sourced contentious material about a living person per WP:BLP; I brought up BLP on the talk page and my edit summaries, to no avail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Berry Lowrie

Here is the quote from the swamp outlaws: DESCRIPTION OF THE OUTLAWS

HENRY BERRY LOWERY

Henry Berry Lowery, the leader of the most formidable band of outlaws, considering the smallness of its numbers, that has been known in this country, is of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood, twenty-six years of age, five feet nine inches high and weighing about 150 pounds.

He has straight black hair, like an Indian: a dark goatee, and a beard graceful in shape, but too thin to look very black. His face slopes from the cheek bones to the tip of his goatee, so as to give him the Southern American contour of physiognomy; but it is lighted with eyes of a different color--eyes of a grayish hazel--at times appearing light blue, with a drop of brown in them, but in agitation dilating, darkening, and, although never quite losing the appearance of a smile, yet in action it is a smile of devilish nature.

His forehead is good and his face and expression refined--remarkably so, considering his mixed race, want of education and long career of lawlessness.

A scar of crescent shape and black color lies in the skin below his left eye, said to have been made by an iron pot falling upon him when a child.

His voice is sweet and pleasant, and in his manner there is nothing self-important or swaggering. He is not talkative, listens quietly, and searches out whoever is speaking to him like a man illiterate in all books save the two great books of nature, and human nature above all.

[p.13] The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper--such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm --Roskerah 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cite it properly on the page and I have no objection to its inclusion. Footnotes are what's used on the page primarily, the cite will need the book's title, author and page number (or if you're relying on the online version, link.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merlin

Further to our edit conficts in the aforecited article, I have employed præternatural instead of the close-cognate supernatural for specific reasons:

supernatural is best reserved for Deity, whereas, præternatural is appropriate for deity.

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural does not imply "Deity", but only something beyond natural; it is also more easily recognized by the lay reader. I kept one of your usages of it, but retained "supernatural" in the intro for that reason. I also changed back some of your style edits, such as converting to British spellings and unstandard characters (specifically the "ae") and your changes of the date format to CE. Most of your edits were good, but it struck me that some of the language was overly flowery for a general purpose encyclopedia. But as I said most changes were good, keep up the good work!--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbecue Bob

I hope we don't get into a silly situation over this, but please look at [2] Ghmyrtle 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I was reading the same thing when i edited the way I did - my intention was to reduce the single sentance/ short paragraphs. At any rate, I'm fine with there being multiple paragraphs, but there doesn't need to be a separate section for his brother - the info on him is just 1 sentance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that it deals with a different person, and where that's happened elsewhere I've tended to use a new section - eg at Lester Melrose. No big deal. Ghmyrtle 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if and when the article is expanded it would deserve its own section, but for now it's far too short. If it is expanded and Lincoln gets his own section (or article), it should still be at least mentioned farther up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Fountain of Youth St Augustine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Image-Fountain of Youth St Augustine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep undoing my addition of an external link to the Yezidi page?

Hello - please stop undoing my addition of a relevant (NOT SPAM) external website on the Yezidi people and their traditions. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurius anonymous (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

???

Huh? On the James Gunn page I added a known fact well documented by the press about his first film. If you are a filmmaker, and your first film was a box office bomb, then that is certainly worth mentioning. Dozens of sources back it up. If you don't like it, then we should probably remove the part of the article that praises Gunn for having an 84% favorable rotten tomatoes rating. Or should we?