User talk:Cuchullain

Archives
February 2005 – April 5, 2006 April 2006 – August 10, 2006

Health Initiative International

I've already spoken with others about contributing to the Vanuatu entry and have their blessing. See below:

Our mission is to work with Vanuatu communities and health care organizers to improve education, awareness, infrastructure, and medical supply availability in areas that lack health resources. Our ultimate goals are to improve the living conditions of communities in Vanuatu, to foster positive international relations and cultural exchange between volunteers and the people of Vanuatu, and to communicate the living conditions in Vanuatu to Americans. From wanem yu no likem website blong mifalla? Mifalla wantem helpem ol man ples, be mifalla needum fullap man i save problem ia. Mo hemi wan goodfalla samting sapos mifalla putem hemia i go long lukem aout Vanuatu. Mi save traem bakegan blong putem samting ia? Fren blong ol man ples, Kristie

Dear Kristie, The question is not whether I like your website, nor whether your organization is useful for mankind. The question is whether your link has its place within an encyclopaedic presentation of the country "Vanuatu". Does it provide information, facts, knowledge about the history, geography, culture, politics, society of Vanuatu? Not really. It just happens to be related to Vanuatu in some way or another, just like 76 million other pages on the web [1]; are we going to add 76 million links to the bottom of wikipedia's "Vanuatu" page? The fact that you are a "useful" organization (which I don't deny) is not a sufficient reason for making an exception to the principle that we are writing a knowledge encyclopaedia (see what WP is not); otherwise how many links are we going to add to the Africa page??

Ale, naoia mi talem finis tingting blong mi, be i tru se fulap ol artikel blong WP ol i stap miksimap eni kaen infomesen we i no long saed blong save. Sipos yufela i laekem blong putum link ia bakegen i stap, i olraet nomo, bae mi no save agensem. Be maet igut blong adem wan smol sentence blong toksave ("Health organization involved in Vanuatu" o wan samting olsem). Hemia nomo ating, mo gudlak long wok blong yufela.

-- Fren blong Vanuatu, Womtelo 08:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)"

Please allow my contribution. Thank you.

Sincerely, Kristie

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christine.armstrong"

Oetzi trial

Please check the discussion box on Oetzi page, as I entered some informations about the trial and the real ownership. The trial is scheduled for this year to appear again in Italy in order to identify the real owner. Prunk 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Please check the Oetzi discussion page, section discovery about the Oetzi links. Prunk 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Y Gododdin

Thanks. The Jarman reference is to A.O.H. Jarman's version with English translation and notes (1988). I've just noticed that it isn't in the list of References - I'll add it.Rhion 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks. --Cúchullain ^t/c 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar - it's appreciated. Rhion 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dante Arthurs

You might want to check just how hamstrung even the authorities are in revealing the identity of someone with permanent anonymity.

If you knew anything about the case, you would realise that the dailymail article you have restored the link to erroneously represents the police identikit photo to be Arthurs actual appearance (it looks absolutely nothing like arthurs), which only feeds the conspiracy theory since it is the only picture of arthurs that has appeared in the UK press. This error has been pointed out to the dailymail in the comments section of the article yet they refuse to acknowledge it and make amends. I would request that if you are going to overrule me on my decision to remove the link, kindly address why you believe the source to be reputable whilst it features such a glaring error? By the way, the dailymail is toward the tabloid end of the spectrum in the UK. Elpocoloco 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that Daily Mail article doesn't have any picture of any kind. Are you looking at the same one as I was? Anyway, after seeing that the paper is a tabloid (I always have a hard time telling with UK papers), I'd just as soon leave it off. As for the other statement, the UK's permanent anonymity does not apply to the Australian government, police, or media, so I don't see the point of including it. I've removed it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Arthurs is Thompson, for this to be confirmed would require admission by authorities in the UK, not Australia, that Arthurs is Thompson under a new alias. If Australian authorities ask the UK authorities, "is Arthurs really Robert Thompson?" and the UK authorities, choosing to adhere to the demands of the permanent anonymity order, state that it isn't him, does not mean than from a non-legal perspective ie. one that ignores the permanent anonymity order, that the UK authorities are telling the "truth"? I have not labelled any party as being liars because from a legal perspective they aren't lying as it is possible that the UK is simply acting under the auspices of the PA order. To ignore this as a possible obstacle to the "truth" from a moral, non-legal perspective is dangerous as it suggests that in cases where PA is involved, PA individuals have the right to commit future crimes without their criminal history coming into consideration when being sentenced as they are protected by the justice system that have granted them PA. Elpocoloco 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All this is your personal speculation. We should not assume Arthurs is Thomson just because there are rumors. The line is confusing and does not add to the encyclopedic value of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merlin

Please either explain the cleanup tag or remove it; cleanup tags without indication of what you want are useless. Septentrionalis 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did explain it, on the talk page. It doesn't meet the style guideline for disambiguation pages, which shouldn't be too hard to see.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to an entire style page is not helpful. What is your complaint? Please be specific. Septentrionalis 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have archived, but you are still free to respond on my page. Septentrionalis 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Heya. I took a crack at bringing Merlin (disambiguation) into line with MOS:DP. Wanna review it before I take off the cleanup tag? Sanguinity 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine now, many thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I'm an user from Türkiye, I want to ask you about something. Approximately 3 hours ago a problem has happened our recentchanges page. [1] Now, if you or an Authorized User can correct it? Hope to help us, or to conduct someone this problem. Thanks a lot. [2] The cattr 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 22:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a message with Wikiproject Turkey, I hope someone there can look into the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perlesvaus

On 4 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perlesvaus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Very interesting read. Many thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seven dirty words by the man from Nantucket

I have one word for you, in all due respect: "cocksucker". The difference between "suck it" and "cocksucker" is not much of a stretch, especially compared to the flexibility required to perform such an act. This article is like Scrabble; the point is to score by wikifying as creatively as possible. "Seven dirty words" is definitely a 10-point link. Ghosts&empties 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you it's really worth that many points, I guess you have a point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to Austronesian people on Austronesian languages

Hi Cuchullain,

I think I'm gonna remove the link to Austronesian people on the Austronesian languages page. The "people" article is really new, seems to have errors, and is basically a stub. I'll try to help you with it, whenever I have time (I'm taking 5 classes; 4 are PhD level). When we get it in decent shape, we can replace the link. Thanks --Ling.Nut 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I didn't write Austronesian people article, and I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute to it either. I did, however, include a link to it in the "see also" section, as it's a related topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shining Path

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Thanks for replacing AAAAA's agreement, which I accidently deleted. --Descendall 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This has to be my favorite part of this whole mess: As a Maoist organization, it strongly opposed all forms of capitalism {{fact}}. It's hard to assume good faith when things like that are being contested. --Descendall 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And the senderistas are only sometimes called senderistas? It is exasperating. The thing is, I'm sure he's acting in good faith, to improve the article and remove bias, but he's also clearly pushing his POV. You are a better man than I was for going through his edit and trying to incorporate whatever legitimate concerns he had into the article. Hopefully this can be resolved without compromising the integrity of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. Relax and enjoy a good movie. I found it while googling the name of his source. (Cation: If you're in an internet cafe in Peru with a cop around, I wouldn't click on it.) --Descendall 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I just noticed about that video: they translate "el sexo débil" as "women." Pretty emblematic of the faux feminism of the Shining Path, isn't it? --Descendall 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I am so glad you found that. The best laugh I've had all night. Think we can use this as a source for how even Sendero Luminoso call themselves Sendero Luminoso?--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't know those women were almost all dead, they would really scare the shit out of me. As for your other point, I actually thought of that myself. If you really want to piss that guy off, take out all mentions of the "Communist Party of Peru" and cite his own movie to justify it. --Descendall 08:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the whole video at http://www.revmedia.net/tpsp.html Also, if you speak Spanish, could you check my translation of the block quote I added? I put both the Spanish text and my English translation on the talk page. Truth by told, my Spanish is pretty bad. --Descendall 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mine's pretty weak too, but I'll ask someone to look at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Feel free to trim down the quote if you want. --Descendall 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OMFG!!!!1! Shining Path R TERRORISTS!!!!1! R U A TERRORIST?!?!?! --Descendall 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What? Who told you?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to tell. Let's just say that if you looked him up the phone book, his name would be on the first page. --Descendall 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on the talk page. I bet you didn't know that this article was going to be such a pain in the ass when you first came upon it, did you? --Descendall 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ys

I changed "Ismara" to "Ismarus", (avoiding dab), to emphasize that this thesis is about Homeric Ismarus as opposed to present Ismara in Greece. Hope you can live with it. Regards, Antiphus 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can. You're in the right; "Ismarus" is the better name for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ivana Miličević

You are aware that Ivana Miličević article is a very sensitive area which was under edit war until yesterday and that the version which you just edited was a consensus version and that now it is very likely that an edit war will erupt? Just checking to see if you know what you are getting yourself into... --Dijxtra 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize it until I had already started to edit the article. But I don't think there is anything objectionable in my edits; it still says she is born in Bosnia and is an ethnic Croat, which seems be the major contention.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

America

Why do you consider it a "bot error" to change America to America (disambiguation) in the article Use of the word American. It seems to me an appropriate change because the context of the link is a discussion about the origin of the word, not about the place(s) it refers to. If you disagree, kindly explain rather than simply reverting. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

America (disambiguation) is just a redirect back to America. I figured it was just an error, am I missing something?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages not only explains why the link should go to America (disambiguation) -- it uses this very page as the example! --Russ Blau (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see. You're right, of course, but I'm still confused about it; "America" is the disambiguation page, not for a specific meaning. I'll take it up on the talk page at WP:Disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to your version. Again, my apologies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Hi Fellow-WikiPedian, This thing came up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. Would you like to vote? Antiphus 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Spam

Why don't you explain how faq pages that another admin agreed to keep are spam --Edited By a Professor of Life 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the links on Nitrous, I removed them because they are to a commercial site, and I didn't see anything important there that isn't, or at least, shouldn't just be in the article already. We also don't usually have "FAQ sections" in articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it, it's hard to understand what's right or wrong.. then you get someone with a little power here and they go gung ho against you. I didn't think it was right to have that stuff on my user page, thank you for removing it. In regards to the nitrous it's a very comprehensive information base directly related to the page an applications in vehicles, alot of which is not on the wiki page and is must know info which is original content from that site. I think it's a quality page and many many commercial sites are linked to on wiki if there is valuable information and not direct sales on the page that it is linked to, i did link to specific pages thinking that would be more appropriate, reconsider?--Edited By a Professor of Life 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really think they add to the article, go ahead and put them back in. But put them under an "External links" section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is great info and anyone considering it for their vehicle needs to know that stuff. I appreciate your outlook on it however if I add them back HU will probably just remove it aain, might I ask that you do it? Appreciate it, let me know if you need any help keeping an eye on any topics I'd be happy to help --Edited By a Professor of Life 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• **Our ALL NEW Store is now online and open! Click to enter**.. the whole left NAV bar is to product checkout... and for heavens sake, why does wikipedia need links to customer FAQ's???? I'd reconsider Cúchullain, Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products or services. The External links policy is clear about this fact. Hu12 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is borderline. It is a commercial site, but the specific links aren't primarily there to sell products, and the info seems okay. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take any good info from the links that isn't in the article already, and add it in. Then we wouldn't need the links, and we wouldn't be missing anything useful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

add any useful information

The information seems okay

I would also seriously reconsider, User:EinsteinEdits seems to exist ONLY for the purpose of spamming (with all but one of the links he's added belonging (having done a WHOIS on them) to the same person, and he's used some pretty annoying tactics to try to get around the rules. I've reverted the links again, and I have to say that I think that until we can find a non-commercial site related to the subject, it'd be best to keep any links off. -- SonicAD (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note sonic has a personal beef related to something else, he's only attempting to cause trouble and has reverted the links added to nitrous even though it was stated you approved. Sonic runs several sites himself in which he sticks in and approves then delets other sites that try to post links it's truly annoying. Sonic you are obviously not doing your job here and taking things personally it was and is intelligent factural information and you are proving your motive is not in the best interest of wikipedia surfers but your own personal opinion or dislikes. I suggest you take a different approach as this is not the right way to deal with things. I have contributed both links and some content, I do what I can. I like adding valuable links because not info can be cited or contained within wikipedia.. I can point to numerous edits by sonic that allows exteral links to sites that may have comercial being. So that would mean he's not being eeven minded nor fair. --Edited By a Professor of Life 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

oh and Cuchullain the content belongs to that site, ithought it could not be copied and pasted into wikipedia, I have been scolded for contributing info like that before. there's nothinbg wrong with a link these 2 buddies have teamed up to try and give me grief and that's really and truly all this is. --Edited By a Professor of Life 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, User:EinsteinEdits is lying. You can check my history and see that, on the RARE event that I add an external link, I certainly have nothing to do with the site itself. I've had over 1000 edits without any warnings (not counting 3 made by a user who believed that I was linkspamming myself, of which a couple admins told me that he shouldn't have done, and 2 of those were for reverts made from an IP which I believe was used by the user now known as User:EinsteinEdits. Almost all of his edits are linkspam, and since he's using your approval as a solid reason to reinsert the links, I recommend you tell him off of it. -- SonicAD (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mabinogion

Why did you revert the Welsh titles in the Mabinogion article? If I read an article on French literature I don't expect to see the titles of works given in English only. Why should Welsh be an exception? As the article stands one could be forgiven for thinking that the Mabinogion (thank God THAT at least is untranslatable, or presumably you'd give it the same treatment!) were written in English. You may have noticed that I did not remove the English names, neither did I give the Welsh titles more than once. And you say you love Celtic literature?! What sort of reference work do you think Wikipedia is? Surely the original titles, in any language, are 100% valid. Have a nice day, "Dog of Colin"! Enaidmawr 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edits because you bolded all the titles in every section. Also, using the more common name for works, not the native title, is preferable (though you're right, they are 100% valid). Finally, you left the link in the English title and just moved it over, instead of piping a link from the Welsh name. But anyway I worked them both in now, so please make sure I didn't miss anything. Cheers, Great Soul.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr, Dog of Colin! Sorry if I sounded a bit irate - well, I guess I was somewhat.. - it's just that some people on english wikipedia are really anti-Welsh and, forgive me, but I thought for a moment you might be one of them. Sorry. Thanks for redoing the edit. It's a bit late over here, even though I'm a bit of a Night Owl, so I'm signing off for now. Hwyl, (Cheers,) Enaidmawr 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I understand completely. I shouldn't have just reverted you without more of an explanation. Anyway, the original titles were desperately needed, so thanks for doing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles

Thanks for your article about the German poet. Could I ask you to announce your new articles, if they have something to do with Middle Ages, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles? Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally forgot! Thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to new WikiProject

Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop it

Stop trying to conceal DreamGuy / Victrix's use of sockpuppets by removing the valid warning from his user page. This has been confirmed by a checkuser request. It can't possibly be any more obvious that they are the same person. If he didn't want to see warnings on his page he should have abided by Wikipedia's policies and standards in the first place - rather than engaging in months of appalling abuse. As if that wasn't enough it is also suspected by a number of editors that DreamGuy / Victrix is in fact an editor who has been hard-banned by Jimbo, so it's not really a good idea to be stirring up people. --Centauri 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First, that checkuser request didn't confirm they were the same, it was just found likely. Second, the DreamGuy account isn't a sockpuppet of anything, it's the main account, so the tag is wrong (if anything it's the puppetmaster account). I don't know anything about your last allegation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for adding your input into the DreamGuy topic. I'll try and answer a few of your queries.

"First, that checkuser request didn't confirm they were the same, it was just found likely."That's absolutley true and you are right to point this out...but as well as the likely sockpuppet check there is also a strack of evidence against them as they used the same edit style, edited the same articles and used the same language, which for me makes me 99% certain that they are the same.

"Second, the DreamGuy account isn't a sockpuppet of anything, it's the main account, so the tag is wrong (if anything it's the puppetmaster account)" Perhaps, however there is one concern from me. This being that DreamGuy has mis-used his sockpuppet account to breaks rules such as 3RR on articles such as Beelzebub and Spring Heeled Jack. I feel that is important that users are notified of this connection as it is likely that DreamGuy may try this again when engages in his frequent edit wars. I’m afraid to say that DreamGuy is a regular “edit warrior” and for me this makes it necessary to place this on his page. Although I do agree that the sockpuppet master is perhaps the correct tag.

"I don't know anything about your last allegation." I am quite aware of this but for now it remains a suspicion, although be it a strong one. There is some evidence to suggest that he may be a hard-banned user, such as very similar language were used on a lot of these sockpuppet accounts. However, unfortunately I cannot be sure and there is not enough hardcore evidence to prove anything as of yet so I feel that is unfair to accuse him of allegations that cannot be fully proven. Although, I am considering alerting an admin who has curiously been involved with both DreamGuy and the hard-banned account so he can share his views on the matter. When Centauri made these observations I urged him to go private. It all sounds a bit X Files and what not but I’m trying to go the best way about it in the least harmful and most civilised way possible.

Finally, other DreamGuy has unfortunately upset a lot of users and a lot of people feel that this tag is necessary. A lot of those who stick up for DreamGuy are often treated by other users with suspicion as certain events have happened that seem strange. However, I'm fairly sure that you are not connected with him. There's a lot of complex issues here so some of it may make sense but if you read his edit summeries and look at his contributions , you may realise one or two things. Thanks for reading this comment and I look forward to any future input. Englishrose 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well...just as I was posting this trying to be discreet as possible, somebody quite bluntly nailed a few things on the head:

"#Strong support. DreamGuy aka Victrix aka Gzornenplatz aka Wik is a menace to Wikipedia. Anyone who has taken the time to try minimise the poisonous effects of his abuse is a saint. --Gene_poole 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)"

Which sums up a lot of peoples positions. Englishrose 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your well stated reply. I understand your position; DreamGuy has butted heads with a lot of other editors, and it is "likely" he used a sockpuppet, according to the CheckUser. But my opinion that the template should come off still stands, for the above reasons. I'm not the only one who thinks so, as it has been removed by an admin now. As for the Wik thing, I think Gene's posting that accusation out of nowhere on someone's RFA reflects more poorly on him than on DreamGuy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"I think Gene's posting that accusation out of nowhere on someone's RFA reflects more poorly on him than on DreamGuy"And just for the record, I was hoping that thing could be dealt with privatley and not like this, I actually have a few stronger connections than this although I was aware of it, but not from Gene_Poole. "I'm not the only one who thinks so, as it has been removed by an admin now", sigh...yes, the same admin that has defended him through thick and blue. Englishrose 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it. Irongargoyle 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, man.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

dyk

On October 23, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eilhart von Oberge, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Sabita Chowdhury

Thanks for the info and the timely action. I'll work on the article this weekend. Take care. --Antorjal 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shining Path mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Prester John

I thought I had added the source at the same time I added that information; I remember our conversation over this passage, but glancing over the article history I fail to see the information. Anyway, I went ahead & added the source since I happen to own the book & have it at hand. Thanks for pointing out this oversight to me. -- llywrch 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, it was there after all. It's the very first book in the references section, it just wasn't under the name I expected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the citation you want on the Brandt bio

I'm not smart enough to figure out the "ref" format, so I'll let you do it: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04483.html Note the phrase, "restoring to them full political, civil and other rights." 69.152.137.177 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

spiderman

you'll always be spiderman to me though 195.84.40.9 10:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hen party / Bachelorette party

Hi Cuchullain, You just moved the Hen party page to Bachelorette party because of it being a "more common term" on Google. there are two reasons why I think this is a mistake. First, you searched for "Hen party", but an even more common term, and one that is redirected to Hen party, is "Hen night". This gets nearly 1 million Google hits, so the disparity is not quite as large as you had probably thought. Secondly, the Manual of Style section on Naming conventions indicates that the National Variations of English guideline takes precedence over most common usage. Given this, I hope you will consider moving the page back. Thanks - Siobhan Hansa 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Siobhan, sorry I missed your comment from several weeks ago. I did another google search, and it appears both "hen party" and "hen night" are much more common than I originally thought. I don't know if I was mistaken or what, but I wouldn't have moved it if I knew. At any rate, move it back if you'd like. Two things though- first, it would be ideal if there was a term used in both places. Is "bachelorette party" never used over there? "Hen party" (or "night") isn't used at all over here, and I don't know of any alternative. Second, does "hen party" only refer to this type of pre-marital party? The male alternative, "stag party", can also mean any party for men only, at least over here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Zichmni aka

Hi. I see you reverted my change of 'aka' in one of the headings of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I must admit I didn't check to see if it was directly linked from elsewhere; apologies if that was the nature of the gaffe. Assuming otherwise, I'd like to explain the rationale of my change a little more clearly than my admittedly rather glib edit summary did: I felt that 'aka' was a little too colloquial, and possibly not entirely clear to all readers ... Wiktionary, for example, gives the correct usage as A.K.A. which would be clearer, but I still feel it is not necessary to use this abbreviation at all, bearing in mind that we should of course explain jargon, even where (or perhaps especially where) the jargon is incidental to the topic of the article. I had thought 'and' was an adequate alternative as it is indeed only a hypothesis that the two names refer to the same person, but other possibilities include the full 'also known as' or perhaps the word 'alias'. Quoting from WP:BETTER#Think_of_the_reader ... "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible." I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this. Stumps 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I entirely missed your comment from several weeks back. I hadn't meant to revert your "and" back to "aka", I only meant to remove a randomly-inserted "C.E." I'm not sure what happened. You're quite right, I don't think "A.K.A." or any variant should be used; it's not very encyclopedic and potentially confusing. I changed it to and. Thanks for pointing it out, it's the little things that make the difference!--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad you agree. — Stumps 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish saints

Hi, you recently created Category:Turkish saints. Just wanted to prepare you for the heat this is probably going to get - the category will be rather irritating to many, because "Turkish" is associated not just with the geographical location, but with the ethnicity. Of course none of these guys was ethnically Turk or lived at a time when that place was Turkey. We have Category:Byzantine saints, as part of the same supercategory Category:Saints by country. Most of them fit in much better there, I think. Even if they are strictly speaking "Roman antiquity", before the existence of what is conventionally called "Byzantium" in the political sense, at least their cultural sphere is continuous with that of Byzantium, so the element of anachronism is far less severe if we put them into Byzantium than if we put them into Turkey. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Someone is already nominating it for WP:CFD, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't anticipate this would generate heat. Thanks for the head's up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my tuppence worth, which will probably disappear in the noise as CfD. "Saint" is used of Sufi religious figures as well as Christian ones. "Turkish saints" is therefore ambiguous: what kind of saints are we talking about ? I'm not an expert on Sufism, but I do know that it was big with the Anatolian Turkmen and the Ottoman Turks, so there are certainly going to be Turkish (Sufi) saints. I found at least one in a couple of minutes, and I suspect there are a lot more. I'd suggest proposing a rename (Byzantine seems more reasonable than Anatolian). Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Child Ballads

Hi, Cuchullain!

Consider the statement

Besides the use of individual ballads, in Peter Beagle's The Last Unicorn, Captain Cully, a robber chief, sets out to make himself another Robin Hood by immortalizing himself in ballads. He misidentifies another character as "Mr. Child" and tries to get him to collect the songs, and tells him that writing them himself is legitimate.

IMO, that is perfectly suitable under the general heading Popular culture references to the Child Ballads; but not under the heading Use of the Child Ballads. On the other hand, e.g. Joan Baez's recordings of (variants of) Child ballads could fall under either heading, since the first one subsumes the second. Do you agree?--JoergenB 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but I don't think they all fit under the heading "popular culture references" either (the songs themselves are popular culture after a fashion). Perhaps we should think of a different heading entirely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Child Ballads in modern popular culture? JoergenB 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds all right to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed.--JoergenB 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar. It means a lot to me. It's very disappointing that the mediation ended the way that it did. I've really focused on Shining Path, and since I started editing Wikipedia, the article has changed dramatically for the better. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become a huge waste of time for me, so I think that it's probably time to hang it up. I might come back, but I hope that I will not edit very often from here on out. Of course you don't need my permission to feel free to edit Shining Path in any way you see fit. I'm sure that you can improve it. --Descendall 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you won't be around as much any more, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Shining Path has definitely improved since you've been working on it, and our articles on Peru have greatly benefited from having you here. We'll do our best to keep it up to snuff.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually on right as you wrote that. I didn't mean to insinuate that I was the reason that the articles have improved. That was due to a lot of people, least of which was me. I'll still be around somewhat, but I really have to cut some wikipedia out of my life. Thanks for your kind words.

P.S.: "Cocaine bourgeoise."

--Descendall 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Foreign Policy" wikilink on Use of the Word American

Did you have to do anything to make the wikilink to foreign policy point to foreign policy rather than Foreign Policy, the publication? I'm still trying to figure out the piped links and was worried just [[foreign policy]] (now I know how the nowiki thing works) would point to the publication. I'm not too good navigating around WP, so I usually enter the url in my address bar when I'm looking for something. You can imagine the problems I encounter with capitalized entries.

Is there a help file regarding capitalization in the url or something?

Good to see you working on trying to keep that article neutral. I may be opinionated on the Talk page, but I'd like to see the article neutral (well, as neutral as possible). My bias on the article tends towards accuracy (as someone who works in geography/spatial analysis when I work) and standardization (as a former journalist/copy editor).

Having one line use the adjective "United States", followed by a line using the adjective "US", followed by another line using the adjective "U.S." drives me up a wall. It almost makes we want to say, "Alright! go ahead and use "American", dammit!"

.s

X ile 06:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Talk

I don't know if there's help file, but there's one quasi-weird thing to know: in a wikilink, capitalization does not matter in the first letter, but it matters in all the subsequent letters. So for example, both Foreign policy and foreign policy link to the article on foreign policy. Foreign Policy, with the P capitalized, goes to the magazine (as does foreign Policy). And you're right about being consistant with the abreviations, stylistically, the article looks much better now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're in Jacksonville, you keep some odd hours. (I'm just a bit to the "other" side of the IDL). I probably accidentally capitalized the "P" in my test of the url. I'll probably get around to standardizing the spelled-out noun "United States" rather than U.S. I haven't looked around in the WP Manual of Style much, but that's also on my to-do list. -X ile 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

superman

i'll make superman very sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.84.40.9 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

the hulk too —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.84.40.9 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

and merry christmas too!