Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cuchullain: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:31, 25 January 2013 editCuchullain (talk | contribs)Administrators83,892 edits →Another old friend?← Previous edit Revision as of 14:46, 25 January 2013 edit undoAlanM1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors26,161 edits →USF IPs: new sectionNext edit →
Line 284: Line 284:
The concern with moving this article away from its original location is that it could become the new ]. The concern with moving this article away from its original location is that it could become the new ].
] (]) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

== USF IPs ==

I saw your post at ANI re: DragoLink08. It seems that USF may have records that they could use to tie the IP addresses and times back to particular users or machines on their campus, depending on how they are set up. Has this been tried in the past with other schools or large orgs that we don't want to range-block? <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:46, 25 January 2013

Click here to leave me a new message.

My Talk Archives
  1. February 2005 – April 5, 2006
  2. April 2006 – August 10, 2006
  3. August 2006 – November 30, 2006
  4. November 2006 – March 14, 2007
  5. March 2007 – April 29, 2007
  6. April 2007 – August 22, 2007
  7. August 2007 – December 6, 2007
  8. December 2007 – May 28, 2008
  9. May 2008 – February 24, 2009
  10. March 2009 – August 25, 2009
  11. August 2009 – December 31, 2009
  12. January 2010 – March 15, 2010
  13. March 2010 – June 18, 2010
  14. June 2010 - November 11, 2010
  15. November 2010 - February 17, 2011
  16. February 2011 - June 26, 2011
  17. June 2011 – January 4, 2012
  18. January 2012 – May 30, 2012
  19. May 2012 – July 11, 2012
  20. July 2012 – December 1, 2012

Move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority

Please note that your recent move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority to proposed title was against the outcome of the voting (no consensus). Your closure was reverted by me, please see my comment at Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't have the authority to unilaterally reverse my close, especially as it mangles the edit history between this page and Human rights in the Palestinian territories (disambiguation). I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, but as your move potentially affects the other page(s), it needs to be reversed. If you want to continue the discussion with me, seek another avenue, or open up another move request, of course that's fine.Cúchullain /c 02:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, due to WP:GF, i thought that your closure of Human rights in the PNA was due to mistake of interpretation, considering the opinions on the discussion and unawareness of Emmette's alleged massive canvassing warning by Cptnono and then an official compaint by myself , but it seems that in this case your administrator's role is merely the role of a judge who would give housing rights in ownership dispute to a person, who is meanwhile accused of falsifying evidence.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
My role is to close the RM according to the consensus in the discussion and Misplaced Pages policy, period. I haven't looked into those complaints about other articles and I don't plan to, but in this discussion, no one did anything untoward so far as I can tell. As far as the content of the discussion, I stand by my reading of the consensus.--Cúchullain /c 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note

I am converting the era tags on all articles related to the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. If you must revert my edit, please do so, but try to only change the era tag because I usually edit other information as well. Talk pages usually take a while, so I either just completely erase era tags until issues are resolved, or I convert them to a neutral form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your tweak a minute ago to Bắc Kạn. Most of these Province capital articles start at 1945, if they have a history section at all, but that's an illustration that there are plentiful sources for the 1880s and earlier. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just a few quick fixes as I came across them.Cúchullain /c 22:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee Volunteers football

Hey, Cooch. The Charlie Strong and Tennessee Volunteers football articles need to be semi-protected. Word leaked that Strong is the first choice to be the new Vols coach, and the IP vandals have gone nuts. There's also at least one SPA vandal who could use a timeout (User:YeahBoyeeeeee). Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 2 weeks. I'm going to be out for the rest of the night, so if there's further trouble another admin will need to sort it out.Cúchullain /c 00:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Gracias, jefe. Never a cop around when you need one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DragoLink sock puppet dujour

He's back, and now editing as User:Flabcschamps960608. It may be time to consider a range block. He's clearly using the USF computer systems or some other institutional network with multiple IP addresses in order to repeatedly create new accounts and evade the blocks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Auburnpilot's already taken care of this account. We may indeed need to look into a range block, but if he's on a school network it may not be the best idea. At this point they've been easy enough to spot.--Cúchullain /c 14:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is getting pretty old. Fortunately he's been easy to spot.Cúchullain /c 14:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocked for 2 weeks. Let me know if you see anymore from him.Cúchullain /c 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Indef blocked and I've reverted all his edits, as they appeared to be just more screwing with the colors and formatting.Cúchullain /c 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've speedy deleted the page as a recreation, and indef blocked the sock. Impressive catch, Dirt.--Cúchullain /c 02:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
CompDude13 has continued the pattern since I left this message last night. I'm pretty sure it's our friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The DragoLink sock is still on the loose; the Latish redone sock got banned at SPI. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's yet another one: User:Balificboy. Up to his usual tricks, screwing up coordinated team color schemes. This guy is not going to stop and adding non-standard formatting. He's now creating new accounts every couple of days regardless of whether he's blocked or not. We're barely slowly him down. I think we need to confirm the IP addresses from which these accounts are created, and implement a range block. This guy has been doing this for two-plus years, and he's already outlasted the previous generations of the CFB posse that was tracking him. Something really needs to be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another old friend?

How about this one? Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone The IP user is obviously a seasoned and bored wikitroller looking to stir things up, as seen in this silly deletion discussion and this even sillier ANI report which he immediately filed when I mentioned suspicions about his identity. An IP trace placed both the current IP and his old IP (as seen in this golden oldie) in Athens, GA with the same ISP. It's pretty obvious. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've been busy with the holidays. Hopefully this has been sorted out.Cúchullain /c 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, after the holidays, Jaguars games, and a much needed vacation, I'm back. I see that the Latish redone business has been taken care of. I blocked Balificboy as an obvious Dragolink puppet, which was still active as of yesterday. However, I'm not totally sure about CompDude13. This account seems to behave somewhat differently from the others. Dirt, if it's still a problem, can you provide some direct evidence linking that account to the others?Cúchullain /c 15:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cooch, CompDude13 follows the usual account naming pattern, and engages in the usual behaviors of repetitive changes to multiple CFB articles, including rivalries, with a manipulation of team color schemes in templates and team articles that no genuine WP rookie knows how to do. I am much more firmly convinced now than I was when I first raised the issue during the holidays. However, if you still have doubts, let's reopen the DragoLink08 SPI and request a checkuser update. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the account traces back to a Tampa or other central Florida IP address. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
While they do make similar edits, there are differences too that weren't apparent in the more obvious socks. Re-opening the SPI may be a good idea.--Cúchullain /c 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI: SPI Redux confirmed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Drago's last registered sock account blocked yesterday, and he just can't help himself. He's already editing from USF IP addresses: User:131.247.244.23. I think it's time to request a range block for USF IP addresses. The puppet master has been a nuisance for three years. Can this be done so that it only blocks unregistered IPs within the specified range? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it may be time to consider a range block. This isn't something I'll be able to do; let's bring it up at ANI. Cúchullain /c 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
He just won't take the hint: User:131.247.27.197. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 month. Oh well, it's high time for ANI.--Cúchullain /c 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Editing from two separate USF IP addresses today:
Not gonna stop. Ever. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
They may be 166.147.123.28. Let's bring up the problem at ANI.Cúchullain /c 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yet another one, imo: User:131.247.25.132 Zeng8r (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Today's DragoLinks: User:131.247.244.21 and User:2607:FE50:0:820B:8CEF:FCC:C863:D14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked those two IPs and started a thread at ANI here. Please weigh in there.Cúchullain /c 14:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

House of Aberffraw

Was my edit here reasonable?. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Iolo can't be the only source for calling something traditional. And even if there are other sources, We dont need to Quote Iolo's version. I'll dig around to see if I can find anything else about it.Cúchullain /c 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lewis

I saw that you closed a move request for Lewis a few days back as "no consensus." But my count shows 5 supports to 3 opposes (I do realize that consensus doesn't always follow numbers). At the very least, the discussion should've been relisted. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The RM ran for its full 7 days, with no new comments for a few days. The closer doesn't just take a tally, they consider the arguments as well as the consensus behind the relevant policies and guidelines. Given the strength of some of the opposes, I didn't see a consensus developing that that's not the primary topic, let a lone a consensus for any one of the other possible names.Cúchullain /c 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Lewis

An editor has asked for a Move review of Lewis. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Move

Cooch, can you move Henry Jamison Handy to Jam Handy per WP:COMMONNAME? Subject was universally known by his nickname during his sports and business careers. I can't move it; someone has apparently restricted the article. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. There was some minor edit history that was blocking the move.Cúchullain /c 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dámaso Marte

Hi - I see you recently moved this title. I've been unsure myself about the correct spelling, and online usage seems to be inconsistent (I even found an MLB article in Spanish that uses both forms within a few lines of each other), though leaning toward the plain 'e', but it's been at the accented title for the last 6 years. Is there conclusive evidence that the unaccented 'e' is the right spelling? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't see anything definitive, but I have to believe removing the accent in "Marte" is right. All the sources used in the article, as well as those mentioned in the discussion, appear to eschew it, including the ones that use diacritics otherwise (eg, that use it in Dámaso). It's also my understanding that the name "Marte" is (usually) written without an accent in Spanish.Cúchullain /c 13:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It does actually exist in French, but in this case was merely overcompensation in some US sources. Anyway that's not the reason I'm here. Re the old subject above despite having scrupulously avoiding naming names at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion a heads up that the most frequent misuser of the db-G6 route has been at it again on a large scale. Perhaps even from reading our exchange above? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen any examples of Kauffner doing that at an article whose title had been at RM or was otherwise discussed before?--Cúchullain /c 14:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
(1) Yên Bái and Thanh Hóa have both been in the last week been moved a second time counter their listing as part of Talk:Cần Thơ RM result despite revert of earlier by db-G6 by admins GraemeBartlett and Edgar181 who hadn't seen the RM bot tag (since it had been deleted at the time).
(2) Those two are examples of old db-G6 which had been reverted by not locked by the admins. Though the second required a new db-G6 actioned by Amatulic to move the Talk page.
(3) There's another new db-G6 to move Yên Bái province a second time, actioned by admin DGG, having previously been db-G6 and reverted by GraemeBartlett.
In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral District

Districts are an abstract concept. They only exist when citizens recognize them as such. In this case a reputable news source and the city of Jacksonville itself identified the area as a special district. Not to mention some of the churches in the area themselves. I believe that enough evidence exist to proclaim that this area has a special identity and to not cite it would be leaving a hole in information regarding downtown. You seemed to have no problem with someone creating the King Street Distict page. I even find that to be a little ridiculous, but enough organizations recognize it as such that it has every right o exist. here are some more references to the Cathedral District.

These may not be some of the best sources, but I think it proves my point that at a citizen level the area is recognized as the Cathedral District, whether Downtown Vision or COJ list it or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew105601 (talk • contribs)

The five other areas (Downtown Core/Northbank, Southbank, Lavilla, Brooklyn/Riverside Avenue, and the Sports Complex) are the five divisions used by the city and various other entities and publications, including the source you cited in the article. They're well established and a good bit larger than the "Cathedral District". "Cathedral District" shouldn't be included along with the other well-known divisions, though it's probably still worth mentioning it. But it's really not any different than the "East Bay Street entertainment district" or Laura Street.
As for the King Street District, I do have an issue with that, and I brought it up with the creator on Metrojacksonville, though I don't see I ever mentioned it here. I plan on merging it into a new article on Riverside and Avondale when I get to it.Cúchullain /c 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the Cathedral District is not as well-known, but as far as its size goes it is close to the size of Brooklyn and Lavilla. Both of these areas have a known history. The area we are referencing has a distinct character difference than with downtown proper. It is referenced by those who inhabit it, and the city has included it in some kind of master planning project. I agree that it is not a district like Southbank is a district, but passive distinctions are made and most urban dwellers in Jacksonville would understand what you meant if you mentioned the Cathedral District. I do not have an agenda here. I'm simple trying to thoughtfully define the place I live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew105601 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly how I wanted it to appear, but I am satisfied with the changes.Mathew105601 (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, you can sign your posts by typing four tildas (~~~~). That helps keep track of who's saying what.
I agree that the Cathedral District should be mentioned, but it's just not as prominent as the five big divisions usually used by the city and other publications. Especially since it wasn't included in the sources that listed the other five. I think what we're seeing is some sources identifying particular areas within what most people would consider Downtown proper or the Northbank. The Cathedral District isn't the only one, as you can see looking at the city's master plan. They also give the "Church District" (the area around First Baptist), the "Central Civic Core District" (the core of downtown arbitrarily west of Main) and the "Riverfront District", which is essentially the historical Bay Street district/Bay Street Entertainment District/"E-Town Zone" or whatever they're calling it this week. There's also the "Institutional District", which appears to just be the police building and Maxwell House. I think the issue here is that everyone is going to define all that stuff differently. I'd say at least the East Bay area ought to be mentioned if the Cathedral District is, though both of them may be better placed in the section for the Downtown Core.Cúchullain /c 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The Minneapolis wiki page has tackled this problem in there own way by creating an unofficial district sub heading. Taking from your last message, it may be a slippery slope if Jacksonville implemented the same topic. I have seen the mislabeled districts on google maps and bing. Why on earth would we need to call the police station the institutional district. It drives me crazy to see real estate sites advertising housing prices in the 'Institutional District' (I hear it's a still)Mathew105601 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the thing to do will be collect all the best sources we can find, and work from there. If some of these smaller "districts" emerge as noteworthy, we can figure out how to include them. I think at least the Cathedral District and whatever we want to call the Bay Street/Riverfront District should be mentioned, though they may be better placed under the Downtown Core section.Cúchullain /c 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

Do you know why is making a story up at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigation/NVanMinh? NVanMinh (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lai_Chau_Province&diff=527703698&oldid=527653911 - This is indeed uncontroversial. Kauffner was the one who lower cased all the provinces, but now agrees with re-upper-casing. NVanMinh (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

An article with two talk pages

OK, so the town of Hong Linh, Ha Tinh now has two talk pages, one here and one here. You don't see any problem with this setup? Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I do. But deleting one of them isn't the way to fix it.Cúchullain /c 15:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps we should add a DAB to allow the reader to choose among the various talk pages. Kauffner (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The proper solution will probably be to move one or more of the current pages to an archive of what is ultimately decided to be the appropriate talk page.Cúchullain /c 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain, I am sorry for loading up that secondary Talk page created by Efe's 04 Nov 2011 db-G6 with text objecting to db-G6 No#3. As far as I'm concerned if you wish you can bury what is now redundant chatter in the history under a redirect.

The original Talk Page is relatively unaffected. Efe never moved it, and it still has the WikiProject VN banner, and any content actually related to the town. The only thing missing is the article.

I apologise if this comment isn't helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nuts that a page can be moved controversially so many times without any discussion whatsoever. Here's what I'm going to do:
(1) Move the current contents of Talk:Hồng Lĩnh Township to an archive
(2) Move the current contents of Talk:Hong Linh, Ha Tinh to Talk:Hồng Lĩnh Township
(3) Move the united talk content back to Talk:Hong Linh, Ha Tinh to match the current location of the article. This is not an endorsement of the current title.
(4) Ask that In ictu, who doesn't like the current title, start an RM to determine the proper title through discussion
(5) Ask, yet again, that Kauffner stop performing or initiating controversial moves and use the process.--Cúchullain /c 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I must say that IIO's Wikihounding has certainly gotten quite intense. Today, he followed me edit-by-edit to SPI, G6 and here. Why would anyone object to a page alignment? Kauffner (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Cuchullain, thanks, honestly whatever you do is fine with me. You've already spent more time than deserved on this. I appreciate you allowing (4), but right now really can't face a VN RM running into Xmas Eve. So if you don't mind could we leave that until March, and do gather up a bag of any db-G6 moves Kauffner does between now and then. Or alternatively ask YigMgo or AjaxSmack to put in (4) as right now I can't face it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner, again, the issue wasn't the alignment, it was the correct way to repair it after all these undiscussed moves. This is hardly the first time a time consuming issue has cropped up with one of your moves. In the future all this can be avoided if you stick to the process.
In ictu, don't worry about it if you don't want to bother with a move. The point was that any move in the future needs to be settled through discussion. Cheers, y'all.Cúchullain /c 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After

Just want to thank you for the way you resolved this. I think the way you've tidied up and preserved the talk was done quite well. And is a better fit with process than simply moving the article back to where Efe left the Talk page. The article rather than the Talk page is the main thing after all. I also think this is perhaps something of a one-off case. The real problem here is not so much that Efe created 2 Talk pages on 04 November 2011, but that Efe himself isn't around to give legitimacy to clean up. In the case of the rest of the 500x db-G6 (Graeme Bartlett's number not mine) the original db-G6 admin is still around. So under normal circumstances we wouldn't have a orphan clean up issue. Cheers and best wishes with future administering :) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, usually that would be a job for the original admin to resolve, but Efe's not around. Fortunately, the dueling talk page issue doesn't appear to be all that common even in these undiscussed moves.Cúchullain /c 14:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Doug! I hope you and your loved ones are having a great holiday season as well.Cúchullain /c 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All good. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you as well.--Cúchullain /c 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete page

Hello Respected Person, Actually, I have question that Why this page is Deleted from Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Barani_Institute_of_Information_Technology

I need information of this page. Please shoot me email address about this page on this email address: Crazyzoar@gmail.com

It is important for me. So, please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.27.255 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually like to discuss Misplaced Pages business off site without reason. Can you tell me what exactly you want to know about the article? I can tell you that it tagged for deletion under the proposed deletion policy on May 25, 2012. Under that policy, tagged articles are deleted after seven days if there are no objections. The article had no sources, and made no real claim to notability, which are required for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. I deleted it June 1.--Cúchullain /c 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Go Now (song) RM

I was going to leave 👍 BDD likes this. after your most recent comment at the "Go Now" RM, but that seemed a little juvenile, so I hope you'll accept it here. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, likes are always welcome here.--Cúchullain /c 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Riksdag

Probably on your watchlist anyway since you restored it but FYI a different editor has just moved by cut and paste. (cur | prev) 14:38, 14 January 2013‎ Dagrqv (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,541 bytes) (+26,482)‎ . . (Making this main page, according to what is most common in the category for parliaments.) (undo) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've cleared it up now and left a note for the editor.Cúchullain /c 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For excellent judgment in weighing policy and determining consensus in closing RMs, especially the recent one at Puducherry, I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Keep up the good work! BDD (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! It's nice to get positive feedback.Cúchullain /c 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry/Pondicherry

Hi Cuchullain. While I agree that there is consensus to move the article, your close rationale is faulty and misreads consensus. Indian English is not a recognized variant of English on Misplaced Pages so arguing that this is a "clear-cut WP:ENGVAR issue" makes no sense. Discounting common name with "national ties" also flies against policy because WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and national ties guidelines (if any, I don't see anything that exists independent of English and nothing that exists pertaining to Indian English) are merely weak suggestions (cf. Burma/Myanmar). It would have been much better to use the common name data provided by various editors as well as the distinction between the city and the union territory for indicating a preference for Puducherry. Either way, the move itself seems justified so just consider this a thought. --regentspark (comment) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I do understand where you're coming from. However, I still stand by what I wrote. English, of course, is spoken and written in India, and Indian English, or English as it appears in Indian sources, or whatever we want to call it, has long been recognized on Misplaced Pages. WP:COMMONNAME is part of a policy that also discusses what to do with topics that have strong national ties to English-speaking nations (here). And of course, national ties are further elaborated on at WP:TIES, which usually includes Indian examples. At any rate it seems clear that "Puducherry" has become far and away the COMMONNAME in Indian-based English sources, and increasingly common in foreign sources. I'm convinced this was the right move per the relevant policy.
Another element to the decision, which I chose not to get into in my closing summary, was that there never had been consensus for using "Pondicherry". In fact, the only RM it's ever been through rejected such a move in 2010, but the article was moved unilaterally anyway in November 2011. As such, the move just restored the article to where it was as of the last community discussion of the title.--Cúchullain /c 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Celtic fashion

I assume you know a variety about Celtic mythology, design and decoration, and I am hoping you would have known some examples or sources of Celtic fashion which may be useful to use for some information about hairstyle or makeup in fashion other than websources such as this source, would there be any more details of similarity in different hair fashions or any fashions, other than warriors would spiked their hair up with lime to show rank and status or nobility, compared to modern standards of spiked hair. Any record notes on fashion whenever, I am willing to talk about Celtic lifestyles, please reply, if nothing comes to affect, thanks anyway, mate. Cheers ----GoShow (............................) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Celtic hairstyles beyond some bits and pieces. I did find an entry on Celts in The Encyclopedia of Hair. It looks like it mostly discusses Gauls in the Iron Age and Roman eras. Additionally, in the Middle Ages, Irish and British monks adhering to the so-called "Celtic Christian" style had a distictive form of tonsure. It's not clear from the sources what exactly it looked like, but this article gives a good summary of the discussion about it, and suggests the tonsure was sort of a triangle running from ear to ear and to the forehead. Hope that helps.Cúchullain /c 21:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrific! Keep in my sandbox revision, glad to hear from it. Thank you .--GoShow (............................) 21:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time. Glad I could help.Cúchullain /c 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Content-comment

Concerning this comment: I'm not sure why you describe my comment as unrelated to behavior. Do you not agree that what Niemti is engaging in is the equivalent of "I don't care about what experts think"-nonsense? Is this kind of patronizing refusal to take gender studies seriously not a problem in your view?

Peter 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The comment wasn't intended to be directed at you, but to Wikid77, who I think was focusing too much on the comment dispute rather than the behavioral issues.Cúchullain /c 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.
Peter 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Strained_yogurt#Motion_to_start_an_RM:_Redux

I was hoping for a more comprehensive closing statement for this RM, especially for a move.

  • Where is the evidence that yogurt is "increasingly popular" in British English? If it's this article, a trend in British labelling is not the equivalent of a trend in British English. Comments on descriptive and prescriptive sources appear to have been ignored.
  • How is it "clearly the most common spelling elsewhere" when there is an apparently stronger preference for yoghurt over yogurt in some other varieties of English, such as Australian English, than in British English?
  • How is matching the "main article" relevant?

The concern with moving this article away from its original location is that it could become the new Yoghurt. SSR (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

USF IPs

I saw your post at ANI re: DragoLink08. It seems that USF may have records that they could use to tie the IP addresses and times back to particular users or machines on their campus, depending on how they are set up. Has this been tried in the past with other schools or large orgs that we don't want to range-block? —— 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)