User talk:Cuchullain

Click here to leave me a new message.

You may enjoy this

Found the correct modern spelling of Carn Gafallt for the Buellt page. Take a look. It's possibly the most useless a site page could be without failing WP:N. I mean, it must be notable. The word "special" is right there in the name... — LlywelynII 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. Any stub can be expanded, I suppose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sockpuppetry

He continues to be a thorn in my side on FOUR move requests (Talk:The Great Mirror#Requested move, Talk:Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle#Requested move, Talk:Taboo (1999 film)#Suggested move and Talk:The Downfall of Osen#Requested move 2), at least two of which he actually might derail. He is also micromanaging my edits to the article Outrage Beyond, where he has reverted my attempt to be specific in my citation of a source a total of 7 times.

This is enough to demonstrate the exact same pattern of harassment that got JoshuSasori blocked in the first place, so even if what the IP was saying was true and he is not a sockpuppet, his behaviour is still pretty bad. Any idea how to move forward? If he derails the above move requests, I think all but one of them could just be performed unilaterally given that they have actually received the support of all participants except for the anon who is hounding me, but ... what should I do? My request to get a range block was already rejected ...

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very disruptive. Have you added those to the SPI? It may be worth going back to ANI; I'll take a look at it in the morning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI was closed because (1) we can't use CheckUser to tie an IP (or multiple IPs) to a named user, (2) this means we don't have enough evidence and (3) the IP range is too broad for a range block. Adding more IPs hardly helps that situation. That's why I came here for advice on how to proceed. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly Joshu, and it's plainly disruptive, but unfortunately I can't deal with it at the moment. I can take a look at it in the morning (morning in Jacksonville, not sure what time it is for you). FWIW I think it's definitely justified to block the more recently used IPs, to collapse the sock double votes in the discussions, and to look into the possibility of semi-protection or smaller range blocks. If you think it needs action before then, go ahead and open up an ANI report, I'll support whatever remedies the other adminz feels are warranted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay he hasn't subsided[1], and has continued to ask us to CheckUser him.[2] Even if he is not JoshuSasori this kind of harassment deserves a block... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started another ANI thread here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin

this close does not follow AT policy "Precision", and it is also against the advise of WP:MILMOS#NAME because by changing the descriptive part of the name from (air) to (RAF campaign) you have changed a neutral title into one which gives a British perspective.

Let us suppose that the air battle was better known than the land battle, which would be a more neutral name "Battle of Berlin (land)" or "Battle of Berlin (Soviet campaign)"?

Given these considerations will you alter your close? -- PBS (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. "RAF campaign" is far more precise than "air". You may have a point about the British POV, but as the article indicates, this was a British campaign. At any rate every other participant found the former title inadequate, and of the suggestions the new title appears to be the one that found the most support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Whig_(British_political_party)

Please include in your closing statement your reasons for not moving the article. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms and Initialisms

Hi! Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deprecation of disproportionate usage of "initialism" on Wikipedia a move request that you closed (Talk:List of acronyms#Suggested move)is being used as justification for a proposed deprecation of the term "initialism" in all Wikipedia articles. Would you care to comment at the Village pump and/or review the closing? I would have made the same decision as you did (if someone wants to change the title of "Elephant" to "Woozle", I would oppose that change, but if the change was made I would support changing "List of Elephants" to "List of Woozles" to match.), but given how much is being made of this I am considering a Wikipedia:Move review as a way to get a clearer consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's too late to reverse my decision out of hand, since it involved a history merge and that can't undone without a considerable amount of work. The current article could be moved, but that shouldn't be done without another consensus being established through discussion. My experience with MR has led to believe it's pretty worthless, especially for this kind of thing. What I can do is add a closing rationale and have a look at the village pump discussion. Generally I'm not in favor of officially "deprecating" terminology; I feel such things should be decided on a case by case basis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Any chance you could get this one as well? I got Talk:Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mememollymove

Thank you for your message. I'm not very familiar with the exact mechanics of proposing a move, and I was hoping that the move might be uncontroversial (as one of the few Wikipedia policies I'm familiar with encourages us to be bold). I've inserted a new section on talk:Mememolly as the page you linked described. I would appreciate it if you could keep helping me with this process, for instance: did I add the section correctly, and is there more that needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtijn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as moves go, in general, if there's been a previous discussion about the name of the article, consider that a change may be challenged, so it needs to be decided through community consensus. What you've done is perfect, it should be set now. Move discussions typically run for a few weeks, no shorter than 7 days (and there's a backlog right now). You may want add some evidence that this person is better known as "Molly Templeton" than "Mememolly" (for example a comparison of relevant Google News results). The last discussion was pretty quiet, so there may be a good case for a move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More underhanded activity, I'm afraid...

I recently performed a move on the page Yoko Ogawa.[3] JoshuSasori's sock then appeared yet again and requested it be moved back.[4] I understand that this is in theory a case of WP:BRD, but BRD assumes good faith and there clearly was no good faith in this case. I wanted to inform you immediately, but I was at a movie. In ictu oculi (who had previously requested that I let a similar move pass despite similar circumstances) voted against.[5] But then another user who I strongly suspect of being linked to JS, and who has only been on Wikipedia since about two days after JS got blocked, showed up and unilaterally finished the discussion.[6] I understand why we have BRD, but it clearly shouldn't be imposed in this case, especially by a non-admin/brand new account. What can be done? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like another sockpuppet, though I'm surprised it wasn't noticed before now. The account was created two days after Joshu's block and the recent move behavior is suspicious. Have you let the blocking admin know (TParis)?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it a while ago, when it suddenly showed up and reverted me (in an extremely unfriendly and awkward fashion) on The 47 Ronin (1941 film), and I informed TParis by e-mail, because I wasn't sure enough about it and, well, AGF. The reason I contacted you and not him here is that I'm more concerned with the immediate problem of what happened on this article: there was really no proper rationale for the move, especially given that IIO, who previously did the same thing as Mysterious Island on a different article, openly opposed this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what is unfriendly or awkward about this request. It says "revert unfinished move - the page was renamed, then the redirect changed to redirect to a different page, however the editor forgot about incoming links. Mysterious Island (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)". I'm not sure what game is being played here, but I won't be a party to it. Mysterious Island (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]