Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 3 February 2012

My Talk Archives

February 2005 – April 5, 2006 April 2006 – August 10, 2006 August 2006 – November 30, 2006 November 2006 – March 14, 2007 March 2007 – April 29, 2007 April 2007 – August 22, 2007 August 2007 – December 6, 2007 December 2007 – May 28, 2008 May 2008 – February 24, 2009 March 2009 – August 25, 2009 August 2009 – December 31, 2009 January 2010 – March 15, 2010 March 2010 – June 18, 2010 June 2010 - November 11, 2010 November 2010 - February 17, 2011 February 2011 - June 26, 2011 June 2011 – January 4, 2012

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nuuk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Moravian

University of Greenland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Moravian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayan War

I placed my vote there but that's all. He ignored an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page and will force his way through regardless of what others said. Opening a move request without listening to editors who actually contribute to the article (and to others related to it) reveals that he had and has no interest on talking; he just doesn't like the name and will do whatever he needs to change it. I can't deal with this kind of people, sorry. --Lecen (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, I encourage you to take a break from this for a while. It's not worth getting upset about, and it's easy enough to return to something later with a clear head. For what it's worth, a dedicated move discussion is the proper process, and was suggested in the discussion as the way to go. It's much better than undending talk page discussion that doesn't resolve anything, and especially just unilateral page moves, which is what set this whole thing off. Nothing benefits from that.--Cúchullain /c 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that. I'll leave others share their thoughts. But I won't be surprised if the move happens. And I also won't be surprised when I see that once he got what he wanted, he'll leave the article as it is, abandoned. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The move request has been frauded. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. This is too much for me, I can't accept this kind of behavior. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I made some edits over there to be more clear what happened to any future participants and whatever admin has the unfortunate duty of closing that discussion. It seems odd that someone would go through all that trouble socking in that one move request. Fortunately it was pretty transparent. --Cúchullain /c 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: you seem to oppose the move, but you haven't cast your vote yet. Why? --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I did leave a comment explaining my position in detail, which as far as I'm concerned should be more useful than simply piling on a "support" or "oppose" vote without elaboration. I don't necessarily oppose the move (as far as I can tell both names are established and commonly used), I more oppose the rationale of the nominator and several other participants (and certainly some of the problematic behavior that's going on). I'll further explain my comment.--Cúchullain /c 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See Astynax's last comment. I can't find a better explanation than his. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christian deletion

Hi Cuchullain,

There is again vandalism on the page Saint Thomas Christians. User: Ashley thomas80 is deleting even the term Nasrani from the page. It shows his hatred towards a people. If you are indeed a unique user and not Ashley himself as a sock Puppet then please look into it as this is against the consensus on which the pages Syrian Malabar Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians were merged. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin, I will look into this. Right off the bat, however, you need to cease making personal comments immediately. It only heightens the tension and may result in blocks. Also, it's generally not wise to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet when you're trying to get them to help you. I can assure you that I'm not a sock puppet.--Cúchullain /c 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuchullain,

I am glad that you would look into it. I understand it is not pleasant to be suspected as a sock puppet. Thanks for your reassurance. thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I made small edits and left a note on the talk page. Cheers,--Cúchullain /c 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain,

It seems all your efforts in rewriting the section on Portuguese persecution of the Nasranis has been in vain. User:Ashley thomas80 has added all the material deleted by you to another page Synod of Diamper. This is stealth vandalism. I know I have been accused of engaging in personal attacks on editors. But the persistent adding of deleted materials by User:Ashley thomas80 is a demonstration of his bullying tactics. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. This isn't a demonstration of "bullying tactics", Ashely just thinks the material is acceptable and useful. They can have that opinion, and we can disagree. I'll check out the material and respond at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians.--Cúchullain /c 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, the portion of text that you wrote on portuguese persecution at the Saint Thomas Christians page has been completely deleted. The earlier text by Ashley that you removed has been added again. All this is done by an anonymous IP address. This indeed is bullying tactics. Of course there is no way to ascertain that the IP address is used by the said editor. But then that is the point. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it's the same editor. They have different editing patterns. This IP is clearly the one who has been edit warring over there for the last several days.--Cúchullain /c 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the passage dealing with knanaya traditions need not be there in the section on portuguese persecution. However the sources are legitimate especially the one by Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem published in an academic Journal of Sociology. The text has to be added in the appropriate section. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Robin, the appropriate place for discussing article improvements is the article talk page (or else I'm liable to forget). I agree that the sources look legit, but I don't have a way of reading them myself, so I have no way of verifying the material and making sure it's not taken out of context.--Cúchullain /c 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is absurd that editor User:Ashley thomas80 calls some of the passages in the work of Professor Weil as arbitrary. The work by Weil S is published in a peer reviewed academic journal. It is not arbitrary. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I will look into that. Again, though, the best place to discuss changes to the article will be the articles talk page, to ensure the discussion occurs in one place. Also, please remember that I don't have access to that source, so I won't be able to read it myself, but it would certainly appear to be a reliable source.Cúchullain /c 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashley thomas80 has added a large section on socio-cultural status etc. The references do not state their year. This is not random. The year of publication has been systematically removed. And yes the sources are all outdated from pre-independence India. Using outdated sources is not legitimate to support claims. Yet he calls the reference of Prof Weil (1982) published in a peer reviewed academic journal as arbitrary and goes on to add large chunk of text after removing the publication year of outdated sources. Some of the sources referred are close to a century old. User:Ashley thomas80 is using outdated texts and private publications that are not published in peer reviewed academic journals to support his claims. This is misleading. They are not published in peer reviewed academic journals. However the one by Prof Weil on Knanaya Nasranis and Cochin Jews is from (1982) and is published in a peer reviewed academic journal of sociology. Misplaced Pages reliable references refers to research papers published in international peer reviewed academic journals as reliable sources. It is sad that when Ashley uses private archaic publications it is okay. But when actual peer reviewed academic research from intrenational peer reviewed academic journal is sourced, the passages are deleted as arbitrary. this is unfair and sad. I write on your talk page because I do not want to be bullied and engage in wasteful endless discussions. This is the first time I have come across an editor with such agenda who is relentless and also gets away with deleting genuine peer reviewed academic references and adding outdated sources sans publication years instead. A careful reading of all the sources provided by User:Ashley thomas80 would reveal that most of his sources are private publication and not peer reviewed academic works. In short most of the sources provided by User:Ashley thomas80 is not reliable according to wikipedia reliable sources. thanks Robin klein (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Daytona Beach ThunderBirds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indoor football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	not just for Saint Thomas Christians; would welcome this kind of quality input on many/any other pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you so much! What a kind gesture. I really appreciate that.Cúchullain /c 04:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't know how much interest in religion/history generally you have, but am particularly impressed that in such a prickly area as Kerala Christianity (I speak as someone who has only visited Kerala once) someone would simply walk in with academic sources and WP policy foremost. There'd be many other Christian history pages which would benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Missouri French

Hello. I'm very skeptical about the assertion in this article that New England French is the same as Acadian French. Most francophones in New England are descended from Quebecers, not Acadians, as far as I know. I don't have access to the source you quoted. Could you please double check? Thanks. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. The source's quote actually says "New England French, it should be noted, is basically a variant of Canadian French", not specifically Acadian French. I'll correct that. This source says that most New England French are of Quebecois extraction (though many also have some Acadian ancestors), and that Acadian ancestry is more common in certain areas such as northern Maine. It says that there are local varients even within New England, but so far as I can tell it doesn't specify which variety of "Canadian French" they're most closely related to. It may be time for a new article on New England French.--Cúchullain /c 13:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the redirect of New England French to point to Canadian French and added a very brief discussion there. In the future it should probably be expanded into its own article; sources are clearly available.Cúchullain /c 14:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadath (West Syrian Diocese)

Dear Cuchullain,

Could you please revert the destruction of the article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese), which someone has bodily moved into the article on the city of Hadath without the slightest consultation. The move, besides involving the deletion of several passages, has seriously unbalanced the Hadath article, and is a thoroughly unconstructive edit. I agree that there should be a mention in the Hadath article of the city's Christian heritage, but this should be addressed by a short paragraph containing a link to the main article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese). I will deal with this myself once the change has been reverted.

The article Hadath (West Syrian Diocese) is one of a series of articles on Syrian Orthodox dioceses I have been compiling (see Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church), and should never have been deleted.

I am becoming thoroughly sick of the ill-bred teenagers who seem to do most of the editing on Misplaced Pages these days, and I can't say I'm surprised that scholars like Roger Pearse have left as a result of this kind of vandalism. It's very sad that more can't be done to control unhelpful edits.

Thanks in advance.

Djwilms (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

David, I restored the page and did a little work, mostly to wikify the text, fill out the intro a bit, and change some wording. I don't think this is a case of vandalism or uncareful juvenile editing; Cplakidas is long time good editor. More than likely they just saw a rather short article and wasn't aware of all your work in progress, and thought the material might be suitable for a merger (note most of it was retained in the merge). It would have been helpful if they had left a comment though.

I totally understand your frustration, and it's something I consider periodically myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of utterly unproductive folks and outright bad editors who make editing Misplaced Pages harder than it needs to be for those who just want to build an encyclopedia. The Roger Pearse situation was a tragedy, but as there often is, there's a bit more to that story. Usually when I get to that point I take a break, or at least step away from the particular article or subject that causing the stress. I've found that bad editors typically don't stick around very long.

One thing that might help in the future is if you make sure to link to the key articles in your new articles (and add links to the new articles from them). In the least it will show passing readers, and therefore editors, that they are part of a developing series of articles, rather than something isolated. At any rate, your work is invaluable, and there are more than a few people around here who greatly appreciate all you do.--Cúchullain /c 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sumorsaete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindred (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)