![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
Advanced search for: "Search" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL ·
page history ·
Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL ·
toolserver ·
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Original research??? "Bonne journée" . "bonne" = good / "journée" = day. hence "Good day". What original research???. It's just literal. Your quote "have a nice day" is a mistranslation. So both should indeed be mentioned for accuracy. FYI: "Have a nice day" translates in French as "Je vous souhaite une bonne journée" ou "Passez une bonne journée". Please make corrections. THX -- Little sawyer ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
...congratulations on Middlesex (novel)--that is a fine piece of work. Drmies ( talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted my closure of the RM. Japanese knotweed ( talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. Because you are experienced with WP:CENT, I have come to your talk page to ask you a question. Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move be added to WP:CENT? Cunard ( talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I read an essay on here once that suggested that the "Wikibreak" template generally meant that the editor at issue was more-or-less retired, and that the "Retired" template generally meant that the editor at issue wanted people to post "OH GOD PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US" blather on their talk page. I suppose, at this point, I've more or less retired, despite the "back in a few weeks" template I posted on my userpage in, oh, September of 2010. I do come back from time to time to yell at people in AFD. Once in a very fortunate blue moon I come back and try to actually edit something. But... long story short, I apologize for recent unfulfilled commitments to work on at least one article of yours. I feel badly because I like you, and I feel badly because Have a nice day is, to me, what Wikipedia should be all about. Sure, Wiki should nail all the major topics, but it should doubly nail clearly notable but generally unexplored topics like the genesis of this bizarre phrase. Anyway. My apologies. I occasionally check in to do the aforementioned yelling at people in AfD (I worry that my increasing intolerance is going to get me disciplined at some point), but next time I commit to helping with actual article work, please remind me that I'm probably going to get distracted and then vanish for weeks on end :). I hope all is well with you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, avocations back in 1865. The misuse of words continues today. Nowadays, I tend to participate much less in AfDs, as I am more occupied with bothering admins to close RfCs. ;)
By the way, you missed a drama-filled discussion about Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! (an "unofficial mascot of Wikipedia – Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan). I and others who supported deletion were called humorless prudes because we were repulsed by the page's revolting content. For context, see Drmies' talk page and the nominated version, which I WebCited to keep a record of how some will enjoy and defend such puerile humor. Fortunately, Ironholds closed that discussion as delete but the drama continues unabated.
See you around when we bump into each other at AfD again. Cunard ( talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cunard, thanks for advising me, I guess I didn't understand what he was trying to do there (it was a somewhat weird edition), and reverted by mistake. No need to worry about the IPs, I love them, I hug them, I'm so infatuated by them. :) -- Darwinius ( talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava and User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava 2
Good morning sir. As per your kind suggestion I have asked the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to take a look at this about dispute. Please check it. Thanks a lot. Regards Spjayswal67 ( talk) 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cunard: Can you perform this merger please? [ [1]] We have discussed it on the relevant talk page and reached consensus. It's pretty obvious as a merge. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have closed that after only 10 days, and no consensus, especially with comments only 2 days ago. It discusses a different point then the general inclusion criteria RfC you started. CTJF83 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hrm, I would probably actually say default to leaving both of them open, or posting to WP:AN with a neutral request for a previously uninvolved editor to close the former. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think a closing statement is a good way to go, it might be worth inviting all participants/endorsers to examine the closing statement section and comment. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typo at
Who the Hell is Juliette?. I clearly need a refresher course for my touch-typing.
— James Cantor (
talk)
14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ adminhelp}}
Would an admin userfy Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) to User:Cunard/Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)? See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire). Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You have done a bang-up job on this article. Thank you for rescuing it! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava, User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava 2, and User talk:Cunard#Ambarish Srivastava
My case has been closed. The reason for this is that the other parties named in the mediation did not affirm their acceptance of mediation within 7 days of the case being opened. Now please suggest me that what I should do for it? Regards: Spjayswal67 ( talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you add categories at Aha! Effect. Also for User:Psyc3330/Group3 did you mean to send it to Executive dysfunction and then change Executive dysfunction back to a redirect or make Executive dysfunction an actual article? CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was impressed with your thorough analysis of the sources in this discussion, and was hoping you could help me out with another. I've been trying to see how the sources presented for the article undergoing discussion here could possibly meet the GNG, but so far I've failed to do so. My efforts to ask the keep !voters to explain have gone unanswered so far. I was hoping you could possibly take the time to look at this and give your input? If you're busy I totally understand, don't waste your time on this. And please don't take this as a canvassing attempt; I'm perfectly happy if you decide that this article in fact does have good sources or you don't want to weigh in at all. I was just hoping for another analysis of the sources. Thans so much for your time!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard I want to thank your help on correcting some information on article Alejandro Alcondez your input was very valuable and finally is on the mainspace, I have question about the images used in the article which have been deleted, I've managed to get a contact email from this subject Facebook page and explained about the license type for the images used, after more than a week since I sent the email I got a reply from a representative authorising the image use under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License images here, then a fowarded the original messages to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, now I do not know i it is ok to upload or wait. thanks again. Cgomez007 ( talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronzat/Reactive Search Srl (2nd nomination)
“Where have I said that "all SPAs are spammers or otherwise unwanted"?”
NB. This is not about you personally, or Aaronzat. It’s more that you are good for a challenging debate. I was reading somewhere that while the most prolific Wikipedians account for the majority of edits, it is drive by editors, IPs and SPAs, that are responsible for most of the long lived content, although subsequently copy-edited. This makes me think that we need to lay off the SPA epitaph as a negative descriptor.
It’s not about what you intended, but what might be read in your words.
Aaronzat … is a single-purpose account, ... SPA … reveals the motives behind … actions. … Wikipedia does not need spammers.
Your words, which you may see as a ridiculous paraphrasing, in an alternative reading, have associated SPAs with spammers, and implied that there being an SPA is a reason for deletion (i.e. their contributions are unwanted).
Your templated discussion rationales are sometimes quite appropriate, but other times seem a scatter-gun approach. Some of your points are sometimes non-applicable.
I’m saying that being an SPA per se is not a factor for a deletion decision. In this case, Aaronzat’s motive, of spamming a particular company website, can be inferred from his contribution history. That he is an SPA is not relevant. Company website spamming is not OK from even the most prolific contributor. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My use of the term SPA has been accurate and serves to underscore the extent of Aaronzat ( talk · contribs)'s contributions. An SPA, by definition, has a very narrow interest in editing topics. When SPAs have been denied the ability to promote themselves or their company, they frequently keep copies of the deleted content in their userspaces, either forgetting about those copies or hoping that such content will be indefinitely preserved on Wikipedia. I always factor the motives of a user into my participation at MfD.
Your out-of-context paraphrasing of my statements is somewhat accurate. While I do not associate all SPAs as spammers, I consider all spammers to be SPAs. (I would deem prolific contributors who spam to be SPAs, since the purpose of their productive contributions is to mask their promotional ones.) In addition to motive, the term SPA indicates that the user is unlikely to return to Wikipedia to improve the content nominated for deletion. After the user's attempt at posting promotional content has been denied, s/he has no reason to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Therefore, an SPA should not be afforded the leniency frequently given to active editors, so being an inactive SPA is a valid reason for deletion. I have specifically pointed out in all my MfD nominations involving SPAs that they have failed to continue editing after their attempts at promotion were denied. Because my use of the term SPA highlights an SPA's unlikelihood of returning to Wikipedia, I do not view my use of the term as inaccurate. Cunard ( talk) 06:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about Cort and Fatboy. I won't be commenting on it this time round because I haven't got time to go over it all again and locate and read the del rev and the new refs - nevertheless, my opinion on this kind of article has not changed. BTW: I very much like your definition of Spam/SPA above. You should consider making an essay of it. In fact I'm so impressed with it, I've noted the diff for referring to it in the future. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact, that script doesn't delete, it just tops and tails the discussion with archive templates showing result and signature, and adds a pre-filled edit summary. I closed a batch together, then went on to delete them together, and you caught me in between stage 1 and stage 2. All done now, I think. Bencherlite Talk 09:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you're still around! You're still doing good work at MfD, too. A few things:
Anyway, it's good to see you again. Keep up the good work. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the secret page situation was an informative experience. Sweeping changes are generally not accepted well by the Wikipedia community. Smaller nominations have proven to be more effective at enforcing policy.
I agree that the numerous MfD nominations of inactive WikiProjects is disheartening. It is doubtless that valuable history has been lost through needless deletions. I appreciate the kind comment about my looking through the talk pages to bolster my rationales. Likewise, your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld summarizing the project's history was very cogent. I find that apprising the discussion's participants and the closing admin about a specific WikiProject's history is more effective than a stock rationale. The "keep" rationales of some in the debates are not specific enough to rescue the WikiProjects from deletion.
By the way, I wouldn't characterize the MfD nominations to be an "impulse nomination for deletion just so there's something to nominate for deletion", though I initially had similar thoughts. The answer to why the WikiProjects are being nominated for deletion can be found here: "Editorial support for popular music has collapsed over the past three to four years. The intention is to consolidate the active 'genre-based' projects and re-invigorate them. If new contributors just find one dead project after another they will assume the whole thing is dead and give up on Wikipedia." A somewhat reasonable argument, though deleting valuable page histories is a negative consequence.
For this MfD, I interpreted WP:UP#PROMO as also referring to promotion in the sense of vanity. Not the promotion in the Wikipedia sense of self gain, though promotion nonetheless. Promotion that is " vain, futile, or worthless; that which is of no value, use or profit" per Wiktionary. Cunard ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of WP:UP#PROMO is a valid one, but I still personally would not interpret that portion of the guideline as discouraging or prohibiting vanity in userspace. I suppose it's a moot point, though; surely any sort of userspace vanity that is excessive to warrant deletion under your interpretation of WP:UP#PROMO also runs afoul of the plain text of WP:USERBIO.
In any case, thanks for the clarifications. I look forward to working with you again. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:USERBIO is more fitting for most MfDs of that nature. I'll use it more so my arguments are clearer. Thank you for the stopping by. See you around at MfD and DRV. Cunard ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment just now! Also, there is another matter I'd like to discuss with you. I was thinking about this the other day... after your prompting for me to close all these discussions (which I was happy to do of course!) I dug into your contributions to find out how the hell you found all these RFC's ;) Anyway, long story short I saw the amount of "clerking" activity you do, and the clueful/friendly approach you have (esp. to AFD). Point being, I wondered how you would feel about running to adminship yourself? I passed a successful RFA earlier this year with very little drama and, frankly, you are far better qualified for the admin-bit than I was. Over three years activity, extensive work in AFD, lots of DYK's, a couple of GA, clueful/friendly comments and no ego - that's most of the regular RFA boxes ticked! I know RFA can be an crapfest sometimes, but In your case the only factor I can't account for is the "Skeletons in the closet". If you don't have any of those, and if you fancy the idea, would you mind me nominating you in an RFA?
I'm a huge fan of the idea that the admin-bit is really no big deal at all, and I definitely think that giving you those tools would be a huge positive to the community. n.b. this is definitely not an attempt to try and avoid any more RFC closures! :P I enjoyed all the ones you threw my way -- Errant ( chat!) 23:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, I wouldn't want to deprive you of the RfC closures that you enjoy. ;) Nor would I have the patience as you to elucidate things in such detail. Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Additionally, during contentious debates, some non-admins tend to assume that the admins are always abusing their "status" to elevate their own positions. Several times I have seen this occur in the AfDs I have participated in, as well as other discussions I have read. If I were an admin at the time, I know that I would have been dragged into the berating. While I do not mind such berating, this would have further deviated from the discussion at hand. Being a non-admin gives me the freedom that admins do not have.
I think you allegation that my edit was disruptive [2] was aggressive and unhelpful. I believe the {{ cn}} tag is appropriate in formal forums in response to such assertions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And chided deservedly, again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maud Gage Baum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Maud Gage Baum forced her husband to eat stale doughnuts because he did not consult with her before buying them? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, as an admin, I do know the difference between AN and ANI. The thread you moved should not have been moved, but I won't revert you. The more important thing is that AN archives slower than ANI, (ANI archived at 24 hours) so when you put a thread onto ANI from another venue, you must retimestamp it for the archival bot. Courcelles 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've answered your question on my talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cunard,
I know you've been getting frustrated by my speed and I'm sorry about that. I've been trying to stay away from doing it on my own both because of both the time I've been spending on work and to avoid people thinking it was a work related action. To catch you up on where things are for now:
Again really sorry for the delay but hopefully we can at least get some other things for the article(s). James of UR ( talk) 00:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason I have been losing patience is that I've been trying for over a year to get the image issues resolved:
Nearly every time I ask you a question, I've had to post multiple notes on your talk page before I receive a reply. I do not mind if you come back with a "sorry no info yet", like you did at User talk:Cunard/Archive 6#Anne Aghion. I prefer that over no reply at all for a month.
Thank you for undeleting File:Anne Aghion- Photo.jpg, which I will restore to Anne Aghion. I hope that contact with Indiejilly ( talk · contribs) can be made so that the copyright statuses of File:Anne Aghion.jpg, File:MNMK Woman.jpg, and File:Mnmk poster pk.jpg can be resolved because without licenses, they are copyright violations. Cunard ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"→Academics: removed original research; "allowing students to receive college credit for automotive technology classes" is not verified by the provided reference"
"→Extracurricular activities: removed content sourced to links that fail to even mention Wasilla High School"
"→Athletics: cleaned up – prose instead of list"
-- Rhall28 ( talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
For the extracurricular activities, I checked the sources, which were links to http://www.closeup.org/ and http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about. Neither of these sources mention Wasilla High School. Feel free to restore the information when you find a source that verifies that Wasilla High School has participated in those activities. I did not remove the other information because it is verified by http://www.matsuk12.us/whs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=50.
Using "are" is better than "include", so I will make that change. I didn't think Wasilla considered cheerleading to be a sport, but the source lists it under Athletics so I have restored cheerleading.
Thank you for your additions to the article and for your concise explanations here of your changes. Cunard ( talk) 05:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Rhall28 ( talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion on my talk page, I will in general stay away from closing for now for obvious reasons. However, a DRV I participated in from April 23 was withdrawn by the person making the request not very long ago from the time of my posting. Am I correct in presuming that this type of close is one that a regular user is allowed to make? I went ahead in this case on that presumption; I will in general not close now unless it's something of that nature, but I wanted to double-check with you that this type of close by a non-admin even at DRV is still acceptable. I simply listed it as "Withdrawn by nominator" and signed. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, when all the DRV discussions on a log have been closed, the headers are removed, as I did here.
Thank you for asking for clarification. Best, Cunard ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, IP user 24.179.224.68 did a manual signature as an account ( SAINT) that is a suspected sockpuppet of a permanently banned account (thanks to a legal threat). I can't checkuser it (obviously), but I have recommended this opinion be discounted. Is there any way to get a temporary block on the IP and get it investigated? CycloneGU ( talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I read your comments in reviewing the DYK eligibility of At World's Edge and I believe press release are acceptable for basic facts but did change the source for that to the album's liner notes. As an aside, it was probably an over site but you should notify someone that you questioned their hook, not everyone checks. Thanks for taking the time to review J04n( talk page) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly it's not right for me to close it, but given that the nominator is blocked and the page, now in his userspace, was deleted under a previous title, we need a closure of this deletion review per AN/I. The sole non-nominator comment to relist at AfD was made before the copyvio was found and the issue visited AN/I.
Also, I've blanked and requested speedied the user page referenced per the same discussion. Would you be willing to do a closure and speedy deletion? CycloneGU ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not an admin and don't intend to become one. Although I know how to get around the wiki, I'm surprised that I could be mistaken for an admin. I'm a red-linked user who is more likely to be mistaken as a vandal or a " user that no longer exists". ;) Cunard ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to CycloneGU: True, but then I'd still look like everyone else in page histories. ;) By the way, I posted an April 2005 quote about lacking a userpage from
Uncle G (
talk ·
contribs) at
User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Request. Several quotes that particularly resonate with me:
"I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has 'been on for a week' or is 'a vandal with a user name'. I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty ..."
"I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day."
"My 'identity' to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history."
Cunard (
talk)
08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just declined User talk:903M/secret, User:903M/Track Palin and User:903M/Wikipedia rules. The CSD criteria don't really cover this. The pages weren't created in defiance of a block or block evasion. They all need to go to MfD. Ged UK 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 9 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc., if a Gmail user had viewed a particular email, Google was ordered to disclose to a bank the user's real name? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed your latest edit on this page with the edit summary "rvv by Franavar". This isn't accurate as when I blanked the page I forgot to retain the MFD header, so it was my mistake. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, your kind words at DRV did not go unnoticed. Have a great week! -- joe decker talk to me 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Cunard, I appreciate your attention to the matter. Rklawton pointed out at ANI that it's not such a big deal, but I do have a problem with reams and reams of text without verification (and responded there--feel free to weigh in). Before you know it we have an essay or a fansite. But while you and I were out, an IP with a familiar voice came along. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. I've noticed your frequent patrolling of Template:Cent and your occasional closures of the RfCs listed there. Per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Closure Request, would you consider closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? Stuart.Jamieson ( talk · contribs) has made requests for a summary of the debate at both AN and ANI. The requests have been archived by the bot without an admin addressing them. If you don't have the time and the inclination to read through the discussion, then no worries. Cunard ( talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
My Korean is quite sketchy at most, and so I've done as much as I can to gain somewhat of an understanding.
Hope that helps. A note that I can't really conceretely say whether a site is a valid reliable source or not; I'll leave that judgment to you. I am unsure of what to make of these, and I cannot solidly confirm anything, so you might take my words with a grain of salt; it's up to you on how you interpret the above. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing formatting on my closure. Much appreciated -- Neutrality talk 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One good turn deserves another. Hm. Perhaps now that I seem to be back doing the Wikipedia thing I'll ce that thing you wrote about what the checkout girl says. I have to get tired of needlessly sticking my nose into random ANI meltdowns and getting bitchy about AFD antics at some point, right?
Actually, I've recently discovered the fun world of AFC, so I'm at least doing something that represents a net-positive contribution to Wikipedia with all the time I devote to not working on your article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But seriously though, now that you're more active, I'd be immeasurably grateful if you'd nurture my precious baby.
I've never worked at AfC, though my observations of it hasn't endeared me to it. From my careful observations of User talk:98.151.53.27, I've found that the AfC editors rarely provide guidance when they decline his submissions. In the case of Joel M. Reed, the article was failed for want of notability despite its being well sourced with notability clearly being demonstrated. I was even more flabbergasted by the filing of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#IP user 98.151.53.27 Gaming the system at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Too Outrageous! which was a senseless call for sanctions. Despite the article's containing http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0DE7D9103FF935A25753C1A961948260 from the first revision submitted to AfC, no fewer than five editors refused to move it to mainspace for nitpicky reasons. It almost led to 98.151.53.27 ( talk · contribs)'s being chased away.
Anyways, you've shown the exact opposite behavior through your compassionate mentoring of Mica451 ( talk · contribs). I am confident that you won't turn into a crotchety AfC reviewer though you may occasionally feel like one. ;) Cunard ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you moved the essay to mainspace (and found out about the DRV :P). Should I tag the redirect at my userspace for CSD U1? - frankie ( talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought you'd find this version of my post to Fut.Perf's talk looking for help regarding the Samuel Meisels image amusing. Scroll to the bottom. A staggering failure of both Wiki-fu and preview button usage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George M. Hill Company, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after publishing bestsellers Father Goose and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the George M. Hill Company was compelled in 1902 to declare bankruptcy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. I've just left my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sean gorter/Xin Wen and went to have a look at other pages in that user's userspace. I was just wondering if you'd like to add any of that users other pages to the nomination as several seem to be pointless where Wikipedia is concerned. I'll nominate them separately otherwise. Lord Vetinari 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talk contribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
After the AfD is closed by an administrator, and if the AfD result is "delete", feel free to request userfication at WP:REFUND. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Second, the guideline for film articles prohibits the inclusion of online polls because they are subject to " vote stacking and demographic skew". The page also states that "[p]olls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner" are acceptable additions. This film article rule about polls can also be applied to games. According to Facebook, Picaboum is a developer. I don't know if Picaboum can be considered a reliable source. However, the manner in which this online poll was carried out indicates that it could easily be subjected to vote stacking and demographic skew. I don't think winning this award, which is ultimately determined by an online poll, confers notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as an experienced contributor at the BLP noticeboard I have reverted you closure of the Vargas thread. Historically we have found it is better to simply allow threads to close on their own . I can suggest you add the link to your update RFC on the talkpage and this is likely to reduce discussion anyways, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So, what is your reason for arriving at this article and opening this RFC when you have not apparently had any involvement or contributions at all to the article or the BLPN discussion? Off2riorob ( talk) 01:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cunard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ColonelS, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: as this has been here over four years, and is mild compared to what admins get called all the time, I don't think it needs to be speedied: let the MfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 17:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been moved following a period of stagnation of around 30 days, and restarted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration. To avoid confusion and side tracking, the new discussion concerns only the duration of the trial. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this no longer showing at WP:Cent?
@Σ : It's not ironic. This proposal was passed with an overwhelming majority. The objectives at Outreach are quite different, and is a long-term project. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've finished answering all the questions (geez, that's a lot of reading) and copied them and my responses to the RFB. Thanks again! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp and my recent edit. I think you addition of these sorts of postscripts to archived discussions is really good, and really helpful. I thought I'd suggest putting the postscript comment outside (above) the coloured "please do not modify" archive box, as a better way to distinguish the postscript from the archived discussion. I thought to simply suggest it, but decided it is easier to make the edit to show what I mean. In some cases, such as DRV archived discussions that are not on their own pages, is it more difficult to get the format right. What do you think? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard,
I've located the article you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You can find a link to the article on that page. GabrielF ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
at both ANI and my talk page. I have provided my reasoning. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
When there has been over a day of discussion and unanimous consensus to ban, I don't think it's okay to close a discussion as "no formal ban". A closing admin should execute the consensus. Your closure was in good faith, though I took issue with it because it ignored the community's clear agreement to enact a formal ban on the sockpuppeteer. Cunard ( talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the ANI discussion on the Timeshift issue! I was going to start one myself today, as it seemed foolish to start the discussion immediately before going away for a few days, but was pleased to see that you'd saved me the trouble. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cunard. I've been reading these and other discussions relating to userpages that contain material that might be called bloggy. Before I look closely at User:Timeshift, a case that I think is difficult because it has moved closer to the boundary, I would really like to read your assessment of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I see at WP:AN that you have placed a "future timestamp to prevent archiving" in what is currently the first discussion. Last week I learned of a silent way to do this. See DoNotArchiveUntil for the subst tag to place, and use it to set a number of days. It places a comment tag that archive bots recognize as a dated timestamp without placing anything in the discussion itself for the time you use the tag. I've used this in a couple of places myself, and removed it when those discussions at AN/I have closed. =)
Your call whether to use this or not, but I like it because it doesn't look like part of the discussion then. CycloneGU ( talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors who resolve requests frequently want to remove the "future timestamp" from the discussions so that archiving can proceed. If I were to use DoNotArchiveUntil, they would have to search for why the discussion has not been archived. Best, Cunard ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you were involved in the previous discussion, I was wondering if you'd mind commenting on this discussion too. Cheers. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
For my future reference, the RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Cunard. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination) with a detailed rationale. Would a renomination in November 2011 be acceptable, in your opinion? Prior to this renomination, I will nominate Fraser Cain, the intended merge target, for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to Protonk ( talk · contribs)'s comment:
I strongly agree with Protonk ( talk · contribs)'s comment. The defense of an article based on how many times it's cited on Wikipedia is weak and not grounded in policy. It is rebutted in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Regarding your second example, an RfC would likely conclude that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If an article gave the subject the passing mention ("Foo won the prestigious X Web Award."), it would be presumed notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria #2:This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines. The source doesn't have to be "important" per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way. For a website example, Economic Principals. I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk ( talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If a source said that "Foo want the Nobel Peace Prize" or "Foo received the Pulitzer Prize", and there was no significant coverage, the topic would still be considered notable because of the prestige of those prizes.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
I can find no sources that give such prestige to Universe Today.
In other words, none of the sources say anything "significant".
SilkTork, please clarify what you mean by "significant" sources: Which sources did the AfD participants consider "significant"? Myself, I see neither "significant coverage" nor anything along the lines of "Universe Today is the most notable website in the world". Cunard ( talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not merely mechanically upholding the notability guideline. I believe that the verifiability policy and the no original research policy, both of which defend the integrity of this site, should be upheld. Cunard ( talk) 23:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel that DRV would find the closure of "no consensus" within your discretion as the closing admin. Was it the best close? I don't think so. Whereas the "delete" side effectively rebutted all the claims of "significant coverage" by the "keep" side, the "keep" side failed to find any coverage that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Second, false information (supported by misrepresentations of sources), trivia, and original research were inserted into the article. Just today, 98.164.98.44 ( talk · contribs) found factual errors in the article: Talk:Universe Today#Factual errors in article. The trivia and the false information comprise the majority of the article. Removing that information would leave a skeleton of an article, with information sourced only to Universe Today's website.
Thank you again for your explanations. Closing the AfD was difficult and any close would have been contested. Your closing rationale is eloquent and defensible. I cannot fault you for closing this debate as "no consensus", so will not—and have never considered—bringing this closure to DRV.
By the way, would you be able to help close RfCs? There is a severe backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
Thank you for sorting out Noddle (well, I hope you have sorted it out!). I am surprised about your comment at DRV [6] supporting the original WP:CSD#G11 (if I am understanding you properly). I would have no difficulty with such a deletion of an article but should not a userspace draft have more leeway? The WP:User pages guideline permits (even encourages) "Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes". I would have thought content such as this was well within what should be permissible whilst a draft is in active progress. The whole purpose of such drafts is to sort out such matters and to get help from others. As it turned out the speedy was controversial (with the exception of yourself all non-administrators recommended overturn, I think in good faith) but maybe the deleting admin could not have anticipated that. Lack of any communication (that I could find) was also a problem though not one for DRV. Are our policies right for userspace drafts? Thincat ( talk) 10:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the version deleted by DragonflySixtyseven ( talk · contribs) failed to pass G11 and should not have been speedy deleted. Cunard ( talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Regarding the speedy deletion, I don't believe that this version that was deleted passed {{ db-spam}}.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in attempting to get additional comments. Its closed now. If they are notable they will float to the surface again anyways, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13 I said I only came here because an IP posted to my talk page. which is incorrect. I now realise that it was you rather than an IP who posted that. Entirely my mistake. I'm apologising here rather than there, because the review was closed by the time I realised my mistake. Sorry. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I was enjoying our debate and open discussion regarding the removal of the Common Dead article, unfortunately, the debate was preemptively shut down by the same self-entitled Wikipedian named "Sandstein", who also closed the DRV page on the subject too soon. I scolded him on his talkpage if you're interested. Is there a way to reopen the discussion in AfD so that a legitimate amount of participants can discuss the matter? I would also like to bring to light Sandstein's conduct in similar debates, as it is ridiculous and frenetic, to say the least. He brings flashbacks of numerous band pages I had to fight to defend; artists that went on to achieve even large label recognition but at the time were challenged, doubted, and deleted not by their lack of sources, but due to their obscurity in the eyes of disconnected Wikipedians. 66.131.199.156 ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Once we've revised the article, we can ask someone like TParis to review whether we've overcome the original reasons for deletion and put it back in the mainspace. On the basis of those sources, I suspect there's an article to be written here.— S Marshall T/ C 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard -- It appears the deletion review closed since I last checked the site and I was not able to respond to your confusion about the relationship between Kokondo karate and Jukido jujitsu. The two are separate arts, but they are taught together and the combined system is referred to as simply Kokondo. Jukido jujitsu is just as much Kokondo as Kokondo karate is. Please refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article: "The term "Kokondo" is used to refer to the two arts jointly."
The article on Jukido jujitsu, therefore, is describing one element of the Kokondo system. NJG302 ( talk) 07:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Crisco. I noticed that you created Brian Jamieson (director) today. Were you prompted to do so after seeing my creation of To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey and have you watched the documentary? Cunard ( talk) 06:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the documentary likely won't be shown at Indonesia. You can see a two-minute trailer of the documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkhagrR-2N4. Also, have you watched The World of Suzie Wong, Flower Drum Song, or any other movies Kwan starred in? Ms. Kwan's first two films were pure enjoyment. Cunard ( talk) 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I have added archiveurls to the citations in the article. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Linkrot - What to do? ( permanent link) for more information about preventing dead links. Cunard ( talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 27 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the documentary To Whom It May Concern (poster pictured) tells the story of Nancy Kwan, one of the first Asian leads in a Hollywood film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I don't fully understand your reasons declining Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced SystemCare and Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Vista Optimizer. I want to point out that some of your reasons are all wrong: 1) Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines states "But if you merge the edit history when you move, we might not believe you moved it.", so that means as long as it has just been moved to the article space, it still counts as "new" 2) A "citation needed" tag I don't see how it could be a problem, 3) New hooks were added very recently, and should be taken more time for more reviewers to read. - Porch corpter ( talk/ contribs) 07:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
My comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced SystemCare has been validated by your statement above. You are wrong about the other issues: DYK articles, which are showcased on the main page, should not have citation needed templates. I find it surprising that you see no problem with this. And hooks of unprepared articles should not be remaining on Template talk:Did you know for half a month. More reviewers should not have to waste their time reviewing and rejecting unprepared articles. Cunard ( talk) 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)According to history of the article, it was moved from userspace to mainspace on 5 July 2011. It was returned to userspace on 9 September 2011. In the same minute, it was moved back to mainspace.
The moves are deceptive, an attempt to game the system.
Glad to see you've kept working on the article and have brought it to FAC. I will try to weigh in with some comments by next week. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to your comments at the FAC. Cunard ( talk) 09:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
Advanced search for: "Search" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL ·
page history ·
Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL ·
toolserver ·
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Original research??? "Bonne journée" . "bonne" = good / "journée" = day. hence "Good day". What original research???. It's just literal. Your quote "have a nice day" is a mistranslation. So both should indeed be mentioned for accuracy. FYI: "Have a nice day" translates in French as "Je vous souhaite une bonne journée" ou "Passez une bonne journée". Please make corrections. THX -- Little sawyer ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
...congratulations on Middlesex (novel)--that is a fine piece of work. Drmies ( talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted my closure of the RM. Japanese knotweed ( talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. Because you are experienced with WP:CENT, I have come to your talk page to ask you a question. Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move be added to WP:CENT? Cunard ( talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I read an essay on here once that suggested that the "Wikibreak" template generally meant that the editor at issue was more-or-less retired, and that the "Retired" template generally meant that the editor at issue wanted people to post "OH GOD PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US" blather on their talk page. I suppose, at this point, I've more or less retired, despite the "back in a few weeks" template I posted on my userpage in, oh, September of 2010. I do come back from time to time to yell at people in AFD. Once in a very fortunate blue moon I come back and try to actually edit something. But... long story short, I apologize for recent unfulfilled commitments to work on at least one article of yours. I feel badly because I like you, and I feel badly because Have a nice day is, to me, what Wikipedia should be all about. Sure, Wiki should nail all the major topics, but it should doubly nail clearly notable but generally unexplored topics like the genesis of this bizarre phrase. Anyway. My apologies. I occasionally check in to do the aforementioned yelling at people in AfD (I worry that my increasing intolerance is going to get me disciplined at some point), but next time I commit to helping with actual article work, please remind me that I'm probably going to get distracted and then vanish for weeks on end :). I hope all is well with you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, avocations back in 1865. The misuse of words continues today. Nowadays, I tend to participate much less in AfDs, as I am more occupied with bothering admins to close RfCs. ;)
By the way, you missed a drama-filled discussion about Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! (an "unofficial mascot of Wikipedia – Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan). I and others who supported deletion were called humorless prudes because we were repulsed by the page's revolting content. For context, see Drmies' talk page and the nominated version, which I WebCited to keep a record of how some will enjoy and defend such puerile humor. Fortunately, Ironholds closed that discussion as delete but the drama continues unabated.
See you around when we bump into each other at AfD again. Cunard ( talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cunard, thanks for advising me, I guess I didn't understand what he was trying to do there (it was a somewhat weird edition), and reverted by mistake. No need to worry about the IPs, I love them, I hug them, I'm so infatuated by them. :) -- Darwinius ( talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava and User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava 2
Good morning sir. As per your kind suggestion I have asked the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to take a look at this about dispute. Please check it. Thanks a lot. Regards Spjayswal67 ( talk) 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cunard: Can you perform this merger please? [ [1]] We have discussed it on the relevant talk page and reached consensus. It's pretty obvious as a merge. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have closed that after only 10 days, and no consensus, especially with comments only 2 days ago. It discusses a different point then the general inclusion criteria RfC you started. CTJF83 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hrm, I would probably actually say default to leaving both of them open, or posting to WP:AN with a neutral request for a previously uninvolved editor to close the former. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think a closing statement is a good way to go, it might be worth inviting all participants/endorsers to examine the closing statement section and comment. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typo at
Who the Hell is Juliette?. I clearly need a refresher course for my touch-typing.
— James Cantor (
talk)
14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ adminhelp}}
Would an admin userfy Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) to User:Cunard/Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)? See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire). Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You have done a bang-up job on this article. Thank you for rescuing it! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava, User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Ambarish Srivastava 2, and User talk:Cunard#Ambarish Srivastava
My case has been closed. The reason for this is that the other parties named in the mediation did not affirm their acceptance of mediation within 7 days of the case being opened. Now please suggest me that what I should do for it? Regards: Spjayswal67 ( talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you add categories at Aha! Effect. Also for User:Psyc3330/Group3 did you mean to send it to Executive dysfunction and then change Executive dysfunction back to a redirect or make Executive dysfunction an actual article? CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was impressed with your thorough analysis of the sources in this discussion, and was hoping you could help me out with another. I've been trying to see how the sources presented for the article undergoing discussion here could possibly meet the GNG, but so far I've failed to do so. My efforts to ask the keep !voters to explain have gone unanswered so far. I was hoping you could possibly take the time to look at this and give your input? If you're busy I totally understand, don't waste your time on this. And please don't take this as a canvassing attempt; I'm perfectly happy if you decide that this article in fact does have good sources or you don't want to weigh in at all. I was just hoping for another analysis of the sources. Thans so much for your time!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard I want to thank your help on correcting some information on article Alejandro Alcondez your input was very valuable and finally is on the mainspace, I have question about the images used in the article which have been deleted, I've managed to get a contact email from this subject Facebook page and explained about the license type for the images used, after more than a week since I sent the email I got a reply from a representative authorising the image use under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License images here, then a fowarded the original messages to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, now I do not know i it is ok to upload or wait. thanks again. Cgomez007 ( talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronzat/Reactive Search Srl (2nd nomination)
“Where have I said that "all SPAs are spammers or otherwise unwanted"?”
NB. This is not about you personally, or Aaronzat. It’s more that you are good for a challenging debate. I was reading somewhere that while the most prolific Wikipedians account for the majority of edits, it is drive by editors, IPs and SPAs, that are responsible for most of the long lived content, although subsequently copy-edited. This makes me think that we need to lay off the SPA epitaph as a negative descriptor.
It’s not about what you intended, but what might be read in your words.
Aaronzat … is a single-purpose account, ... SPA … reveals the motives behind … actions. … Wikipedia does not need spammers.
Your words, which you may see as a ridiculous paraphrasing, in an alternative reading, have associated SPAs with spammers, and implied that there being an SPA is a reason for deletion (i.e. their contributions are unwanted).
Your templated discussion rationales are sometimes quite appropriate, but other times seem a scatter-gun approach. Some of your points are sometimes non-applicable.
I’m saying that being an SPA per se is not a factor for a deletion decision. In this case, Aaronzat’s motive, of spamming a particular company website, can be inferred from his contribution history. That he is an SPA is not relevant. Company website spamming is not OK from even the most prolific contributor. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My use of the term SPA has been accurate and serves to underscore the extent of Aaronzat ( talk · contribs)'s contributions. An SPA, by definition, has a very narrow interest in editing topics. When SPAs have been denied the ability to promote themselves or their company, they frequently keep copies of the deleted content in their userspaces, either forgetting about those copies or hoping that such content will be indefinitely preserved on Wikipedia. I always factor the motives of a user into my participation at MfD.
Your out-of-context paraphrasing of my statements is somewhat accurate. While I do not associate all SPAs as spammers, I consider all spammers to be SPAs. (I would deem prolific contributors who spam to be SPAs, since the purpose of their productive contributions is to mask their promotional ones.) In addition to motive, the term SPA indicates that the user is unlikely to return to Wikipedia to improve the content nominated for deletion. After the user's attempt at posting promotional content has been denied, s/he has no reason to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Therefore, an SPA should not be afforded the leniency frequently given to active editors, so being an inactive SPA is a valid reason for deletion. I have specifically pointed out in all my MfD nominations involving SPAs that they have failed to continue editing after their attempts at promotion were denied. Because my use of the term SPA highlights an SPA's unlikelihood of returning to Wikipedia, I do not view my use of the term as inaccurate. Cunard ( talk) 06:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about Cort and Fatboy. I won't be commenting on it this time round because I haven't got time to go over it all again and locate and read the del rev and the new refs - nevertheless, my opinion on this kind of article has not changed. BTW: I very much like your definition of Spam/SPA above. You should consider making an essay of it. In fact I'm so impressed with it, I've noted the diff for referring to it in the future. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact, that script doesn't delete, it just tops and tails the discussion with archive templates showing result and signature, and adds a pre-filled edit summary. I closed a batch together, then went on to delete them together, and you caught me in between stage 1 and stage 2. All done now, I think. Bencherlite Talk 09:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you're still around! You're still doing good work at MfD, too. A few things:
Anyway, it's good to see you again. Keep up the good work. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the secret page situation was an informative experience. Sweeping changes are generally not accepted well by the Wikipedia community. Smaller nominations have proven to be more effective at enforcing policy.
I agree that the numerous MfD nominations of inactive WikiProjects is disheartening. It is doubtless that valuable history has been lost through needless deletions. I appreciate the kind comment about my looking through the talk pages to bolster my rationales. Likewise, your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld summarizing the project's history was very cogent. I find that apprising the discussion's participants and the closing admin about a specific WikiProject's history is more effective than a stock rationale. The "keep" rationales of some in the debates are not specific enough to rescue the WikiProjects from deletion.
By the way, I wouldn't characterize the MfD nominations to be an "impulse nomination for deletion just so there's something to nominate for deletion", though I initially had similar thoughts. The answer to why the WikiProjects are being nominated for deletion can be found here: "Editorial support for popular music has collapsed over the past three to four years. The intention is to consolidate the active 'genre-based' projects and re-invigorate them. If new contributors just find one dead project after another they will assume the whole thing is dead and give up on Wikipedia." A somewhat reasonable argument, though deleting valuable page histories is a negative consequence.
For this MfD, I interpreted WP:UP#PROMO as also referring to promotion in the sense of vanity. Not the promotion in the Wikipedia sense of self gain, though promotion nonetheless. Promotion that is " vain, futile, or worthless; that which is of no value, use or profit" per Wiktionary. Cunard ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of WP:UP#PROMO is a valid one, but I still personally would not interpret that portion of the guideline as discouraging or prohibiting vanity in userspace. I suppose it's a moot point, though; surely any sort of userspace vanity that is excessive to warrant deletion under your interpretation of WP:UP#PROMO also runs afoul of the plain text of WP:USERBIO.
In any case, thanks for the clarifications. I look forward to working with you again. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 20:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:USERBIO is more fitting for most MfDs of that nature. I'll use it more so my arguments are clearer. Thank you for the stopping by. See you around at MfD and DRV. Cunard ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment just now! Also, there is another matter I'd like to discuss with you. I was thinking about this the other day... after your prompting for me to close all these discussions (which I was happy to do of course!) I dug into your contributions to find out how the hell you found all these RFC's ;) Anyway, long story short I saw the amount of "clerking" activity you do, and the clueful/friendly approach you have (esp. to AFD). Point being, I wondered how you would feel about running to adminship yourself? I passed a successful RFA earlier this year with very little drama and, frankly, you are far better qualified for the admin-bit than I was. Over three years activity, extensive work in AFD, lots of DYK's, a couple of GA, clueful/friendly comments and no ego - that's most of the regular RFA boxes ticked! I know RFA can be an crapfest sometimes, but In your case the only factor I can't account for is the "Skeletons in the closet". If you don't have any of those, and if you fancy the idea, would you mind me nominating you in an RFA?
I'm a huge fan of the idea that the admin-bit is really no big deal at all, and I definitely think that giving you those tools would be a huge positive to the community. n.b. this is definitely not an attempt to try and avoid any more RFC closures! :P I enjoyed all the ones you threw my way -- Errant ( chat!) 23:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, I wouldn't want to deprive you of the RfC closures that you enjoy. ;) Nor would I have the patience as you to elucidate things in such detail. Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Additionally, during contentious debates, some non-admins tend to assume that the admins are always abusing their "status" to elevate their own positions. Several times I have seen this occur in the AfDs I have participated in, as well as other discussions I have read. If I were an admin at the time, I know that I would have been dragged into the berating. While I do not mind such berating, this would have further deviated from the discussion at hand. Being a non-admin gives me the freedom that admins do not have.
I think you allegation that my edit was disruptive [2] was aggressive and unhelpful. I believe the {{ cn}} tag is appropriate in formal forums in response to such assertions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And chided deservedly, again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maud Gage Baum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Maud Gage Baum forced her husband to eat stale doughnuts because he did not consult with her before buying them? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, as an admin, I do know the difference between AN and ANI. The thread you moved should not have been moved, but I won't revert you. The more important thing is that AN archives slower than ANI, (ANI archived at 24 hours) so when you put a thread onto ANI from another venue, you must retimestamp it for the archival bot. Courcelles 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've answered your question on my talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cunard,
I know you've been getting frustrated by my speed and I'm sorry about that. I've been trying to stay away from doing it on my own both because of both the time I've been spending on work and to avoid people thinking it was a work related action. To catch you up on where things are for now:
Again really sorry for the delay but hopefully we can at least get some other things for the article(s). James of UR ( talk) 00:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason I have been losing patience is that I've been trying for over a year to get the image issues resolved:
Nearly every time I ask you a question, I've had to post multiple notes on your talk page before I receive a reply. I do not mind if you come back with a "sorry no info yet", like you did at User talk:Cunard/Archive 6#Anne Aghion. I prefer that over no reply at all for a month.
Thank you for undeleting File:Anne Aghion- Photo.jpg, which I will restore to Anne Aghion. I hope that contact with Indiejilly ( talk · contribs) can be made so that the copyright statuses of File:Anne Aghion.jpg, File:MNMK Woman.jpg, and File:Mnmk poster pk.jpg can be resolved because without licenses, they are copyright violations. Cunard ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"→Academics: removed original research; "allowing students to receive college credit for automotive technology classes" is not verified by the provided reference"
"→Extracurricular activities: removed content sourced to links that fail to even mention Wasilla High School"
"→Athletics: cleaned up – prose instead of list"
-- Rhall28 ( talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
For the extracurricular activities, I checked the sources, which were links to http://www.closeup.org/ and http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about. Neither of these sources mention Wasilla High School. Feel free to restore the information when you find a source that verifies that Wasilla High School has participated in those activities. I did not remove the other information because it is verified by http://www.matsuk12.us/whs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=50.
Using "are" is better than "include", so I will make that change. I didn't think Wasilla considered cheerleading to be a sport, but the source lists it under Athletics so I have restored cheerleading.
Thank you for your additions to the article and for your concise explanations here of your changes. Cunard ( talk) 05:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Rhall28 ( talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion on my talk page, I will in general stay away from closing for now for obvious reasons. However, a DRV I participated in from April 23 was withdrawn by the person making the request not very long ago from the time of my posting. Am I correct in presuming that this type of close is one that a regular user is allowed to make? I went ahead in this case on that presumption; I will in general not close now unless it's something of that nature, but I wanted to double-check with you that this type of close by a non-admin even at DRV is still acceptable. I simply listed it as "Withdrawn by nominator" and signed. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, when all the DRV discussions on a log have been closed, the headers are removed, as I did here.
Thank you for asking for clarification. Best, Cunard ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, IP user 24.179.224.68 did a manual signature as an account ( SAINT) that is a suspected sockpuppet of a permanently banned account (thanks to a legal threat). I can't checkuser it (obviously), but I have recommended this opinion be discounted. Is there any way to get a temporary block on the IP and get it investigated? CycloneGU ( talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I read your comments in reviewing the DYK eligibility of At World's Edge and I believe press release are acceptable for basic facts but did change the source for that to the album's liner notes. As an aside, it was probably an over site but you should notify someone that you questioned their hook, not everyone checks. Thanks for taking the time to review J04n( talk page) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly it's not right for me to close it, but given that the nominator is blocked and the page, now in his userspace, was deleted under a previous title, we need a closure of this deletion review per AN/I. The sole non-nominator comment to relist at AfD was made before the copyvio was found and the issue visited AN/I.
Also, I've blanked and requested speedied the user page referenced per the same discussion. Would you be willing to do a closure and speedy deletion? CycloneGU ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not an admin and don't intend to become one. Although I know how to get around the wiki, I'm surprised that I could be mistaken for an admin. I'm a red-linked user who is more likely to be mistaken as a vandal or a " user that no longer exists". ;) Cunard ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to CycloneGU: True, but then I'd still look like everyone else in page histories. ;) By the way, I posted an April 2005 quote about lacking a userpage from
Uncle G (
talk ·
contribs) at
User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Request. Several quotes that particularly resonate with me:
"I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has 'been on for a week' or is 'a vandal with a user name'. I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty ..."
"I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day."
"My 'identity' to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history."
Cunard (
talk)
08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just declined User talk:903M/secret, User:903M/Track Palin and User:903M/Wikipedia rules. The CSD criteria don't really cover this. The pages weren't created in defiance of a block or block evasion. They all need to go to MfD. Ged UK 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 9 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc., if a Gmail user had viewed a particular email, Google was ordered to disclose to a bank the user's real name? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed your latest edit on this page with the edit summary "rvv by Franavar". This isn't accurate as when I blanked the page I forgot to retain the MFD header, so it was my mistake. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, your kind words at DRV did not go unnoticed. Have a great week! -- joe decker talk to me 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Cunard, I appreciate your attention to the matter. Rklawton pointed out at ANI that it's not such a big deal, but I do have a problem with reams and reams of text without verification (and responded there--feel free to weigh in). Before you know it we have an essay or a fansite. But while you and I were out, an IP with a familiar voice came along. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. I've noticed your frequent patrolling of Template:Cent and your occasional closures of the RfCs listed there. Per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Closure Request, would you consider closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? Stuart.Jamieson ( talk · contribs) has made requests for a summary of the debate at both AN and ANI. The requests have been archived by the bot without an admin addressing them. If you don't have the time and the inclination to read through the discussion, then no worries. Cunard ( talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
My Korean is quite sketchy at most, and so I've done as much as I can to gain somewhat of an understanding.
Hope that helps. A note that I can't really conceretely say whether a site is a valid reliable source or not; I'll leave that judgment to you. I am unsure of what to make of these, and I cannot solidly confirm anything, so you might take my words with a grain of salt; it's up to you on how you interpret the above. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing formatting on my closure. Much appreciated -- Neutrality talk 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
One good turn deserves another. Hm. Perhaps now that I seem to be back doing the Wikipedia thing I'll ce that thing you wrote about what the checkout girl says. I have to get tired of needlessly sticking my nose into random ANI meltdowns and getting bitchy about AFD antics at some point, right?
Actually, I've recently discovered the fun world of AFC, so I'm at least doing something that represents a net-positive contribution to Wikipedia with all the time I devote to not working on your article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But seriously though, now that you're more active, I'd be immeasurably grateful if you'd nurture my precious baby.
I've never worked at AfC, though my observations of it hasn't endeared me to it. From my careful observations of User talk:98.151.53.27, I've found that the AfC editors rarely provide guidance when they decline his submissions. In the case of Joel M. Reed, the article was failed for want of notability despite its being well sourced with notability clearly being demonstrated. I was even more flabbergasted by the filing of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#IP user 98.151.53.27 Gaming the system at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Too Outrageous! which was a senseless call for sanctions. Despite the article's containing http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0DE7D9103FF935A25753C1A961948260 from the first revision submitted to AfC, no fewer than five editors refused to move it to mainspace for nitpicky reasons. It almost led to 98.151.53.27 ( talk · contribs)'s being chased away.
Anyways, you've shown the exact opposite behavior through your compassionate mentoring of Mica451 ( talk · contribs). I am confident that you won't turn into a crotchety AfC reviewer though you may occasionally feel like one. ;) Cunard ( talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you moved the essay to mainspace (and found out about the DRV :P). Should I tag the redirect at my userspace for CSD U1? - frankie ( talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought you'd find this version of my post to Fut.Perf's talk looking for help regarding the Samuel Meisels image amusing. Scroll to the bottom. A staggering failure of both Wiki-fu and preview button usage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George M. Hill Company, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after publishing bestsellers Father Goose and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the George M. Hill Company was compelled in 1902 to declare bankruptcy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. I've just left my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sean gorter/Xin Wen and went to have a look at other pages in that user's userspace. I was just wondering if you'd like to add any of that users other pages to the nomination as several seem to be pointless where Wikipedia is concerned. I'll nominate them separately otherwise. Lord Vetinari 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talk contribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
After the AfD is closed by an administrator, and if the AfD result is "delete", feel free to request userfication at WP:REFUND. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Second, the guideline for film articles prohibits the inclusion of online polls because they are subject to " vote stacking and demographic skew". The page also states that "[p]olls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner" are acceptable additions. This film article rule about polls can also be applied to games. According to Facebook, Picaboum is a developer. I don't know if Picaboum can be considered a reliable source. However, the manner in which this online poll was carried out indicates that it could easily be subjected to vote stacking and demographic skew. I don't think winning this award, which is ultimately determined by an online poll, confers notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as an experienced contributor at the BLP noticeboard I have reverted you closure of the Vargas thread. Historically we have found it is better to simply allow threads to close on their own . I can suggest you add the link to your update RFC on the talkpage and this is likely to reduce discussion anyways, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So, what is your reason for arriving at this article and opening this RFC when you have not apparently had any involvement or contributions at all to the article or the BLPN discussion? Off2riorob ( talk) 01:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cunard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ColonelS, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: as this has been here over four years, and is mild compared to what admins get called all the time, I don't think it needs to be speedied: let the MfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 17:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been moved following a period of stagnation of around 30 days, and restarted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration. To avoid confusion and side tracking, the new discussion concerns only the duration of the trial. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this no longer showing at WP:Cent?
@Σ : It's not ironic. This proposal was passed with an overwhelming majority. The objectives at Outreach are quite different, and is a long-term project. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've finished answering all the questions (geez, that's a lot of reading) and copied them and my responses to the RFB. Thanks again! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp and my recent edit. I think you addition of these sorts of postscripts to archived discussions is really good, and really helpful. I thought I'd suggest putting the postscript comment outside (above) the coloured "please do not modify" archive box, as a better way to distinguish the postscript from the archived discussion. I thought to simply suggest it, but decided it is easier to make the edit to show what I mean. In some cases, such as DRV archived discussions that are not on their own pages, is it more difficult to get the format right. What do you think? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard,
I've located the article you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You can find a link to the article on that page. GabrielF ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
at both ANI and my talk page. I have provided my reasoning. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
When there has been over a day of discussion and unanimous consensus to ban, I don't think it's okay to close a discussion as "no formal ban". A closing admin should execute the consensus. Your closure was in good faith, though I took issue with it because it ignored the community's clear agreement to enact a formal ban on the sockpuppeteer. Cunard ( talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the ANI discussion on the Timeshift issue! I was going to start one myself today, as it seemed foolish to start the discussion immediately before going away for a few days, but was pleased to see that you'd saved me the trouble. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cunard. I've been reading these and other discussions relating to userpages that contain material that might be called bloggy. Before I look closely at User:Timeshift, a case that I think is difficult because it has moved closer to the boundary, I would really like to read your assessment of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I see at WP:AN that you have placed a "future timestamp to prevent archiving" in what is currently the first discussion. Last week I learned of a silent way to do this. See DoNotArchiveUntil for the subst tag to place, and use it to set a number of days. It places a comment tag that archive bots recognize as a dated timestamp without placing anything in the discussion itself for the time you use the tag. I've used this in a couple of places myself, and removed it when those discussions at AN/I have closed. =)
Your call whether to use this or not, but I like it because it doesn't look like part of the discussion then. CycloneGU ( talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors who resolve requests frequently want to remove the "future timestamp" from the discussions so that archiving can proceed. If I were to use DoNotArchiveUntil, they would have to search for why the discussion has not been archived. Best, Cunard ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you were involved in the previous discussion, I was wondering if you'd mind commenting on this discussion too. Cheers. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
For my future reference, the RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Cunard ( talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Cunard. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination) with a detailed rationale. Would a renomination in November 2011 be acceptable, in your opinion? Prior to this renomination, I will nominate Fraser Cain, the intended merge target, for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to Protonk ( talk · contribs)'s comment:
I strongly agree with Protonk ( talk · contribs)'s comment. The defense of an article based on how many times it's cited on Wikipedia is weak and not grounded in policy. It is rebutted in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Regarding your second example, an RfC would likely conclude that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If an article gave the subject the passing mention ("Foo won the prestigious X Web Award."), it would be presumed notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria #2:This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines. The source doesn't have to be "important" per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way. For a website example, Economic Principals. I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk ( talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If a source said that "Foo want the Nobel Peace Prize" or "Foo received the Pulitzer Prize", and there was no significant coverage, the topic would still be considered notable because of the prestige of those prizes.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
I can find no sources that give such prestige to Universe Today.
In other words, none of the sources say anything "significant".
SilkTork, please clarify what you mean by "significant" sources: Which sources did the AfD participants consider "significant"? Myself, I see neither "significant coverage" nor anything along the lines of "Universe Today is the most notable website in the world". Cunard ( talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not merely mechanically upholding the notability guideline. I believe that the verifiability policy and the no original research policy, both of which defend the integrity of this site, should be upheld. Cunard ( talk) 23:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel that DRV would find the closure of "no consensus" within your discretion as the closing admin. Was it the best close? I don't think so. Whereas the "delete" side effectively rebutted all the claims of "significant coverage" by the "keep" side, the "keep" side failed to find any coverage that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Second, false information (supported by misrepresentations of sources), trivia, and original research were inserted into the article. Just today, 98.164.98.44 ( talk · contribs) found factual errors in the article: Talk:Universe Today#Factual errors in article. The trivia and the false information comprise the majority of the article. Removing that information would leave a skeleton of an article, with information sourced only to Universe Today's website.
Thank you again for your explanations. Closing the AfD was difficult and any close would have been contested. Your closing rationale is eloquent and defensible. I cannot fault you for closing this debate as "no consensus", so will not—and have never considered—bringing this closure to DRV.
By the way, would you be able to help close RfCs? There is a severe backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
Thank you for sorting out Noddle (well, I hope you have sorted it out!). I am surprised about your comment at DRV [6] supporting the original WP:CSD#G11 (if I am understanding you properly). I would have no difficulty with such a deletion of an article but should not a userspace draft have more leeway? The WP:User pages guideline permits (even encourages) "Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes". I would have thought content such as this was well within what should be permissible whilst a draft is in active progress. The whole purpose of such drafts is to sort out such matters and to get help from others. As it turned out the speedy was controversial (with the exception of yourself all non-administrators recommended overturn, I think in good faith) but maybe the deleting admin could not have anticipated that. Lack of any communication (that I could find) was also a problem though not one for DRV. Are our policies right for userspace drafts? Thincat ( talk) 10:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the version deleted by DragonflySixtyseven ( talk · contribs) failed to pass G11 and should not have been speedy deleted. Cunard ( talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Regarding the speedy deletion, I don't believe that this version that was deleted passed {{ db-spam}}.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in attempting to get additional comments. Its closed now. If they are notable they will float to the surface again anyways, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13 I said I only came here because an IP posted to my talk page. which is incorrect. I now realise that it was you rather than an IP who posted that. Entirely my mistake. I'm apologising here rather than there, because the review was closed by the time I realised my mistake. Sorry. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I was enjoying our debate and open discussion regarding the removal of the Common Dead article, unfortunately, the debate was preemptively shut down by the same self-entitled Wikipedian named "Sandstein", who also closed the DRV page on the subject too soon. I scolded him on his talkpage if you're interested. Is there a way to reopen the discussion in AfD so that a legitimate amount of participants can discuss the matter? I would also like to bring to light Sandstein's conduct in similar debates, as it is ridiculous and frenetic, to say the least. He brings flashbacks of numerous band pages I had to fight to defend; artists that went on to achieve even large label recognition but at the time were challenged, doubted, and deleted not by their lack of sources, but due to their obscurity in the eyes of disconnected Wikipedians. 66.131.199.156 ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Once we've revised the article, we can ask someone like TParis to review whether we've overcome the original reasons for deletion and put it back in the mainspace. On the basis of those sources, I suspect there's an article to be written here.— S Marshall T/ C 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cunard -- It appears the deletion review closed since I last checked the site and I was not able to respond to your confusion about the relationship between Kokondo karate and Jukido jujitsu. The two are separate arts, but they are taught together and the combined system is referred to as simply Kokondo. Jukido jujitsu is just as much Kokondo as Kokondo karate is. Please refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article: "The term "Kokondo" is used to refer to the two arts jointly."
The article on Jukido jujitsu, therefore, is describing one element of the Kokondo system. NJG302 ( talk) 07:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Crisco. I noticed that you created Brian Jamieson (director) today. Were you prompted to do so after seeing my creation of To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey and have you watched the documentary? Cunard ( talk) 06:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the documentary likely won't be shown at Indonesia. You can see a two-minute trailer of the documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkhagrR-2N4. Also, have you watched The World of Suzie Wong, Flower Drum Song, or any other movies Kwan starred in? Ms. Kwan's first two films were pure enjoyment. Cunard ( talk) 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I have added archiveurls to the citations in the article. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Linkrot - What to do? ( permanent link) for more information about preventing dead links. Cunard ( talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 27 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the documentary To Whom It May Concern (poster pictured) tells the story of Nancy Kwan, one of the first Asian leads in a Hollywood film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I don't fully understand your reasons declining Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced SystemCare and Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Vista Optimizer. I want to point out that some of your reasons are all wrong: 1) Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines states "But if you merge the edit history when you move, we might not believe you moved it.", so that means as long as it has just been moved to the article space, it still counts as "new" 2) A "citation needed" tag I don't see how it could be a problem, 3) New hooks were added very recently, and should be taken more time for more reviewers to read. - Porch corpter ( talk/ contribs) 07:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
My comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced SystemCare has been validated by your statement above. You are wrong about the other issues: DYK articles, which are showcased on the main page, should not have citation needed templates. I find it surprising that you see no problem with this. And hooks of unprepared articles should not be remaining on Template talk:Did you know for half a month. More reviewers should not have to waste their time reviewing and rejecting unprepared articles. Cunard ( talk) 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)According to history of the article, it was moved from userspace to mainspace on 5 July 2011. It was returned to userspace on 9 September 2011. In the same minute, it was moved back to mainspace.
The moves are deceptive, an attempt to game the system.
Glad to see you've kept working on the article and have brought it to FAC. I will try to weigh in with some comments by next week. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to your comments at the FAC. Cunard ( talk) 09:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |