User talk:Cunard/Archive 8

AfD

 * ~betacommand/reports/afd
 * ~betacommand/AFD.html
 * ~snottywong/afdadminstats.html
 * ~snottywong/afdstats.html

·page history·Books Ngram Viewer ·toolserver·
 * Ask to refresh Articles for deletion/Old by accessing http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi

Copyvio

 * Copyright Violation Detector
 * User:CorenSearchBot/manual

Miscellaneous

 * http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ – provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches
 * A Primer for newcomers
 * User:Fæ/help/photo and Contact OTRS
 * http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/

To renominate

 * Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination)

Have a nice day
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)
 * I have replied at Talk:Have a nice day. Please confine the discussion there. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never...
...congratulations on Middlesex (novel)--that is a fine piece of work. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks. My latest project is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, though I've become increasingly distracted by subsidiary topics such as Harry Neal Baum and Maud Gage Baum, L. Frank Baum's son and wife, respectively. With so much scholarly analysis about the novel, this is going to be a big project, much more challenging than Middlesex. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MFD
I have reverted my closure of the RM. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left you a message at User talk:Zzuuzz. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My bad, I didn't notice that I put it in the wrong line. Thanks for the fix. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Also, when you close MfDs as "keep" (or a result other than "delete"), the oldmfd tag should be placed on the talk page, which I did here for WikiProject The KLF. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENT
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 and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion be added to WP:CENT? Cunard (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle yes - they are appropriate topics. However, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion has been raised many times and people may be fed up. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion is more unusual, but may not have legs. no objection to listing both, however it may be worth waiting a day or two to see how they develop.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Because the result of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is clear, I have not listed it at WP:CENT. However, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion has received little participation so I have listed it there. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
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)
 * Long time no see, Ginsengbomb. Don't feel bad about have a nice day. It passed GA with minimal hassle and is still waiting for your magic. :) That's only if you have the time and inclination to copyedit it, of course. I think the article is still pretty far from FA quality due to its rough prose, organization, US-centric-ness, and excessive concentration on tangential details. But it'll get there someday. Per the GA reviewer's suggestion, I am also looking for more information about have a nice day in South American and South African sources, as well as other cultures such as the Philippines. Right now, I am working on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (see above) and plan to bother you in six months' time to copyedit it. If you commit and then vanish, I'll discipline you with ... with ... with something. I'll think of the punishment if ever such a time comes. 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 Think of Wikipe-tan! (an "unofficial mascot of 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)

Re: Incorrect reversion
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)
 * No worries. I love IPs too. ;) Cunard (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Cunard, looking more carefully to what I've done, it seems that I got in the way of some kind of teaching between someone and an IP, about an article in the make. I'm so very sorry, and even more since he looked already somewhat deluded with Wikipedia in his comment, and being reverted and warned as a vandal in the end... We never comment in articles in wiki-pt, and that misled me there, but I'll be more careful next time. Cheers, --Darwinius (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that was disenchanted with how Wikipedia was treating him. Perhaps you could leave him a personal note explaining your unintentional error? He has suffered much nonsense from members of AfC. I posted this message on 98.151.53.27's talk page in November 2010, encouraging him to continue contributing despite his perception of others as "power trip[ping" for repeatedly declining a valid article submission. Since then, I have kept a watch on his talk page and intervene whenever he suffers nonsense from them. By the way, editors at English Wikipedia, like those on the Portuguese one, comment on talk pages, not the articles. In this case, the article was originally at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joel M. Reed and was later moved to its current title. That is why, when looking at the earlier revisions, 98.151.53.27's comments appear at the top of the article. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7 and User talk:Cunard/Archive 7

Good morning sir. As per your kind suggestion I have asked the 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)
 * Good morning to you too. I hope this content dispute will be resolved after mediation. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot again sir. Spjayswal67 (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger Request
Cunard: Can you perform this merger please? [] 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)
 * Merged. Feel free to tweak and trim if necessary. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities
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. C T J F 8 3 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of YouTube personalities has been superseded by the current RfC. I closed the Johnson RfC because no substantive discussion had occurred for a week. All the comments after 25 February 2011, the day after the RfC started, were from involved editors who were either slinging insults or repeating their arguments. Having concurrent RfCs, one about a specific topic and one about a broader one that encompasses the specific topic, is a waste of time. Starting fresh with a discussion untainted by personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith was what I had in my mind when I closed the RfC early. Note that I wrote that the RfC's result is not binding because it could be (and is very likely to be) superseded by the new RfC. Please reverse your revert. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnson could come out from that RfC as notable enough for inclusion, which is a completely different result than the new RfC. While I won't argue this much, I ask for a 3rd opinion. If you revert my reopen, I'll drop it at that, but I feel it should remain open. C T J F 8 3  00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the RfC concludes that #3 is the optimal inclusion criterion, then Ray William Johnson can be restored to the list. If the RfC concludes that #4 is the optimal inclusion criteria, then Ray William Johnson will not be restored to the list. The old RfC is superseded by the new one. I've asked to provide a third opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asked for a third opinion. I actually just commented without seeing the RfC that RWJ might merit inclusion due to the small amount of media attention he has received. So I'm not the right person to resolve this. I would say a more general RfC is better than a narrow RfC on one person - especially RWJ who seems to be highly controversial for someone I've never heard of before today. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I too have never heard of RWJ and was not involved with this article before I noticed the discussion at User talk:SoWhy. I've asked to provide a third (or fourth) opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 7 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)
 * Cirt, I was uninvolved with the article prior to closing the RfC. I don't think initiating the new RfC makes me involved, as I have no strong position on which criteria should be adopted and have neither edited the article nor participated in any talk page discussions. Do you object to my closing the RfC because I am considered involved, or do you object for another reason? Cunard (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. If you were uninvolved, then no, that is completely fine. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've reclosed the RfC per your third opinion. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...He didn't say to close it, he said, "default to leaving both of them open". C T J F 8 3  01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be unclear, that was referring to pending going to WP:AN, but only IFF the original closer was previously "involved". -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, slightly unclear...ok, leave the first RfC open or closed? C T J F 8 3  01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt, are you saying the RfC should be closed 20 days early? C T J F 8 3  02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U
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)
 * has yet to post a response at the RfC. I will hold off on asking the participants to review the closing statement until Geo Swan has either posted a response or indicated that he will not post one, or until the RfC has been open for about 30 days without any indication from Geo Swan about what he will do. Geo Swan's response might affect the closing statement, so I believe we should give him the chance to respond before finalizing it. As a neutral observer, would you ask Geo Swan whether he plans to post a reply? Cunard (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Already did that on 3 March 2011 and 18 February 2011; it's his lack of responsiveness which has prompted my message here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left another message on Geo Swan's talk page, asking him whether he intends to post a reply or comment about the closing statement. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I've removed your post here for the reasons seen in the edit summary. As the RfC/U is tentatively delisted anyway (mainly for those private reasons rather than the stated 30 day time limit), this delayed summary shouldn't cause any issues. An arb has some awareness of the issues I'm referring to. Will need to discuss some of the details with both you and Fram off wiki at some point before enacting a final summary close because there will be a few amendments to it. When available, please let me know by email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, if you want to contact me off-wiki, you can use the "email this user". I don't use any other off-wiki means of contact (IRC, phone, whatever). Fram (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops.
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)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for your WikiProject work. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)
Would an admin userfy Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) to User:Cunard/Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)? See Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do it.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ As an aside, I have fond memories of this place as a kid, many years ago.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for userfying the article. I have never been to Santa's Village, though the reviews I've read about it are enticing. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article. Would you take a look, and copyedit/reorganize it if needed? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:52, 17 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)
 * You're welcome. It is a pleasure to work on improving a topic that is dear to a number of Wikipedians. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava 2
See also User talk:Cunard/Archive 7, User talk:Cunard/Archive 7, 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)
 * has become inactive. He last edited on 3 March, which is why he did not accept or decline the mediation offer. I have asked to advise you about what to do to resolve this dispute. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind advice. Regards: Spjayswal67 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages
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)
 * I will add categories for Aha! Effect. User:Psyc3330/Group3 greatly expands upon executive functions by discussing the dysfunctionality of executive functions. For User:Psyc3330/Group3, I propose to move it to Executive dysfunction as a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just did the last of them. Executive dysfunction will also need some categories. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for closing the MfD. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

An opinion on sources
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)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I've commented at the discussion with my analysis of the sources. When puffery is swaying a discussion, I tend to post longer comments than I typically do. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm having to deal with the same puffery at Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)‎, so that input was much appreciated.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hell, if you could look at the sources there too it would be great, the puffery theres getting pretty aggravating (don't let me influnce you though, if you disagree with me say so). And if I'm getting annoying please do tell me to stop bothering you.-Yaksar (let's chat) 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analysis at the AfD was spot on. That debate has now been closed, not by vote counting but by weighing of the quality of each side's argument. Exactly how an AfD should work. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your help!
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)
 * You're welcome. I've asked, who is a member of the Volunteer Response Team, to undelete the images if they have been granted adequate permission. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stifle's reply reveals that there is a 12 day backlog in verifying the images. If 12 days have passed since you sent the email to the Volunteer Response Team and the images haven't been verified, please contact me again. Cunard
 * Thanks again Cunard for all your help ... Cgomez007 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC) (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for contributions to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The descriptor SPA
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)
 * While it may be true that IPs and SPAs contribute most content, few of their contributions are compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I define "policy-compliant" contributions as those that are accompanied by reliable sources (WP:V), do not introduce original research (WP:OR) or copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO), and are neutrally written (WP:NPOV). My use of the term SPA has been accurate and serves to underscore the extent of '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)

AfD
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)
 * Thank you for the compliment. However, I think my creating an essay about it would be redundant to the content at the existing essay WP:SPA. I relied on #General test for much of my commentary above. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also read the AfD and commented on it as I remember the original article and re-evaluated this one. Hasteur (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mfd closes
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. BencherliteTalk 09:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I thought User:Doug/closemfd.js functioned like the AfD scripts. My apologies for bothering you in the middle of your closes. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't think I've got any of the AfD closing scripts in my locker, so I didn't realise that there might be a confusion. BencherliteTalk 10:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey
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)
 * 1) I've reviewed all the developments with respect to secret pages since I left. It's unbelievable how difficult it is to nail down a consensus on that issue. To come to a consensus at WT:UP, come to a consensus at WT:NOT, and then get flummoxed again at MfD... What a frustrating situation. For what it's worth, I'm one hundred percent okay with you quoting me as much as you like. Why secret pages should be deleted looks really good; excellent job.
 * 2) I think that the recent rash of MfDs for inactive WikiProjects is dismaying, to say the least. At least some of them seem to be rooted in an impulse to nominate for deletion just so there's something to nominate for deletion. I appreciate your efforts (going through old talk pages etc.) to show that deletion would be a mistake in many of these cases.
 * 3) Regarding this MfD, I see and must concede your point about WP:USERBIO. However, I personally do not interpret WP:UP in the same way. Having in one's userspace "a complete autobiography on his user page, a public love letter for his wife on another page, his collection of autographs in some other and a list of aggrandizements" certainly may be excessive, or a sign of egotism. But is it self-promotion in the Wikipedia sense? I don't think so. If Tony was running for public office, then sure, maybe he's promoting himself for political purposes. But as far as I can tell, he has all this stuff in there simply because he likes it and he likes telling people about himself. So while WP:USERBIO applies, I don't think WP:UP does.
 * A pleasant surprise to see you return after ten months of absence. Your carefully considered comments at AfD, MfD, and DRV were missed. 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 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)
 * Ah, I was unaware of that background for the WikiProject MfDs. I agree that the argument for deletion presented there is understandable but does not outweigh the benefit of preserving history for all to see. I suppose I should have assumed good faith a bit more than I did, but some of those MfDs really pushed it (i.e. nominations like this one which did not cite real reasons for deletion and in fact provided some good reasons to keep the page). I think your interpretation of WP:UP 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 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)
 * Yes, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise was an ill-considered nomination. I've seen several more WikiProject MfD nominations just like that one. Don't worry too much about not assuming good faith enough. I had similar thoughts before I discussed with one of the nominators. 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
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)


 * Thank you for evaluating my contributions, but I will have to respectfully decline. I have been asked to step forward for RfA several times (User talk:Cunard/Archive 6), and I have declined to accept the nominations. The main reason for my wanting to remain a non-admin is at I don't want to be an administrator, a 2008 essay by that holds true to me today. Maud Gage Baum, which I created five days ago, took me several months to write and polish. If I had had the admin bit at the time, it would have taken me several more months to finish. I would have been distracted by the interminable admin tasks that, while necessary, are less oriented towards producing content for the readers. A secondary reason can be summed up in what I wrote in January 2010: "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."  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)
 * Hmm, can't argue with that. I should have figured the reason you weren't an admin yet is because you didn't wish to be one :) You're right of course.. I haven't had chance to properly write an article since February :( --Errant (chat!) 09:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww, that is sad not to have written an article since February. I must shoulder much of the blame though since I've been repeatedly pestering you about closing an assortment of RfCs. Perhaps you can find time to write an article when there are no backlogs, harmony reigns on Wikipedia, and RfCs become a thing of the past. ;) Cunard (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Alleging disruptive editing
I think you allegation that my edit was disruptive 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)
 * You seem to believe that it is acceptable to refactor another editor's comment to cast it in a negative light. It is highly inappropriate to do so. It seemed as if himself added the cn tag to his comment. I was initially fooled, but I thought better and checked the history to see if he really did. Your action is tantamount to another user's adding dubious or POV-statement to your comments. This is likely to annoy rather than resolve the situation. After I removed your pointy edit, you made a comment below TenPoundHammer's assertion disputing its accuracy. That is the proper way to engage in discourse. My language may have been overly strong, though I thought that after such a long time here, you were aware of talk page etiquette. Talk page guidelines says, "Do not misrepresent other people" (original bolding preserved in quote) through the inappropriate editing of their comments Cunard (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but no, I did not see myself as "refactoring" or "casting in a negative light". Instead, I see/saw the cn tag as highly focused (the opposite of TL;DR) and purposeful, with an obvious implication that it should be removed and replaced with a specific link or citation.  I have used it in discussions before, and quite productively to that end.  That someone (eg you) could believe the TPH put it in himself is something I had not expected and indeed an issue.  Although I learned long ago that discourse is much more efficient by being bluntly upfront, by not mincing words, it is never my intention ever to annoy, and also I do not consider TPH to be in any way delicate.  I assure you that I did not intend to misrepresent; but if misrepresentation can occur, then I should alter my behaviour.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The refactoring had me fooled for only a moment because I doubted TenPoundHammer would add cn to his comment. However, another user (e.g. the closing admin) who does not know TenPoundHammer that well could be led to believe he did indeed do that. TenPoundHammer's not delicate, though non-delicate people can be annoyed by misrepresentations of their comments. Thank you for pledging to alter your behavior to prevent this from happening again. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And chided deservedly, again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good faith message to Drmies. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Maud Gage Baum
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving threads to ANI
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 will keep the retimestamping in mind. The unilateral unblock is a specific incident/dispute, which is why I moved it to ANI. Would you explain why the thread should not have been moved? Cunard (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk
I've answered your question on my talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anne Aghion
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:
 * Sorry it took so long. I was trying to get someone to do a gut check on the image we wanted to restore and unfortunately never really got beyond "I'll take a look at it" and didn't want to come back at you with another 'sorry no info yet'.
 * I have undelete File:Anne_Aghion-_Photo.jpg with a note about the identity of the uploader in the restore comment and on the page. The info we have really just proves she is involved but I think that is enough to take the 'self made' tag at face value as source. If someone wants to argue it I'm happy to step into that fray.
 * I looked in on the ticket earlier about trying to ask Indiejilly for more info. She did respond to User:Blurpeace asking what other information she needed to provide but when given what we needed never responded back. It's been about 1.5 months so I will try to reach out again but we don't have anything new on that front yet.

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:
 * User talk:Jamesofur/Archives1 – March 2010
 * User talk:Cunard/Archive 5 – March 2010
 * User talk:Cunard/Archive 6 – April 2010
 * User talk:Jamesofur/Archives6 – August 2010
 * User talk:Jamesofur/Archives7 – September 2010
 * User talk:Jamesofur/Archives8 – October 2010
 * User talk:Jalexander – February 2011
 * User talk:Jalexander – March/April 2011

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. 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 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)
 * Aye, I completely understand why you would be frustrated. Whenever I saw a message I wanted to come back with information rather then leave you hanging but unfortunately was having difficulty getting it for one reason or another each time and would forget to come back when I got carried away by something else. The lack of response was not only not desired but unacceptable and I'm very sorry for that. I've emailed Indiejilly again to follow up about those specific images and any others she wants to release, hopefully we can get it resolved. James of UR (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I understand as I too have frequently forgotten things I've set out to do. I hope Indiejilly replies soon. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasilla High School
"→Academics: removed original research; "allowing students to receive college credit for automotive technology classes" is not verified by the provided reference"
 * I believe this information is verified by the given reference: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/ctc/programs/services/techprep/students.cfm
 * At the top of this page it states that "Students are able to earn college credit by completing approved coursework at the partner institution."
 * Then, it proceeds to list "The following schools have Tech Prep agreements in these programs of study". At the bottom of the page, it lists "Automotive Technology" under Wasilla High School.

"→Extracurricular activities: removed content sourced to links that fail to even mention Wasilla High School"
 * Why remove these extracurricular activities instead of just removing the links? The choice of which activities and links to keep seems random. All of the remaining links fail to mention Wasilla High School. The activities remaining are not the more notable activities, many of the larger, more important programs were removed.

"→Athletics: cleaned up – prose instead of list"
 * Why did you remove cheerleading? Why did you use the word "include" when you could have just added cheerleading and said "are"? - Since all the other sports offered are listed.

--Rhall28 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the first source, I skimmed the page and did not locate the information about the college credit. Thank you for providing the quote above, and my apologies for failing to notice it. I restored that content. 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)


 * My apologies for not making the activities citations clear enough.
 * Both Rose Urban Rural Exchange and Close up are listed in the source Wasilla High School Activities Directory: http://www.matsuk12.us/whs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=50
 * My purpose for citing the websites http://www.closeup.org/ and http://www.roseurbanruralexchange.org/index.php/sister-school-exchange/about was to provide references for my summary sentences about these activities. I thought this would be beneficial because it is not apparent what these activities do from their names alone.
 * What about the other activities? - They are also listed on the Wasilla High School Activities Directory.
 * Band, Choir, & Drumline; Drama, Debate, & Forensics; Business Professionals of America; Car Club; International Culture Club; Japanese Honors Society; Science Olympiad; SkillsUSA; Thespian Society; Yearbook

--Rhall28 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved this discussion to Talk:Wasilla High School to confine discussion about the article to one place. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another DRV-related Question
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)
 * This is a good closure since the nominator had withdrawn and there was a unanimous "endorse" from the participants. However, if there had been calls for "overturn", I'd recommend that you not close the DRV. 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)
 * Yeah, I was allowing for that header removal to be done in a separate edit. I started and didn't save the edit. *LOL*  CycloneGU (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also started participating in some AfDs now to see how good my personal judgment is of whether something should stay or go. While it's virtually impossible to get involved in every single one for obvious reasons (way too many of them), I am making a point to get involved in ones I have a clear feeling about or can otherwise offer constructive input, or even just follow the discussion in rare cases.  Is it wrong to enjoy the AfD process when your article is not involved? =)  CycloneGU (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Participating in AfDs can be intellectually stimulating. So enjoyment is not wrong or unheard of as long as you avoid something like Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination) and the subsequent Deletion review/Log/2010 May 31. Repeated bad faith accusations, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, real life harassment, and two bans. That AfD/DRV had it all. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Curious about this IP user
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)
 * I've asked, an experienced checkuser clerk, to review the the AfD and the IP's edit. Since checkuser data does not go back that far (link), a checkuser on the IP will likely return no substantive results. Because the IP has self-admitted to being a sockpuppet, perhaps it can be blocked? What do you think, Timotheus? Cunard (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkuser here is entirely useless. There's nothing to compare the IP to. As far as I can tell, "The real Barbara Schwarz" has no edits viewable by an administrator (presumably the edits that led to the block/ban had been oversighted using the pre-RevDel method, which is invisible to anyone else). But judging from the deleted content at Barbara Schwarz, it seems to be a Scientology-related incident; the sole edit SAINT made was in the same topic, but without seeing more (all I have is a single edit, not much to work with), it is not clear to me why SAINT was tagged as a sockpuppet of the blocked account. (There's some concern that SAINT may be a sockpuppet of User:AI, but again, I don't think there's enough data to make a definitive connection.) Anyway, since so far the edit from this IP is unrelated to Scientology, I don't think it's a wise use of time or resources to try to reach a definitive conclusion whether this is an editor banned five years ago. If the IP continues to edit disruptively, we can block it then; if not, a block wouldn't really prevent any disruption. T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your astute review of the situation. Since Articles for deletion/Ops gear has been closed as "speedy delete", I agree that a block of the IP is unnecessary unless the IP continues editing disruptively. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement. It could have just been a chance that he put that username there, maybe even meant to put another letter or something, who knows?  I haven't seen the IP since, and the user I don't think has been active, so I think this is the right course of action for now.  Thank you both!  CycloneGU (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK review of At World's Edge
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)
 * Reviewed. Neglecting to notify you was indeed an oversight on my part. My apologies. Cunard (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. J04n(talk page) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27
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)


 * I posted a request at Administrators' noticeboard. Because I'm not an admin, I can't close the DRV or speedy delete the page. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, my bad. You come across like an admin. and I thought you were one! =)


 * In any case, Lifebaka went ahead and closed the review; the userpage was deleted before that. Thanks. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that everything has been resolved. 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)


 * It is easy to be mistaken for an admin. Many admins do not wear recognised symbols (no statement or categorisation on their userpage, and many have redirected userpages).  By acting in project space like you know what you are doing, and not screaming admin abuse, you look like an admin to some.  I do suggest to you that it would only be helpful if you put something on your userpage.  The downside is that your characteristic redlink signatures will turn blue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Characteristic? In that case, just colour your name . =D  CycloneGU (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to SmokeyJoe: Yes, but how many red-linked admins have you encountered? is the only active one. 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  at User talk:Cunard/Archive 7. 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)

Speedy deletion declined:
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)
 * was blocked on 5 October 2008 by as a sockpuppet of  who was banned on 3 April 2007. These pages were created after that date. Please explain why db-banned does not apply to these pages. Cunard (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know what dates I saw, but it wasn't those. Gone now. Ged  UK  19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for deleting the pages. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, sorry for the error! Ged  UK  11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc.
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Franavar
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)
 * No, it was not your mistake. removed the mfd template here. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that now. Thanks for pointing that out.  :)     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 04:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

by the way...
Thanks, your kind words at DRV did not go unnoticed. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Many admins would have responded differently but you were cool and collected, unflinching and firm in your measured responses to the disgruntled user. Perfect qualities for an admin and anyone in a position of power. Cunard (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bondage hood
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)
 * I found two AfDs, Articles for deletion/Bondage hood and Articles for deletion/Bondage hood (2nd nomination), and am unconvinced by either one. In neither are any reliable sources brought up--the first one mentions examples in fiction, and the second proposes "lots of mentions" in Google News and "Current source is sufficient" (note the publisher). I am beginning to think that a third AfD may be in the works--none of the arguments in either of the AfDs are convincing. Or a redirect to Hood (headgear)? Or Hood (fetish clothing)? (Maybe the term "hood" is more notable than "bondage hood", though a quick Google search doesn't help me make that argument yet.) I'd love to know what you think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reported him for violating the 3RR and will assess the notability later. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find sources for bondage hood. I agree that a third AfD per Verifiability is warranted if sources cannot be found. However, a redirect to Hood (headgear) or Bondage (sexual) may be better since this is a valid search term. I have implemented the redirect to Bondage (sexual). If the redirect is undone, we can discuss with those who disagree on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi SilkTork. I've noticed your frequent patrolling of Template:Cent and your occasional closures of the RfCs listed there. Per a request at Administrators' noticeboard, would you consider closing Village pump (policy) 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)
 * Closed.  SilkTork  *Tea time 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing and summarizing the debate! I've changed the formatting of the close so that your summary and the discussion are more visible. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jonathan Stephen
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)
 * is a site that focuses on NGO activities, political and social events, culture, etc. It is not a "dedicated news website" of sorts (like CNN, BBC, etc), and is potentially partisan. The site has other articles such as "Walk the way of the Lord mission", "Group punishment is constitutional in relation to homosexual acts", "A Council of the devil is a necessary evil", "There is no glory without the cross", "The Glory of God to determine legal contentions", "Gay movies: Should our youth be watching these?", "The Holy Spirit is dissatisfied with provincial leaders", which also suggest partisanship. Some of the articles somewhat resemble evangelism. I could not find an organization mission statement on the site though.
 * is a Christian news site, and thus is potentially partisan. (Partisan sites are generally not considered WP:RS, unless the topic is about the partsan side themselves; e.g. you can cite the Amnesty International website to write about Amnesty International organization, however you cannot cite them to reference the number of abortions done in Ghana, as partisan sites are sometimes not neutral in their guesses and estimates) The site is managed by a Christian community organization. However, this website is not as "evangelical" as the first, and does report events in a matter-of-fact, normal way (e.g. "Church leaders meet with XYZ", "School built in XYZ")
 * is also a Christian news website. Not as evangelical as the first website, however does host some rather odd, fringe topics ("The boy's three minutes was his time amongst the celestials!").
 * Thank you for your very helpful review of the sources. None of these partisan sources seem reliable. I have copied your commentary to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Stephen to allow the closing admin to see your analysis. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing formatting on my closure. Much appreciated --Neutralitytalk 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem
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)
 * Ouch, stop hitting me! NO FAIR! You, a seasoned Wikipedia expert, are bullying a hapless neophyte who is lost in the labyrinth of Wikipedia pages. Though a mere red-linked noob, this user pledges to navigate through wiki to find a big bad administrator who will end all injustice and make you pay. 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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649 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 's being chased away. Anyways, you've shown the exact opposite behavior through your compassionate mentoring of . 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)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect at Don't create an account
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)
 * Thank you for your offer to host 's essay in your userspace. If you want the redirect deleted, feel free to tag it with db-u1. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-deprecation
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)
 * A big noob fail on your part. :) I've made the mistake of omitting the colons for categories several times but I've probably made the image mistake just once or twice. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George M. Hill Company
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean Gorter
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)
 * Feel free to include additional pages in my MfD nomination. I nominated only the most blatant violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTMYSPACE but am sure that more unencyclopedic pages can be included. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you.  Lord Vetinari  08:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Backyard Monsters
Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talkcontribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the event of consensus being to delete. -- The Σ talkcontribs 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the discussion about the reliability of the sources is ongoing, I ask that you let Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters run to completion. The community may disagree with my assessment of the sources. 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)
 * Another reference for your review. -- The Σ talkcontribs 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding that source. When I assess whether an award confers notability, I search for whether it has received secondary coverage. Has Backyard Monster's winning the award from Mochi received any secondary coverage—coverage independent from Backyard Monster's developer and Mochi Media? Cunard (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * this? -- The Σ talkcontribs 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Picaboum source links to a previous article by Picaboum which advertises online voting for the contest finalists. This calls into question Picaboum's affiliation with Mochi and whether it qualifies as a secondary source. 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)
 * I think you should add your assessment of the source to the AfD. -- The Σ talkcontribs 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Vargas at the BLPN
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)
 * Replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 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)
 * I replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you added it to your watchlist because you had an interest and your first contribution is to start a thirty day talkpage process over a hair splitting irrelevance, great. Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:ColonelS
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 page meets the criteria at Attack page: Its sole purpose is to disparage . That it is five years old is not, in my opinion, a reason to exempt it from speedy deletion per db-attack. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles.
The discussion has been moved following  a period of stagnation of around 30 days, and restarted at 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)
 * Thank you, Kudpung. I have added the discussion to Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. By the time I had found out  how to  do it  you  had beaten me to  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little ironic that WMF is making content creation more restricted while Outreach is still going on. -- The Σ talkcontribs 02:59, 12 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)


 * The discussion is still listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Try this link to purge WP:Cent. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: RFB Questions
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! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who thought becoming a bureaucrat would be that difficult and painful. ;) Thank you for the copious amounts of reading you did! I have cast my vote. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Format/placement of XfD postscripts
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)
 * You're quick. That looks very good.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the formatting change. I agree with your moving my postscript comment outside the archive box to distinguish it from the archived discussion. I've made changes to the formatting, using the Notice tag and also enclosing the comment with tags so that my comment will not break transclusions on the older revisions of Miscellany for deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Cunard,

I've located the article you requested at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You can find a link to the article on that page. GabrielF (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gabriel, for this source. Cunard (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied
at both ANI and my talk page. I have provided my reasoning. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the ban was proposed by an editor and endorsed by many others who were well aware that it was a CU block. Per 's comment here, formalizing a ban can be beneficial so that editors need not worry about violating 3RR when reverting this user. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets is almost always considered to be the work of a singular person. By using it (in addition to disruptive editing) while blocked, block evasion could be grounds for reversions, as well. Most people never reverse a CU block regarding sockpuppeteer, anyway. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but while your point is valid, a CU block is not a regular block (it's almost as powerful as a de facto ban due to the unlikeliness of it being reversed) and therefore I still consider community ban requests on sockpuppeteers who have been CU blocked as moot. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that a CU block is like a de facto ban. However, I disagree that a formal ban is unnecessary per Night Ranger's comment I linked to above. 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)

Talkback
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion
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)
 * You're welcome. After the untoward nastiness directed to you, I decided to step in to hopefully resolve the user page issue. It's unfortunate that uninvolved admins and users did not deal with the page, either through deletion per db-repost or an MfD nomination. I recommend that neither of us initiate an MfD to ensure that discussion can be focused more on policies and less on editor conduct. That probably goes for as well since his speedy deletion of User:Surturz/AdminWatch is being discussed at Deletion review/Log/2011 August 3. I think the best user to initiate an MfD would be, who supports an MfD and has so far had minimal involvement. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't blame other admins for not wanting to get involved, haha. This issue has escalated much further than I had predicted it would. However, like I said at the ANI discussion, I'm not sure MfD is the best avenue to take. We need to figure out an agreement with Timeshift to lay down some guidelines on the user page. Otherwise, I feel xe will continue recreating the page trial-by-error style either until xe creates a version that's acceptable enough, the community takes action after being frustrated by multiple MfDs, or Timeshift burns out. Neither of these is particularly desirable; a better option would be to preemptively come to an agreement. However, if it does go to MfD, I agree that the MfD needs to be about the page itself and not about whether or not I was harassing Timeshift or whether or not Timeshift is being WP:POINTy. I am definitely not going to nominate it for MfD myself; I agree with a few people involved that it would probably be best to step back and let another user take the reins on that. I also agree that The_Ed17 shouldn't create it, partially because of the drama with the deletion and also because he and I are quite close friends. You could probably get away with creating it, but if another user is willing to do so, that would work as well. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that an MfD is undesirable, though likely necessary owing to the inaction at ANI. I do not have the time right now to pursue this matter further so will leave it in the capable hands of yourself and others who have become aware of this issue via ANI. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another userpage accused of being too bloggy
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)
 * Because User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911 has little to do with content building on Wikipedia, it violates WP:NOTBLOG. Perhaps a sentence or two describing Cs32en's biases or opinions about 911 would be acceptable. However, several paragraphs are too much. The content belongs on an off-wiki blog to which Cs32en can link on his user page. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
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)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, though I believe my "future timestamp to prevent archiving" is more transparent and more visible. This will draw the attention of passing admins who know that the section has yet to be resolved. It will also allow users easily to remove the future timestamp when the section has been resolved, without needing to search for why the section has not been archived. There may be places to use it though so I will keep it in mind. Cunard (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has its places. I know I saw a poll that disappeared from AN/I and restored it before adding the tag...and a day later, it closed, so I cleared the tag.  I think it's something to use if you plan to maintain a section yourself, or for something on your talk page or such.  With that said, I always plant it right under the header; when the edit box for the section comes up, it's right there at the top and easy to remove.  Check AN/I archive 712 or 713, one or two threads that were affected went into there somewhere that the history shows me dragging back in response to requests (they were polls expected to take a few days).


 * But yes, I in fact instead placed a new post to draw administrator attention to the MakeSense64 thread at AN (it didn't work, I PMed an uninvolved admin. who closed it some hours later), and I had my reason for that, too; it needed to be closed and I knew if closed within 48 hours a tag wouldn't be needed. So it's good for some ongoing threads, but not so much for others.  If I use it, I stand by to remove it, so it's never an issue for me. =)  Meanwhile, I found a thread not archiving the other day and noticed a postdated sig.; it archived after I fixed it, of course.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise several good points though I prefer transparency with the "future timestamp" to the less visible User:DoNotArchiveUntil. A lack of transparency frequency leads to criticism and accusations of duplicity. 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)

Crat bar
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)
 * I've replied at User talk:SoWhy. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cunard. We've just moved the discussion about the bureaucrat threshold over to User talk:Hydroxonium/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Since you are one of our most experienced editors, I wanted to invite you to comment there. Thanks again for your input. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 07:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC is well organized. Thank you for starting it. For my future reference, the RfC is at Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, Cunard
See Administrators' noticeboard. nymets2000 ( t / c / l ) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination)
Thank you for closing 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)


 * I think that would be within policy, though I wouldn't be in favour of doing it. There is an argument that the matter of the notability of the article is not yet satisfactorily settled; though there is also the sense that the article is genuinely on the borderline of our inclusion criteria, and in those cases we tend to default to keep. Unless there is a significant change in our inclusion criteria, renominating at a random date in the future is no different from renominating now, and gives the feel of treating AfD as a lottery.
 * There were times during my assessment of the AfD when I was close to deleting the article because of a mix of the low quality mentions, and the low quality of the article itself. It seemed hardly worth keeping as it doesn't tell us much. And your arguments were certainly pertinent, and in line with policy and my own views on notability. However, the counter-arguments that while the mentions within independent reliable sources were few and short, they were significant, and that - combined with over 250 examples of the website being used as a reliable source on Wikipedia - is quite compelling. I was at some points close to closing as keep based on that, but felt that such a close could then be used as an example in favour of keeping some closely contested articles based on Wikipedia cites and/or strong statements within sources, and we don't actually have a consensus on that.
 * What I would be very much in favour of, would be a general discussion to establish if a) significant use within Wikipedia as a reliable source can in any way be taken account of when considering notability (personally I think not formally, though it may be a factor to take into account); and b) clarity on "significant" coverage - if a source has only one sentence, but the sentence says "this is the most notable Foo in the world", is that significant?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26 in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to 's comment: "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)" I strongly agree with '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 Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 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 Notability (web) #2: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." 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. 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 greatly admire your work at MfD (and am sorry I rarely have the stomach or time to help there), and I understand that a certain doggedness is required to combat misuse of Wikipedia as a personal website. But isn't it desirable to focus on issues which are actually causing a problem? Yes, if you repeatedly argue for the deletion of Universe Today it will probably be deleted eventually—but what is the actual benefit to Wikipedia? As you know, the policies which you mention above are not intended to be followed in a mechanical manner. I have monitored the page in question due to its interest for a long term abuser, but have no particular knowledge on the topic. However, I have seen enough to know that the website really is valued by the small number of people interested in astronomical affairs, that is, it's not just yet another website run by yet another enthusiast. Does policy purity really justify pursuing a borderline article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Universe Today is not a borderline article, in my opinion. No reliable sources nontrivially cover the website. In May 2006, the closing admin at Articles for deletion/Universe Today wrote: "...this comes very close to a consensus to delete..." Over five years later, the article excessively relies on unreliable, non-neutral, and primary sources, and there are egregious misrepresentations of the sources. This bombardment of the article is unhealthy. Because there is little useful content in the sources, assertions are fabricated and falsely reinforced by the sources. I am reminded of Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), where there were also numerous misrepresentations of sources and numerous individuals who were fans of the website but could not produce reliable sources about it. They were able to, by their sheer numbers, derail several AfDs:
 * Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim
 * Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Bullshido (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)
 * People who game the system by providing numerous faulty sources should not be rewarded by a passive acceptance of the policy-violating articles. 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)
 * Removing promotional fluff (the two examples above) is in no way comparable to deleting an article about a minor website that is known to be of interest to a small group of people with a serious interest in a scientific topic (astronomy). The website really is the number one of its kind, it's just that no media outlet is going to write about the topic as it is does not involve fluff, fandom, or commercial interest—there is a better chance of finding a knock out source for a garage band. Contemplating that leads to two paths: (1) the article doesn't fit the policy as written so the article must be deleted; or (2) puzzlement concerning whether pursuing the policy as written is always in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the promotional and trivia fluff would leave content sourced to the Universe Today's website. Each website and its devotees consider it to be the "number one of its kind". Unless reliable sources with no affiliation to the website say this, I do not consider such an opinion to establish notability. I appreciate your argument but am not swayed by the logical fallacy of appeal to pity. I will be swayed to support retention by the presentation of at least two third-party reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage about Universe Today. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this on The Planetary Society website to be more than a trivial mention. The page is a blog, though comes under WP:NEWSBLOG, and the writer says she is "working for the Planetary Society", and is quoted in other reliable sources in the context of someone who works for the Planetary Society. That quote, and some others, were mentioned in the AfD, and I felt they did carry some weight. Not quite enough to declare for keep, as the column itself is not about Universe Today, and it is a passing mention on a source which is only just reliable. But it was a factor.


 * Thanks for the links on Wikipedia mentions. As I said, it's not something I would formally support as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; though, as we mention on WP:BEFORE, things like incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, etc, are a factor to consider in an overall assessment of notability. And I think you are probably right that a RfC on "significant" comments would probably end up with a vague conclusion. That's fine - I think that bright lines, while helpful in making decisions, can stifle development of Wikipedia, and the fewer bright lines we have the better.


 * As I say above, I don't think there's anything against you calling another AfD - it's just not something that I could personally support, and I don't see the rationale of waiting until November. I wouldn't oppose, but neither would I support. If you feel the close was not right, then perhaps take the matter to WP:DRV?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that quote comes close to saying that "this is the most notable Foo in the world". That a The Planetary Society writer tangentially mentioned it twice does not establish notability. Her statement contributes not to the notability of Universe Today, but to vouching for its reliability (Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26). 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, found factual errors in the article: Talk:Universe Today. 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 Administrators' noticeboard:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * If you don't have the time or inclination to close any of these RfCs, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Noddle
Thank you for sorting out Noddle (well, I hope you have sorted it out!). I am surprised about your comment at DRV supporting the original WP:CSD (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)
 * I think you've misread my comment. At the DRV I wrote: "Regarding the speedy deletion, I don't believe that this version that was deleted passed db-spam." In other words, the version deleted by failed to pass G11 and should not have been speedy deleted. Cunard (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did misunderstand, then. my apologies. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead
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)

Apologies
On 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)
 * An innocent error, so don't worry about it. Thank you for explaining your error here. Cunard (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Debate preemptively shut down. Ridiculous. – Common Dead and Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13
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)
 * Although the debate was ongoing, the DRV had lasted for over seven days, so Sandstein was within his remit to close it. I don't see a consensus to relist the AfD based on the comments there. You will get further with if you do not accuse him of bias and malice and ask him to reconsider his close. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, you attract more bees with honey. Truth is, I don't even care if the article really goes back to being visible. It's no loss to me, however, I was angry merely over principal. The conduct regarding this article was just so inconsiderate and hap-dash, let alone misinformed, from the beginning of the AfD, that it was a poor reflection of Wikipedia and a reminder of why I quit as a registered user so long ago. Has everyone really gotten that jaded? 66.131.199.156 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I cannot fault Sandstein for closing the debate since it was overdue, I agree with you that the DRV close cut into ongoing discussion that had begun only two days before. I have asked DRV regular to take a look at the AfD and the DRV. Cunard (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi both, and thank you for consulting me. After looking into this, I agree that there is a good case for further discussion about this.  Cunard will have heard me say before that I think deletion review should provide FairProcess to good faith users on request, and I don't feel the debate attracted enough attention for the relatively thorough investigation those sources merited.  However, Sandstein was well within his rights to close that debate in that way, since the allotted time was up.  I suggest that we ask Sandstein to place a copy of the deleted article into the Article Incubator so that we can work on it (and I say "we" because I will help).  I'm sure Sandstein will comply with that request, he's a reasonable and approachable man. 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)
 * Thank you for your reply. I agree with your points that the review did not provide FairProcess. I've asked Sandstein to incubate the article to Article Incubator/Common Dead, so we can work on the article. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Kokondo deletion – Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10
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)


 * Would you provide a reliable source to verify that "Kokondo Karate and Jukido jujitsu are separate arts but are taught together, and the combined system is referred to as simply Kokondo" (paraphrase of your above comment)? Cunard (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I think those most reliable source is the official website for the Kokondo system. Here's the link:
 * http://kokondo.org/index.html
 * Please note the second paragraph on the main page: "International Kokondo Association, consists of Jukido Jujitsu and Kokondo Karate." There are links at the top of the page to a more detailed discussion on Jukido Jujitsu ("Jukido") and Kokondo Karate ("Karate"). NJG302 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can reframe the article to discuss International Kokondo Association and include sections for Jukido Jujitsu and Kokondo Karate? Cunard (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take a crack at improving the article and putting it back up for discussion. I am a novice at Wikipedia, however. Is there a way for me to still edit the article now that is has been removed? NJG302 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * userfied the article to User:NJG302/Kokondō so you may work on it. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Brian Jamieson (director)
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)


 * Guilty of the first count (although I was more inspired by the fact that you had managed to acquire a picture of him), but I've yet to see the documentary. Sadly, documentaries are not a priority on the list of films to be imported to Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I acquired a photo of Brian Jamieson and other photos related to To Whom It Concerns as I am currently in contact with him. I've asked him to review the article about him and provide suggestions. I've also asked him if he could provide more photos of himself for the article. 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)
 * I could probably find some copies of those to rent, yes. I'll take a look. Regarding the article, it would be nice if there were some more background information published about him (place of birth, for example) as it is rather jolting to see that information missing from an article. I must say, Mr. Jamieson seems to be a stand-up guy to be willing to work with us. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do some research for Brian Jamieson (director) while I rewrite Nancy Kwan. Yes, Mr. Jamieson has been very cordial and patient in his correspondence with me. This article (WebCite link) from the Times Colonist has more information about Mr. Jamieson. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've got to go teach now but I'll try and work it in later if you haven't beaten me to the punch Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some information from the source. I think more can be pulled from it so feel free to take a look. Also, IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source, so I recommend finding a replacement. By the way, I have added archiveurls to the citations in the article. See Village pump (idea lab) (permanent link) for more information about preventing dead links. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember seeing that the disclaimer was for biographical information only. Forget where. I've started adding a bit more. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey and have an alt to suggest. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the nomination. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey
Orlady (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejecting the DYKs
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) 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)
 * I just want to add that I am more curious about you declining Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Vista Optimizer. And it looks like I must re-open it. No concerns were mentioned there for such a quick close. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote: "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." 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)

Middlesex (novel) at Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1
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)
 * Hi Hunter! It's taken me a while to obtain and read the numerous journal articles about the novel. But they were worth it: They significantly enhanced the "Style" and "Themes" sections of Middlesex. I look forward to your comments at the FAC. Cunard (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)