User talk:Cunard/Archive 9

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/
 * User:Giraffedata/comprised of
 * User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation
 * User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
 * Template messages/Sources of articles
 * Did you know/DYKcheck: javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck;

Emiliana nomination at DYK
I missed 's note that I missed the referencing in the description section and have now added them as I should have. Would you consider reopening the nom? Thanks! -- Kev min  § 15:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sourcing the unreferenced paragraph. I've reopened the nomination per your request. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage
If you want, I believe you can have your userpage unprotected for you. Depending on exactly why it was protected however, it might not be. Just something I wanted to let you know of. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, but I do not want a user page. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Dewi Persik
Hi Crisco 1492. You closed Template:Did you know nominations/Dewi Persik, your own nomination, and moved it to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 with several other hooks. I ask you not to move your own hooks to the prep areas because of the inherent conflict of interest in doing so. I noticed that you placed your hook second on the list. While you moved the hooks to prep four in the order in which you closed the DYK nominations discussions, placing your hook second could give the impression that you are placing your own hook in the second most visible position. Please let another user move your hooks to the DYK prep in the future. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cunard, and thanks for the note. In the middle of the DYK fiasco a couple months ago, I did avoid promoting my hooks. However, as I was the only one actually building preps for about four days, my hooks kept piling up (five, if I remember correctly). At the time, another editor (I forget who) suggested that I not be afraid to promote my own hooks, so long as I did not do it out of order. I agree that it is preferable to avoid promoting ones hooks too much, but if they are promoted in order and other editors seem to be ignoring the preps it should be alright. As a side note, the second most visible position is actually the last hook (the second hook is quite often cramped because of the image), which is why the last place is suggested to be saved for something that is truly unique; to address your concerns, I have switched the Nunn and Persik hooks, putting Persik in the middle and Nunn second. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your explanation justifies your promoting your own hook. Because there are few people moving hooks to the prep area at DYK, I suppose it is okay for you to promote your own hooks. (I myself do not move hooks because I do not have the time to read all the articles moved the the prep area, and I do not feel comfortable promoting to the main page articles I have not read.) In the future, I recommend that you let 48 hours pass from the hook's being approved before moving it to the prep area. Hopefully an editor will, within that timeframe, move the hook to the queue in that time. If there is no action in two days, then there is clearly a backlog, and it would be appropriate for you to move the hook. Thank you for your hard work at DYK. You and Orlady seem to be the only editors actively reviewing the hooks at this time. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant
Spartaz Humbug! 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spartaz, for following the discussion. I hope your stern warning will put an end to Alpha Quadrant's bad attitude: his unwillingness to discuss his actions, to reverse himself when he has violated policy, and to acknowledge his errors. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Spartaz. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did acknowledge my errors with the closure Kww overturned, as well as the four relistings by S Marshal. Then you came back the next day trying to tell me that making early closures was against policy. There is no policy forbidding early closures. No matter how much you want there to be, doesn't matter. Until there is such a policy, your arguments don't hold any weight. And, "bad attitude and unwillingness to discuss my actions" is unfounded. I have been more than willing to discuss the issue and explain to you, your misunderstanding of the early closure policy. I haven't been uncivil, I haven't made threats. Accusing me without evidence is considered a personal attack. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First accusations of harassment and now accusations of personal attacks. It is clear that further discussion with you will be fruitless owing to your intransigent attitude. Spartaz wrote: "accusing editors raising reasonable concerns of harassment and stalking has a chilling effect and is effectively casting unfounded aspersions". Your unfounded aspersions have been chilling. I wish you the best of luck in your editing endeavors. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't forget the canvassing (call it what you like, that doesn't change the fact). If you weren't harassing me, then why aren't you going after every single editor that makes an early closure? As Hammersoft pointed out, many of the discussions are closed early, days before the 7 day period. Your quarrel isn't with me, it's with the current closure policy. You can't change policy through harassing editors that disagree with you. If you have a problem with policy, you start a discussion on the policy talk page. You don't go around unilaterally demanding we change. And the accusations you made above are unfounded. You have presented no evidence of my alleged "bad behavior" and "unwillingness to discuss the issues" which is a personal attack. A personal attack is defined as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

You don't have any evidence to back up the above claims. You, on the other hand have violated our harassment policy. (From WP:HA) Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Harassment  (1) Bringing up an argument that early closures should never be done. Despite the fact that I am not the only one doing them. (2) Badgering me until I replied to your message, and threatening to overturn my relist if I didn't do it soon enough. You were really that upset about a 40 minute period?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Threats/Intimidation Threatening to open a RFC/U without significant reason to, as stated by the other users involved.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention   Continuing the discussion after I had explained how policy supported my actions in an attempt to change my opinion.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Personal attacks  Accusing me of refusing to discuss the issue and having a bad behavior. Without evidence supporting your claims.
 * I will say that I have never seen someone get so riled up over a relist. A relist doesn't reset the AfD clock, uninvolved users can still close them before another 7 days passes. And I know, you are going to reply saying the above wasn't your intent, that you were just trying to "warn" me about a supposed flaw in my policy knowledge. After where you note that your actions had an "unsuprising result", suggests you knew exactly what the outcome of your actions would be, well, until Hammersoft intervened. Had I not edit conflicted with him while blanking my talk page, I would have been gone for good. I am glad he talked some sense into me. I know how to handle this next time someone brings something like this up.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that your five-hour long retirement and unretirement was an "unsurprising result", I referred to 's comment. Charitably put, the retirement does not place you in a good light. I derived little enjoyment from researching and explaining myself at length. I was under the mistaken impression that you would listen and reply reasonably. I imagined a productive discourse like those I had with King of Hearts, Cirt, and Salvio giuliano regarding their early closures and that I had with The Bushranger regarding his relists. Instead, I was confronted by accusations of harassment and personal attacks, and you now state that my explanatory comments are "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention". I no longer believe you intended to have a good faith, open-minded discussion with me. A good faith user would not obstruct dialogue by casting aspersions. Damaging, chilling, stifling aspersions. That you are continuing this discussion with further chilling comments about harassment and personal attacks after I have disengaged speaks volumes. Cunard (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your last three comments you made on my talk were based on personal opinions, not policy (See AFD #1). Discussions ≠ policy, I think you would agree on that. Discussions with strong consensus make policy. A few editors arguing against early closures is hardly strong consensus, it isn't even included in policy. It is quite interesting how you withdrew from the discussion when a strong counterargument was brought up. It's also interesting how you only denied one of the above accusations I brought up. Going with the "your slander deeply hurts me" attitude, offers insight in your character as well. If you think I had bad intentions in the discussion, that's your prerogative. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "strong counterargument" was one editor's opinion unilaterally added without discussion on 9 June 2011. It completely flies in the face of Deletion policy ("The discussion lasts at least seven full days"), which was written through an extensive discussion with 60 editors at Wikipedia talk:Articles_for deletion/Archive 52. The close unambiguously states the prevailing consensus that "All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion." Your suggestion that the policy allows for "early closures in the last sentence" was noted, but set aside because I was unable to find the sentence to which you referred. I have both addressed your groundless accusations about my actions and explained your misunderstanding about Deletion policy here and on your talk page. I see no need to repeatedly debunk falsities when they are repeatedly repeated. Please do not characterize my opinion with the word "slander", a charged term that could imply I have made a legal threat to sue for defamation. I have not. When terms like "harassment" and "threats/intimidation" are indiscriminately used, there is a chilling effect, an intimation that I am attempting to psychologically harm you. My inclination to avoid further debate on your talk page is analogous to my reaction if someone were to make a legal threat against me. Such a charged allegation would color and overshadow the focus of any discussion, rendering constructive and collegial dialogue hopeless. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * aspersion. No point arguing about the rest anymore. I have agreed to disagree. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "slander" is synonymous to "aspersion". However, "slander" is also a legal term. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, slander can refer to "the tort of oral defamation". It is best not to use such charged wording. I wish you the best. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Flatscan, this obfuscation by Alpha Quadrant sorely reeks of dishonesty. I thank you for attempting to engage in discussion with this inflexible user after S Marshall's and my attempts failed. I recommend you save your time and withdraw from further discussion, as it is clear this user will persist in his mistaken, dodgy ways. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Articles for deletion was revised by to direct users to  Deletion process after I asked him to review the page. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking Sandstein to take a look. If anyone is interested in pursuing the close timing issue further, I suggest an RfC. I'm partial to policy RfCs because they record a baseline that is more difficult to handwave away. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment here that none of us—S Marshall, Spartaz, you, and me—were able to communicate to Alpha Quadrant that the community has opposed early closures that do not fall under Deletion process. The close of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 52 clearly stated that XfDs must run the "full 7 days" unless one of the early closure criteria was met. The user's stubbornness to continue flaunting the discussion's consensus has an "I didn't hear that" tone. I don't know if an "early closures" RfC will end his repeated violations of policy but am willing to draft an "early closures" RfC with you. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel a driving need for that RfC. WP:Village pump (policy) was relevant, but it's been closed already. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you ever intend to draft an "early closures", feel free to contact me about it. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Cunard, I was under the impression that the early closure issue had been resolved. I apologize for any of my comments in the past discussion that you felt were bad faith. I would like for this to be resolved through civil conversation. Are there any specific issues that you have with the closures I made? If so, I would be more than willing to discuss it. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank you for asking me to review your AfD closures. I have taken a look at your AfD closes over the past few days. Regarding early closures: Deletion process states: "The 'snowball clause' exists to avoid process for the sake of process, and should not be invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely 'likely' or 'highly likely', or where there is genuine and reasoned disagreement." Do you stand by the position at User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Archiving of Early AfD closures that "Early closures are justified by Ignore all rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? I have reviewed your recent closures and agree with Articles for deletion/Triple Play series as an appropriate application of Speedy keep. Articles for deletion/Black hole cosmology, although it is "high likely" to be closed as keep, should not have been closed early. Although the nominator and one "delete" participant switched to "keep", there were two "delete" participants who had not commented after the rewrite. Had the AfD been allowed to run for the full seven days, they may have either switched to "keep" or reaffirmed their opinion to delete. Closing early denied them the chance to comment again. Regarding non-admin closures of AfDs that are not uncontroversial: Articles for deletion/Walkthrough had several "delete" votes and is unfit for a non-admin closure. Walkthrough was an unsourced article, and an admin might have closed the debate as "delete and convert to a disambiguation page". Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) is a controversial debate, with the discussion split between "convert to dab" and "keep as is". I note that although endorsed your close, closures of contested debates are best left to admins per Deletion process. Because the debate was contentious, and because your closure has been called a vote account, I ask you to provide a closing rationale. When AfD participants are deeply divided, closers should explain how they reached their conclusion. At Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy, there were several "delete" votes, and after the second relist,  reaffirmed his "delete" position. This is not an uncontroversial AfD. Regarding relists: Please provide a relisting rationale when you relist a discussion that has had several participants. One example is Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team. Prior to your relist, the discussion could have been closed as "keep". Why was this discussion relisted? Deficiencies in the discussion (if there were any), such as a lack of policy-based comments or a lack of discussion about reliable sources, should have been mentioned in a relist rationale. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To disclose my connection, Alpha Quadrant has come to me and asked for advice on how to resolve this dispute, and so I assisted him in forming the relpy above this and i'm just here to help that along. (and yes I have read up on just about everything).
 * That said, I think it's unrealistic to have him comment on one that another admin endorses (Wife selling) and that I endorse myself. I mean we've already got what we need out of that part, lets move on.
 * Re. Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team, I think i'll leave Alpha Quadrant to comment on that one, though I do see where he could get the relist, but i'm not going to comment either way.
 * I will note I have given him a general idea of what non-admins should and shouldn't close, but i'll leave that up to him to follow/use at his own discretion. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC):::
 * I hope you will be able to impress upon Alpha Quadrant what S Marshall, Spartaz, Flatscan, and I have been unable to: Early closures are discouraged by the community if they do not meet the criteria at Deletion process. I do not think it is unrealistic for Alpha Quadrant to provide a closing rationale for the Wife selling AfD. The discussion was split between "convert to dab" and "keep as is". The discussion was contentious. The close was called a vote count. These three factors indicate that a closing rationale is warranted, as a courtesy to the AfD participants. That two uninvolved admins (Sandstein and you) and an uninvolved editor (Alpha Quadrant) consider "keep as is" to be an accurate assessment of the consensus indicates that it is. However, some AfD participants do not believe so, and they are entitled to hear the reasoning for a "keep" closure. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding early closures, yes, I still hold the same opinion per WP:SK, which explicitly states that early closures are justified by Ignore all rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Regarding potentially controversial non-admin closures, per my discussion with DeltaQuad, it seems that although there isn't a policy against it. There is often strong opposition to non-admin closures of controversial discussions. I intend to take that in account when analyzing discussions, and avoid making closures on potentially controversial discussions. Although Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was not unanimous, it was a fairly clear keep. The nominator even explicitly stated that he was open, if sources were found. Regarding the relisting, at the time, only one of the keep arguments had really addressed the deletion rationale. The discussion can now safely be closed, as three additional users have commented addressing the issues. Relisted debates do not have to run another full seven days. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The text you paraphrase pertains to "snow closures". WP:SK ("What is not a speedy-keep") should be considered in conjunction with Deletion process, particularly the snowball clause subsection. The Deletion process guideline directly addresses early closures and snowball closures and a deeper description of what is permitted. That the text "The 'snowball clause' exists to avoid process for the sake of process, and should not be invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely 'likely' or 'highly likely', or where there is genuine and reasoned disagreement." is not in the "What is not a speedy-keep" section does not mean that it should be ignored. I hope DeltaQuad will help you review these two guidelines: They are meant to supplement each other; both should be followed. I thank you for reconsidering making controversial closes. I agree that Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was "highly likely" a "keep", though not a snowball closure. The relist rationale you have provided here for Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team is valid. I ask you to provide a relisting comment in the future when you relist AfDs a third time or ones that have had substantial participation (per WP:RELIST). See Articles for deletion/Yadunandana Swami for two examples of relisting comments. As I wrote to The Bushranger, this will allow participants to understand why the discussion was deficient and to better tailor their subsequent comments to addressing policies or sources. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A snow closures is a type of early closure. I agree that snow closures should not be applied if someone is arguing another opinion in the discussion. Early closures should only be applied in clear instances. Regarding relisting comments, I was under the impression that relisting was handled the same way as Requested Moves. In future discussions, I'll be sure to leave a relisting comment when there are five or more participants (counting the nom). Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  14:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Wife selling, I agree with the point that he could, and should have provided a rationale on the AfD. I'm seeing things I don't think I saw last night...but an explanation would be nice. (though I can't and won't force it) That being said it does look like a more controversial keep and I already talked with Alpha Quadrant on that part.
 * Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy is not a snowball and again, and it might have been better to leave to an admin, but I would have closed it as a keep when weighing all the comments. And just to make sure were on the same page, i've talked to him about snow and speedy keep policies going hand in hand, and as far as I can tell he understands.
 * Tell me if i'm wrong, but it looks like things are solved out here now, is this a correct assessment? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DeltaQuad, thank you for helping Alpha Quadrant understand the closing guidelines. I do not dispute that Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was correctly closed. I dispute the contention that a non-admin can close these types of AfDs. There was an overwhelming agreement at Village pump (policy) that non-admins should not be closing AfDs that are not clear-cut cases. Alpha Quadrant, please confine your closes to AfDs in which there are no strong, well-reasoned "delete" votes. I also ask you to provide relisting comments in discussions such as Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC, where there are fewer than five participants. A solid relisting rationale, which you later provided at User talk:Mkativerata, will dissuade other uninvolved editors and admins from overturning your relists. Cunard (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now closely reviewed Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) and found that there is substantial disagreement about whether the article is a synthesis of tangentially related material. wrote: "I usually think the dangers of synth are exaggerated, but some proponents of this article seem eager to indulge in vast synthesis ('wife or daughter, dowry or debt bondage, it's all bad stuff that happens to women') with the stated goal of getting a socio-political message across. If I support the politicizing of an article because I agree with the message, how can I oppose the politicizing of an article when I find the message repugnant?" The level of disagreement about whether this article violates No original research and Neutral point of view indicates that an editor should not be closing the discussion as "keep" without a closing rationale. To do so shows a lack of respect to the AfD participants. Alpha Quadrant, I ask that you add a closing rationale to the AfD or revert your closure so that someone who is willing to write a rationale can close the debate. Cunard (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No one was arguing for deletion on the Wife selling article. The discussion was on whether or not it should be a disambiguation page. AfD is intended to discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. Discussion on whether or not an article should be converted into a disambiguation should take place on the article's talk page. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus in the past has been that if AfD participants offer merge or redirect positions, the issue should be "settled in closure, rather than deferred to the article's talk page for more conversation after" (cf. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61). I believe that good faith discussions about whether a title should be a disambiguation page or an article should be accorded the same treatment. A close of "keep" is an explicit endorsement of retaining the article's content as is. Instead of "keep", the close should have been "no consensus without prejudice to further discussion on the talk page". However, because non-deletion positions at AfD can be settled in closure, I ask you to re-read the AfD to see which side ("keep as is" or "convert to dab page") had the stronger arguments. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cunard that there was enough support for reverting to a disambiguation that it should at least be acknowledged in the closing statement. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. A lack of acknowledgment of the issues raised indicates that the status quo is acceptable. It is clearly not, as was stressed by the "convert to disambiguation" camp at the AfD. The NPOV and SYNTH issues have merit and should have been mentioned in the close, as a basic courtesy to those participants. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want me to revert my closure? Two admins have already said the closure was fine. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you analyze the arguments in the discussion, specify which side had the stronger arguments (or that neither did), and write a closing statement justifying your decision. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I know you would have preferred Alpha Quadrant to do this, but I wrote at least a paragraph for a closing that I sure hopes satisfies the need for a secondary comment, because that's one heck of an AFD to read, re-read, and re decide on. At this point, if you want a better comment or review, deletion review (or whatever it's called these days) is your next stop.
 * The fact that you keep coming back with a new relisting every day is getting annoying, and honestly, you should just list them, and maybe at a deletion noticeboard at some point for second viewpoints from non-involved editors, because this seems like an endless list that is going to come. For the editors who made the objections who were involved in the deletion discussions that you are advocating, and don't want to come to Alpha Quadrant to ask for an explanation, because he in good faith, by not knowing best practice did not put up a comment on why, and they aren't asking for a comment, I don't see the point in making one, as it just puts a burden on all of us to justify everything we say and do. If you agree with the actions by Alpha Quadrant, then lets move on.
 * I'm not at all discounting the fact that some if not more of what I haven't reviewed should maybe have gotten a comment or not done by a non-admin. But it's the past, we can learn from our mistakes instead of dwelling on them. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just don't see the point in dragging this out longer than it needs to be. Happy editing, -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you keep coming back with a new relisting every day is getting annoying After Alpha Quadrant asked me to review his closures, I posted them at 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC). Please re-review this discussion and reconsider this inaccurate statement. I have not raised a new relisting every day. The ones being discussed are the ones I posted at 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC). Alpha Quadrant asked for feedback about his closes and AfD actions, and I have advised him about how to improve his closures and relists. I see nothing "annoying" about this. For the editors who made the objections who were involved in the deletion discussions that you are advocating, and don't want to come to Alpha Quadrant to ask for an explanation, because he in good faith, by not knowing best practice did not put up a comment on why, and they aren't asking for a comment, I don't see the point in making one, as it just puts a burden on all of us to justify everything we say and do. – through Talk:Wife selling (English custom), I was aware of the Wife selling AfD before Alpha Quadrant closed it. When the AfD was closed as "keep" with no rationale, I was surprised by the closure and wanted to see the rationale behind a "keep" closure. Other editors were surprised too. Closes of controversial discussions should always have closing rationales. Omitting a closing rationale does not tell the participants why an AfD was closed as "keep" or "delete" or "no consensus". The burden is always on the closer to justify his/her closure. I agree with DGG; any disputed close with no rationale should be reverted. If you agree with the actions by Alpha Quadrant, then lets move on. – seeing the improvements in Alpha Quadrant's closes, I am hopeful that Alpha Quadrant has learned from this discussion to provide closing and relist rationales, avoid closing controversial discussions, and cease closing discussions early that do not meet the "early closures" criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, if you want a better comment or review, deletion review (or whatever it's called these days) is your next stop. – I do not intend to nominate this discussion for deletion review; I disagreed not with the close but with the lack of a closing rationale. My purpose in asking for a closing rationale is to allow for less hindered discussion on the talk page. By closing an AfD as "keep", the closer indicates that the article is fine as is. Only through a closing statement can a closer explain that "keep" does not mean an endorsement of the article's current form and that the article needs to be finetuned to be more compliant with NPOV, OR, and SYNTH. That said, I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the discussion and preparing a closing statement. I've never seen an admin write a closing rationale for another closer. I also thank you for explaining the AfD closing and relisting guidelines to Alpha Quadrant. You have accomplished what S Marshall, Spartaz, Flatscan, and I were unable to do. You must have much tact, diplomacy, and patience to have been able to convey to Alpha Quadrant what we failed to convey. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, thank you for adding a closing rationale to Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination). A common argument in the "convert to disambiguation page" group was that there were perceived violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the article (Scott Mac, Nev1, Cynwolfe, Parrot of Doom, and Stuartyeates). I do not see these concerns addressed in your closure. Would you add a note about this? Would you also note that your close is not an endorsement of the article in its current state and that further discussion should occur on the talk page to iron out any disagreements about the perceived violations of NPOV, OR, and SYNTH? While this should not be necessary, I have had experiences where editors pointed to a "keep" closure to stall further improvements to an article. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a few comments. I have not had a chance to talk to Alpha Quadrant since my post above because i've been very busy and as you see have not had any contribs in 2 days, and sorry for the delay in responding to this. I'll try and follow up as soon as I can with any further comments. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you for expanding your closing statement per my suggestions. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Masoud Shafiee DYK
Cunard, I find the rejection of the DYK a bit absurd based on potential close paraphrasing issues in one sentence. I believe this was adequately addressed through my changes. You could have easily changed the sentence yourself if you found it not different enough, but to reject the entire DYK on this basis is absurd, especially when others had already accepted it. I request that at minimum you re-open the DYK so we can find an adequate compromise on the sentence rather than unilaterally closing it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You brusquely attacked Nikkimaria who does the difficult, tedious, unenviable job of comparing sources and DYK-nominated articles for policy compliance with copyright violation, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing. That is unacceptable. I rejected the nomination because the close paraphrasing issue had not been adequately addressed. mistakenly improved the article on the basis of the Duplication Detector, which does not catch all types of close paraphrasing. In this case, two words were replaced by synonyms while the original wording of the source's sentence was preserved (diff). This is close paraphrasing. You were given a chance to address the close paraphrasing concern but you did not. Thus, I summarily failed it. You are free to request that Crisco 1492 or Nikkimaria review my closure. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Middlesex (novel)
After re-reading the article, I am thinking of making certain changes to it that might hopefully improve it and help resolve concerns at FAC. The changes could be major and I wonder if you would prefer I wait till after the FAC or to go ahead now? I pushed ahead with the first part to show as example. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The FAC will likely be archived in a day or two, so feel free to make structural and stylistic changes to the article anytime. Thank you for spending your valuable time working on Middlesex's deficiencies, when you could be working on topics that you have more interest in. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK Palestinian rabbis
Please explain why ALT6 is indeed not supported by the sources. The hook states: "in the 1530s, Turkish authorities acted to prevent [by deporting Berab] Palestinian rabbis [the scholars of Safed and others] from developing a scheme [ordination and restoration of the Sanhedrin] which may have resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine?" I agree there was no consensus, but the hook is supported. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Orlady wrote: "Berab was the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination, so they kicked him out (or maybe he left for his safety). Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, he is the only one identified in the article as having been deemed to be a threat. All of those [sources] are about the activities of Jacob Berab, not about 'Palestinian rabbis' in general. while the sources you cite make clear that Berab's religious activities had some support from other rabbis, Berab was the one that the Turkish authorities suspected.  Regardless of what is true, Wikipedia content needs to be based on what published sources have already said, not contributors' interpretations." I reviewed the sources you provided and agreed with her assessment of them. She has clearly explained why ALT6 is unsupported by the sources. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have great difficulty in understanding where you and Orlady are coming from. I hope I am not misunderstanding either of you, but to me, the hook is valid. It is true and clear that Berab was the instigator of the plan to restore the Jewish state. But he could not accomplish that alone as Orlady would have us believe! It is not possible for one rabbi to hold a singular position in place of the 70 member Sanhedrin, neither is it possible for one rabbi alone to get to that stage. Berab was not planning to become a sole theological dictator by gaining "some support". The article is clear that Berab was not the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination - there were twenty-five other rabbis who ordained him, and Berab in turn ordained others, who in turn ordained others. (This is mentioned in the article.) If it was only Berab involoved, why was a letter submitted by the "scholars" (plural) of Safed to those in Jerusalem? ibn-Habib of Jerusalem took an active part opposing the plan - a clear indication of communal involvement, as Maimonidies had prescribed. It is beyond doubt that the scheme was being developed by a significant group of pro-ordination "Palestinian rabbis" and not only by Berab alone, who was their leader. As to why the Ottomans deported only Berab is their concern only, not ours. We cannot insinuate that just because one person was targetted, only one person was deemed to be involved in the anti-government scheme and that he had no accomplices! On the contrary, the article is clear that many rabbis were active in the restoration campaign. That Orlady denies this is understood from the artcile is astounding. Unless a source is provided that Berab was the sole person actually involved directly in the scheme, rejection of this nomination was unjust and without basis. Chesdovi (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true and clear that Berab was the instigator of the plan to restore the Jewish state. But he could not accomplish that alone as Orlady would have us believe! – Orlady has not said that Berab was the only instigator. She noted that the sources do not explicitly identify anyone else. If it was only Berab involoved, why was a letter submitted by the "scholars" (plural) of Safed to those in Jerusalem? – this is synthesis. Unless reliable sources explicitly link the scholars to the scheme, the assertion that they were involved in the scheme should not be made in the hook. We cannot insinuate that just because one person was targetted, only one person was deemed to be involved in the anti-government scheme and that he had no accomplices! – nor can editors insinuate that others were involved in the scheme. It is original research to make speculations or inferences based on what most likely happened. Reliable sources must explicitly verify the statements in the hook. Because none of the sources did so, Orlady and I found the hook faulty. Unless a source is provided that Berab was the sole person actually involved directly in the scheme, rejection of this nomination was unjust and without basis. – you are free to appeal my closure to Wikipedia talk:Did you know if you disagree with Orlady's and my reasons for rejecting the hook. Cunard (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not insinuating anything. Orlady is. The following excerpts from the text make it clear that others besides Berab were involved in the scheme:
 * "Berab wished to rely on the opinion of Maimonides, that if all Palestinian rabbis agreed to ordain one of themselves.."
 * "In 1538, Berab was ordained by an assembly of twenty-five rabbis, meeting at Safed."
 * "ibn Habib considered it an insult to himself and to Jerusalem that the scholars of Safed had undertaken to resume the practice of ordination without consulting with the scholars of Jerusalem. "
 * "He wrote to the scholars of Safed."
 * "and asserting that their action.."
 * "He [Berab] ordained four rabbis before his departure, in the hope that they could continue to exercise the function of ordination during his absence" They are explicitly identified as "Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, Moses di Trani, and possibly also Abraham Shalom and Israel de Curial." Indeed, "Karo used his status to ordain Moses Alshich, who later ordained Hayyim Vital."
 * "The dispute among Palestinian scholars over ordination.."
 * There are then the other sources that Orlady dismissed too:
 * "In 1538, the sages of Safed voted to re-introduce semicha."
 * "after the Beith Yosefs arrival in Safed, the town's rabbis gathered to find a leader. .."
 * "In 1538 a Great Knesset (gathering) consisting of 25 leading Rabbis foregathered in Safed and agreed..."
 * "There is some evidence that the propaganda campaign of the Rabbis of Safed to revive the ancient form of ordination [Semikhah) reached the city of Fez."
 * "This community attempted to revive.."
 * "the decision of the Safed rabbis was invalid.."
 * Orlady states that these sources are not good enough for they only show that Berab had "some support from other rabbis." In fact, they also show that with the "support" of these Palestinian rabbis, the scheme could continue to be developed. But they did not only "support" it. After the "25 leading Rabbis" of Safed had physically gathered, they also voted to ordain Berab. The "support" did not end there. Thereafter, they (the "Rabbis of Safed", or the "community" or the "Safed rabbis") engaged in a "propaganda campaign".
 * Orlady falsely asserts that "Berab was the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination" as a reason to reject the hook. He was not the only one.
 * If Orlady had a problem regarding the absence of the word "state", I am not sure why after I had added refs to "Jewish state" in the article, ALT3 was still not deemed okay and Orlady was still pushing for ALT4? (And Since when can we not use PD material for a hook?)
 * Orlady: "he [Berab] is the only one identified in the article as having been deemed to be a threat." Not quite. The threat was "ordination of rabbis" not Berab. I said: "He had indeed convened the Safed meeting of 25 rabbis at the outset. It was a group effort, of which he was the instigator. Rabbis ordained by Berab in turn ordained others" Orlady said: "You are painting a picture here that may be valid, but is not part of the article and is not clearly supported by the two sources cited in that section of the article." Both these facts are in the article. Neither you or Orlady have addressed the involvment of the 25 rabbis neeed to initiate the scheme. Orlady ignores participation of other rabbis in the plan, claiming only Berab was the only person involved! That claim is not supported by the article.
 * The case Orlady is making is that it is only valid to say "Berab attempted to establish a Jewish state", while I think one can also say "Palestinian rabbis attempted to establish a Jewish state." In a similar vein, while I would agree that "Herzl attempted to establish a Jewish state", I would also think it is in order to say "the Zionist Congress attempted to establish a Jewish State". Chesdovi (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my position that the hook violates No original research because the sources do not explicitly verify that "Turkish authorities acted to prevent [by deporting Berab] Palestinian rabbis [the scholars of Safed and others] from developing a scheme". Because you disagree with my close, I recommend that you appeal it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to understand what the OR and SYTH issue is here first: It is that we cannot combine various sources? Sources in the article currently tell us:
 * "Moreover, Berab's life was endangered. The ordination had been represented to the Turkish authorities as the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state, and, since Berab was rich, the Turkish officials would have showed him scant mercy in order to lay hands on his wealth. Berab was forced to go to Egypt for a while.."
 * "The Turkish authorities, suspecting Berab of harbouring hopes of re-establishing a Jewish state, deported him from Palestine."
 * One source says that the Turks saw Berabs ordination by 25 Palestinian rabbis as paving the way for a rival Jewish political entity and would therefore target him. The other says they saw Berab alone as a threat and deported him. Are you and Orlady saying we cannot conclude from both these sources that the Turks wished to prevent the rabbis of Safed from developing the ordination process by removing Berab from the scene? If not, why? What do the sources need to say? That Turkey deported Berab to "prevent rabbis of safed from reviving ordination?" But that's why they deported him, for that very reason? Chesdovi (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No original research states (bolding in original): "[Original research is] any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." You have synthesized several sources to advance the position that many rabbis were involved in the scheme and thus considered a threat. Making "conclu[sions]" based on one or more sources is a violation of the original research policy. To include the statement in the hook, you must add sources that "directly support the material as presented". In other words, secondary sources—not Wikipedia editors—should be making conclusions from the historical evidence. Cunard (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says that:
 * 1. many rabbis were involved in reviving the ordination, and
 * 2. that they were prevented from completing the plan due to Berab’s absence, which was
 * 3. brought about by Turkish threats against him alone,
 * it is claimed nevertheless to be OR to suggest that the Turkish authorities feared the actual act of ordination by many rabbis and acted to stifle their progress in creating a political entity, and rather, the sources just support the notion that the Turks just deemed Berab alone as a menace? In my reading of the article, Berab was a threat, but that was only due to the status bestowed upon him by the established congress of rabbis involved in restoring the Jewish state – it was only after they had collectively ordained Berab, when he truly became the nominated leader of an active movement, that the Turks took notice. It is therefore valid to say that Berab’s removal by the Turks was aimed at preventing the movement consisting of Palestinian rabbis from developing. I am happy on this note to lodge an appeal. Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear that we will not come to an agreement about whether the proposed ALT6 hook is original research. Feel free to lodge an appeal. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to me. Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying, but a q
Could you explain this edit? It looks fine and harmless, but I don't understand its procedural basis: is that a standard thing to do? Just curious. The edit summary didn't explain (Answering here is fine.) --Lexein (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lexein. The purpose of the Delrevafd template is to inform AfD participants that the discussion has been nominated for community review at Deletion review. This is Step #6 of Deletion review/Discussions, though many users fail to do it because they either don't review the instructions or forget to do so. A co-creator of the template,, notified the community at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 13. There was a request to create a template like this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 59 in February 2010, though the template had been in use for months before that. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to trace these things back. Learn something new every day. I suppose an edit summary of "WP:DELREVD step 6" would be good, since it's now possible   --Lexein (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification suggestion. In the future, I'll include that in my edit summary. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
o god tb spam  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN
Thanks for linking everything that needs to be closed up, but now that a ton have been closed, can we wipe, force archive, or do something to the ones that are done? and maybe merge all existing requests for anything related to RfCs into one so we know what to look at? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  10:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you know how (or can find someone) who knows how to deal with my SfD closures, and can get someone to do so per, that would be great. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing and closing several lengthy RfCs. I will take a look about merging the RfCs requests sections and finding someone to close the SfDs. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've consolidated the RfCs into one thread at the top of WP:AN. I've removed the future timestamps for the other threads, which will be archived in 48 hours. There are only four SfDs open at the moment, so there is no longer a backlog there. If there is a backlog in the future, I will ask, , , or to review the discussions. Cunard (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Powers

 * Hi Cunard, could you leave some more feedback at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers if possible? I've nuked the blog source and the information it supports, and as such I feel as if I may have a possible COI if passing the hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashdod - Isdud merger
Since you have assited the arbitration of the merger proposal, i would like you to help me verify whether i'm ok to go on with merger, as the administrator Ilwritch has proposed here, if no comments are made within a one week period. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that you can go ahead with the merge because there is no opposition after several weeks. Cunard (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried the Administrator, but without response, could you finilize the discussion as an uninvolved party, so no questions would later arise? Thank you very much.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have closed the discussion as permitting a merge. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor
It is my understanding that the issues have been addressed, and it is the reviewers who are not responding. Check the discussion. I'd appreciate it if you could reopen it, and consider prodding the reviewers for a re-review. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues have not been addressed. Please re-read my closing statement. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, I stand corrected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent edits should've addressed both issues, see article's history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this edit in rewording any close paraphrasing in those paragraphs. However, the example I pointed out has not been changed: "Article: 'The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor meant that individuals were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of their societal peers.' Source: 'The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor means that they were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others.'" That I specifically mentioned this example and that it hasn't been addressed indicates that the entire article was not reviewed for close paraphrasing. While the history section has been revised, I ask that the other sections are also reviewed for close paraphrasing. Cunard (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cunard, I believe the article is cleaned from paraphrasing. In addition to my edit in the history section you mention above, my team-mate corrected additional sections, including the example you wrote above. To see if there is anything left, I googled every sentence and none returned close matches except the WP article itself (unfortunately google is the only tool available for me to check similarity of content, I'd appreciate it if you can refer me other tools). Please let me know if there is anything else you would like us to do to improve the article's current state (I am planning on adding more content into the "family honor within different cultures" section this weekend, and I guarantee that they will be free of paraphrasing/plagiarizing). Thank you for all your help and consideration. Esery (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Esery. Having reviewed the article and related discussions, I've found that the copy and paste was done not by you but by your classmate who doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation. Thank you for cleaning up the article and your classmate's mess. Your contributions to Wikipedia are very appreciated. I have spotchecked the sources for close paraphrasing and accuracy:
 * "Areas that are affected by family honor include many aspects of lifestyle such as social conduct, religious practice, dress, eating habits, education, occupation, possessions and marriage. Societies in which “family honor” is considered highly important generally place a correspondingly high degree of restriction of the freedom of women"
 * This is cited to page 133 of Blood Revenge: Family Honor, Mediation and Outcasting. Yet, I do not see this information in the source.
 * "Within cultures, honor is an important and highly esteemed theme. It can be maintained through living up to one's word and promises, providing for the family, and keeping a certain social status. Honor can be affected by both men and women through ways in which a man heightens his family's honorable status, and a woman can shame her family through disapproved actions. Ensuing constant pressure to uphold her family's honor, a woman can suffer psychological and social damage."
 * This is cited to page 23 and page 78 of Donna Lee Bowen and Evelyn A. Early's Everyday life in the Muslim Middle East. The first page contains a song ("Traditional Songs from Boir Ahmad"). The second page begins a chapter titled "A Palestinian Newspaper in Jerusalem". Neither discusses family honor.
 * "For example, if a married woman committed adultery, her father had the legal right to kill her whereas her husband was required to divorce her. If the husband chose not to divorce his wife, he would jeopardize his honor and be labeled as a pimp."
 * The source says this is on page 102 of Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation. However, this is on page 104.
 * Owing to the numerous mistakes in citing, I am uncomfortable about promoting this article to DYK. My spotchecks did not reveal additional plagiarism or close paraphrasing, though I have not checked all the sources. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Thank you for your appreciation and I understand your concerns. Even though the article does not get promoted to DKY, I will try to check the sources for accuracy to improve the article. Thank you for pointing out these issues. Best wishes, Esery (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I am sorry I was unable to promote the article to DYK. I wish you the best of luck in improving the article and nominating it for good article status. Cunard (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Glyptapanteles image sourcing
Thanks for the assistance! That's much better than what was there before. I do have to ask, though, regarding the images of our cephalopoid friend: If CC 3.0 licensing isn't acceptable, why is that one of the available drop-down selections for licenses on an image? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "free" license. Is the license these images are under some finer delineation of the CC 3.0? - Vianello (Talk) 04:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Please also note my comments at File talk:Promachoteuthis dentures.jpg and File talk:Promachoteuthis sulcus.jpg. The source page links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) is not a compatible image license because it is not a free license. See Image use policy: "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." "Free images" have licenses that permit both commercial use and modification. Because the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license restricts the use to noncommercial purposes, the images cannot be considered free. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All righty. That makes sense to me now. Thank you very much. - Vianello (Talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC reopening
Thanks for going to such lengths after a random encounter on someone else's user talk. :D –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Cunard (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Came here to say something similar. Thanks for taking the time to do the notifications. Hobit (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope the RfC notifications will help the RfC reach a consensus. Cunard (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you for your kind words. I enjoyed rescuing this article from deletion. The research was difficult because there were few sources that discussed this hymn in detail. This article was a nice find that for me established Jaya Ho's notability. Without it, I would have not attempted to rescue the article. It has a publication date of November 9, 2011, so I am glad that this article was created and nominated for deletion in late October instead of earlier. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce
Thank you for your extensive review of the article at DYK, it is very helpful. I also like the idea of transcending the review on the article's pages. Could we do it for the two other articles that have/had DYK nominations (Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor and Template:Did you know nominations/Joint custody)? Also, if you have not seen it yet, you may find this list of interest. Finally, I'd like to invite you to the Ambassador program, we very much need active and helpful editors like yourself there! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I am not interested in the Ambassador Program because I prefer to interact with students if they edit the articles I edit and watch. I have transcluded the other two DYK nomination subpages to the articles' talk pages. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Would this be useful?
This article by John Mullan was printed in today's Guardian newspaper. Its subtitle "Week one: omniscience" suggest that it's the first of a series. It may contain useful information and insights. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian, for reading the article and thinking of me. It has much useful insight into the protagonist's omniscience. I've expanded the article's "Style" section and look forward to Mullan's upcoming articles about the novel. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles by Mullan for later review:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/18/book-club-middlesex-jeffrey-eugenides
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/25/book-club-middlesex-jeffrey-eugenides
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/02/jeffrey-eugenides-middlesex-book-club

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WePay updating current offerings
what is promotional? can you be specific? the current description is out of date and we need to update it. Pradgowski (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

takes the hassle out of online payments" is part of our company descriptor and is not a copyright violation https://www.wepay.com/about/wepay?ref=footer Pradgowski (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your revision: "WePay takes the hassle out of online payments. Users can start accepting payments in under a minute - no merchant account, website, or programming is required. WePay makes it easy to send bills, sell tickets, accept donations, and sell items." violates the policies Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not. The copyright violation from http://ucbstartupfair.com/attendees/32WebCite consisted not only of a cut and paste of "takes the hassle out of online payments" but also a cut and paste of "raised $10 million in venture financing from Highland Capital Partners, August Capital, Y Combinator (company), SVAngel, Dave McClure, Mark Goines, YouTube founder Steve Chen, and PayPal co-founder Max Levchin" By "we", you indicate that the account is operated by multiple people in violation of Wikipedia's policies about having role accounts. If you wish to make further updates to the page, please read Conflict of interest and make suggestions on Talk:WePay (and include secondary reliable sources that support your changes). Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jaya Ho
Orlady (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA
I responded to your inciteful and quite polite oppose with an analysis expanding on my reasonings in the chosen examples. I wish to let you know that you have given me much food for thought through the examples you shared. Thank you and regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the RfA. I thank you likewise for your aplomb in addressing my criticisms. In the past, an individual whom I criticized engaged in unfounded accusations to silence my input. I am grateful that you are willing to reflect about my feedback and better yourself in the process. I myself am disinterested in becoming an admin but welcome any criticisms of my editing so I can better myself. By the way, are you familiar with Nancy Kwan and her work? Cunard (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In respects to your last comment, I agree. I will be avoiding even considering the retention of topics that might be poorly sourced or worse unverfiable... and as it's "what I do", I will likely be one to add required sources if available and then leave the close to another.  And toward your question above, not too familiar with her, but I have seen films in which she starred. Need some soucing?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments here, which are reassuring. With regard to Nancy Kwan, I intend to expand the article and nominate it for review first at WP:GAN and later at WP:FAC. When I am finished expanding the article, I am hopeful that you can provide feedback about it. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Be honored to do so.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24
Hi Eluchil404. You closed Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24 14 hours early. Were you aware that you were closing the DRV early? Cunard (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware that it was an early closure. I felt that it was justified in this case, because of the clarity of the consensus and the fact that the appellant had been blocked for abusive sock puppetry.  No point in keeping a discussion open if all the remaining parties are in agreement.  I didn't mention any of this in my closing statement because I didn't want it to go overlong and it isn't really relevant to the clear consensus in this case.  I don't favor closing DRV's early except in rare cases, but a tendentiousness request by a blocked sock generally counts.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I had not noticed that the nominator was a sock, which justifies the early closure, and agree that the sock should not have been given attention in the closing statement. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow
Jeez, you're fast. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed your proposal when you posted it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I thank you for your work in improving Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes through this proposal and through the creation of the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. I have other ideas, some of which are ticking over in my head, others are under development at the new dispute resolution project. But eh, let's see how this one goes first. Thanks again, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OS

 * Oversighted, please. I'd like this improper connecting of two different individuals in a database to be severed. If deleted, it still remains in the histories.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested oversight. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for notifying me that my contribution history doesn't include the !vote in the RFA2 of MichaelQSchmidt. As my !vote still appears to be ok, I'm fine with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, and congratulations on passing the grueling RfA. Your pledge to be diligent in your admin actions is heartening. I wish the best of luck in your adminship tasks and hope you will prove the opposes wrong in your AfD closes. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lee C. Bollinger awarding the 2003 Pulitzer Prize to Jeffrey Eugenides.jpg
Wow... great job in negotiating for this. I hope the permission is all clear. If it goes through, there could be a decent portrait for Eugenides in his article. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent the Pulitzer Prizes a permission request two weeks ago, and Claudia Stone Weissberg, the "Web Site Manager of The Pulitzer Prizes", replied yesterday, writing that she had received approval from Sig Gissler, the "Administrator of The Pulitzer Prizes". The first email didn't explicitly approve the image under a license, so I asked Ms. Weissberg to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which she did. The image at http://www.pulitzer.org/files/eugenideslunch.jpg is small. I asked her if she could find a larger, better quality one, and she sent me a larger image. I didn't think my request would be approved but thought it didn't hurt to ask. I was very surprised and pleased that The Pulitzer Prizes replied and gave me permission to use their image. There is a 29-day backlog for Commons requests, so it will be a while before it is confirmed. It will be a fine addition to Eugenides' article as well. As a side note, I pity the OTRS admin who will review my OTRS permissions confirmation for commons:Category:Nancy Kwan and have to tag 60+ images with the confirmation template. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hang on there. Does Ms. Weissberg have the authority to license the image?  According to the image description, it is taken by Eileen Barroso, official photographer of Columbia University.  That makes Barroso by default the copyright owner unless it is specifically stated in her contract that she is working-for-hire (which in that case means the copyright is to Columbia University itself).  Does Barroso's email clearly state who owns the copyright and that the owner has given the permission for the licensing (only the owner can do so)?  If not, this should be clarified with Barroso (a diligent OTRS processor would catch this issue and reject the ticket).  Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will ask for clarification from Ms. Weissberg. The email from Ms. Weissberg did not state whether Barroso did it under work-for-hire. If she did, then the permission licensing from Ms. Weissberg, under the authority of Sig Gissler, should suffice. Am I correct? Cunard (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on what grounds Barruso took the picture. If her contract does not state work-for-hire, her permission is required.  If Barruso did it under work-for-hire, then generally, permission from Columbia University's copyright department is required.  However, if Barruso is specifically ordered under the terms of her contract to do work for the Pulitzer Prize (a "department" of Columbia University), then Gissler might be of authority to license the image.  That is why it would be best for them (Pulitzer Prize) to clarify who is the copyright owner (especially when the photographer is someone else).  Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have quoted your comment in my request for clarification to Ms. Weissberg. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A hypothetical question: How would permission be granted if Barruso took the photograph under work-for-hire and the university had no copyright department? I took a brief look at Columbia University's website and could only find the Columbia Copyright Advisory Office, operated by the Columbia University Libraries/Information Services. I have reviewed their website, which provides information about copyright but does not indicate that they grant copyright permission. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They would still be in a better position to advise who among them to contact (or even Barroso herself). http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/about/contact/ gives the office's modes of contact (including email).  Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ms. Weissberg told me that she was fairly certain the copyright is held by Columbia University because Ms. Barroso is a full-time employee. Ms. Barroso confirmed that the copyright is held by Columbia University and that Sig Gissler's permission is sufficient. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Barroso's confirmation is great news. Waiting for the ticket to pass.  Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sfn vs Harvn, and PD1923
Sorry, Cunard, I did not think that you would be inconvenienced by the change. is basically an encapsulation of ; i.e. is squeezed into. The advantages of Sfn as I find it is that I no longer need to bother with  since Sfn will automatically be parsed and sorted for repetitions. I believe it makes for easier maintenance.

As for File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, I suggest you revert. Creation does not mean publication or registration of copyright, which is the criteria pre-2002 US copyright laws are based on. Publication means that copies of the work was offered to the public by the copyright owner, in the sense of sales of copies of the art, publication in the media or books, etc. Drawing the picture, printing the picture, and such is not publication per se. Registration of copyright requires evidence that the material was registered with the Copyright Office at that time. That is why when someone claims PD-1923, I would often ask for details of the publication the work appeared in or that some authority stated the image was published (not created) at that time, or for registration information. Some forms of work are almost certain to be published (posters, stereoscopic cards), but drawings and photographs (and many others) are not that certain. Jappalang (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation about and . I have never used Sfn so knew little about it. I have reverted my edit per your explanation. If the copyright owner is deceased and the unpublished work was made before 1923, who owns the copyright? Descendants? Or the Woodstock Artists Association and Museum in the case of File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg? Image copyright laws are extraordinarily abstruse. I am curious. How have you become so familiar with image copyright laws? Cunard (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless specifically transferred to another person/organization, copyrights will pass on to the previous owner's heirs. US copyright laws can be broken into basics, see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, which I think is one of the best resources so far that does this.
 * For US laws, one basically can break it down into:
 * Was it published? If yes, when?
 * Who was it created by (who owns the copyright)?
 * Depending on the year of publication, then one goes further into whether copyright notices or proper registration were followed, or such. Otherwise, unpublished works simply follow the 70 years post mortis auctoris (pma, or after the author's death) for known authorship, 120 years for corporate or unknown authorship(works of unknown authorship have been summed to be in the copyright of associated organizations, e.g. publishers, print companies, art schools, etc).  In the case for File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, the initial assumption should be that Brown's heirs or estate hold the copyright unless they specifically transferred the copyright to the museum.
 * There may still be grey areas that one has to judge for him or herself on what rules could apply, but one can eventually learn the basics of the laws. I also had plenty of advice from User:Elcobbola, User:Lupo, and User:Clindberg, editors (the last two more frequent Commons) whom I respect for their opinions on copyright laws.  Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the further explanation. http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is informative but has numerous subtleties and exceptions as well. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks, Pastrychick here, uploader of the above-referenced image (File: Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton brown.jpg). Copyright discussions are inevitably confusing, but I'll add my personal understanding of the image's use: I was granted permission by the WAAM (the museum who owns this particular impression of this particular lithograph -- it exists in multiple copies, like a photograph). The creator of the lithograph died in 1936; his work is technically in the public domain. However, WAAM owns the copyright to the *photograph* of the lithograph. They, and all museums, charge a fee to license images, even if the work is in the public domain: technically the fee is for the photographing/administrative work behind providing the reproduction. The line in the Declaration of Consent "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise," seems a bit problematic -- it grants free usage rights for something that is usually a source of income for a museum. The question of public domain is muddied by questions of who owns the photography. Pastrychick (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The photo of a public domain portrait, a two-dimensional work, might be in the public domain according to U.S. law. Jappalang, would you clarify whether this is the case? I remember National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute (Signpost coverage) from two years ago, though I don't know what the case's result was. Cunard (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Pastrychick: "The creator of the lithograph died in 1936; his work is technically in the public domain" is incorrect (see above). The first rule of determination for US copyrights is the year of publication.  Only if the object is first published after 2002 or never published at all do we consider post mortis actuoris.
 * @both: In most cases when somebody takes a photograph of an object, two copyrights are invested into the photograph: the copyright of the object (belonging to the artist) and the copyright of the photograph (belonging to the photographer). If the object is copyrightable (so as to speak), then the artist's permission is required for the photograph to be used for any purpose not allowed under fair use.  See commons:Commons:Derivative works.  However, this would not apply in the US for photographs of 2D artwork as detailed below.
 * @Cunard: The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has decided that claiming copyright of faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works is akin to copyright fraud in the US. See commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag; the basis is the case law of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999).  Basically, if the 2D work of art is in the public domain of the US (and the country of origin if a foreign work and the photograph is uploaded to Commons), a scan or photograph taken straight on is determined to be a simple reproduction, devoid of the originality required for copyright protection.  In other words, the photograph/scan is considered the painting; the photographer did not do anything worthy of copyright protection.  Thus, only the artist's copyright is considered.  For File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, we do not know its copyright status, and WAAM's claim of copyright for the "photograph" is untenable as far as the WMF is concerned.  Jappalang (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed explanation. You have a comprehensive—encyclopedic, even—knowledge of the copyright case laws and rules. Regarding "Only if the object is first published after 2002 or never published at all do we consider post mortis actuoris": It's unlikely that the 1909 portrait, if published, was published after 1923. But it's possible that it was published in an obscure book, journal, or newspaper after 1923. Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to prove that the portrait was never published at all? Are there any examples of images where the "never published at all" rule was invoked? As the purchaser/owner of the (possibly) unpublished portrait, wouldn't the copyright ownership have been passed to the WAAM? If WAAM doesn't own the copyright and cannot release the portrait under an appropriate license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0, then who does? If the image was published between 1923 and 2002 or afterwards without the copyright holder's permission, would it be considered unpublished for public domain purposes because of the copyright infringement? Thank you for your help in clearing up this complex web of copyright law. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliments, Cunard; I think I still have a lot to learn, though. Regarding the publication status, it is of course quite tedious and unexpected for someone to pore through every literature, but one should make the effort to first check with the most authoritative source on the subjects (White and Brown in this case) whether the item was published.  Another step should be made to check the most relevant literature, such as works by White (who might use it as a frontispiece) and Brown on matters of White, (auto)biographies of either subject, and perhaps (but most unlikely) art journals of Brown's works.  In this case, I think there have been several biographies on White and his close nature with Brown may mean the lithograph may have been published in there (thus warranting a check).  Usually the "never published" rule is invoked for items just discovered or for certain paintings (most of which exist only as a single copy and never been printed with the copyright holder's permission in a journal).
 * As for authority on the image if WAAM does not have it, then the image likely falls into Orphan works in the United States category (and of course our articles are less than exemplary; best to seek advice on the matter elsewhere in the books). Here, the law is not yet certain what to do with them, but still we would rather err on the side of caution and let copyrights naturally expire.
 * Publication is only such if the distribution of copies was done with the permission of the copyright holder. If the distribution was done without the permission, my opinion is that it would be unpublished for matters of determining the copyright status.  Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your further comments clear up much of my confusion. It's unfortunate that legislation for orphan works in the United States wasn't vote on by the U.S. Congress. I do not have the time to locate and review Brown's and White's publications, so the non-free fair use tag will have to suffice. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Shiloh
Hi, If no-one picks up the GA review on your nomination by Monday then I'll make a start on it. I've not undertaken a GA review before, but will try and do it as smoothly as I can! I will ask an experienced reviewer have a quick look over my thoughts once I've done it, but I hope it won't add too much time to what has already been a very long wait for you. If someone else picks it up before Monday then good luck with it! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SchroCat. I look forward to your review of the article if no one reviews Shiloh first. Best, Cunard (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first review, Talk:Shiloh (novel)/GA1, was stalled because the reviewer became inactive. Should a subsequent review take place there or on a new page? Cunard (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it starts on a new page, but I'll take into account what has happened in the first review too and try not to countermand any previous instructions. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not another RFA nomination...
Hi! I've read your previous declinations (word?) of nomination requests. I understand you had concerns about CSD tagging and that you didn't want to be the final decider in deletion requests. I also understand your concerns in 2009 that you might not pass. Despite all of this, things can change since your last offer in March 2010 (almost two years ago). I would like to nominate you for adminship. I find you as an all around Admin-clerk. You've helped me out countless times with procedural errors that I've fubar'd, you've kept on top of RFCs and more often then once given a lengthly and thorough rationale for closure, and you've participated in CSD and AFD with clear and solid thinking. Even if you didn't delete articles, you've already proven yourself qualified in other areas of Wikipedia including WP:DRV and closing RFCs. Please consider.--v/r - TP 14:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope you accept TParis's offer, I think you'd be a great admin. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TP canvassed me to badger you as well, so here I am Seriously though, run already. We need people with your level of clue.  Regards  So  Why  15:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Count me in on the badgering. This is already about a year overdue; please don't make us wait any longer... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you accept, I'll co-nom ;)  HurricaneFan 25  —  15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for the faith you have in me. I am humbled by the support but must decline the offer. As I have spent more time on Wikipedia, I have become more drawn to content work. Researching topics, reading sources, paraphrasing text, writing articles. Administrating the encyclopedia is crucial to the project's maintenance. When I compare writing content and administrating Wikipedia, I find the former to be more attune with my purpose here. When I compare my content work and my "admin-clerk" work, I find the former to bring me more satisfaction and pride. My view is summarized by 's essay I don't want to be an administrator. Administrators have less time to edit articles. My admin-clerking currently assumes perhaps three-tenths of the time I spent on Wikipedia. The other seven-tenths I spend on content: reviewing DYKs for plagiarism and unreliable sources; rewriting and rescuing the occasional article at AfD; researching, reading, paraphrasing, writing, and requesting feedback and auditing of articles I wish to nominate to become good articles or featured articles. Adminship will inevitably tip the scales of administrating to be more time-consuming, seven-tenths rather than three-tenths of my time here. TParis, I respect the invaluable administrative work you do, but I know it's not right for me. A note about why I doubted and still doubt I would pass RfA. In 2009, I wrote at User talk:Cunard/Archive 4: "I doubt I would pass right now because of my red-linked, ornately decorated userpage. That's why I prefer both my userpage and WP:RFA/Cunard to remain red-linked." I stand by this belief today. A frequent RfA voter has written: "Not having a user page is a huge minus. It means that the user is not a full member of the community." I am confident that the five editors commenting here do not believe I am not a full member of the community. However, I am certain that many in the community have such a view. (For the curious, I have explained through a quote from  at User talk:Cunard/Archive 7 why I do not have a user page.) I raise this not as a reason I am not running for adminship but as an example of the perverse adminship standards; the overriding reason I am declining adminship is so I can keep focused on content work. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly respect that and I appreciate that you've considered it. Aside from that, I do want you to know that I find what you do with RFCs, and all the other work you do, very helpful and I strongly do consider you "a full member of the community" despite what anyone else would say on the matter of your user page.--v/r - TP 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TParis, for your kind words about my work here. With regard to the RfCs, I merely point out ones that can be closed. The editors and admins such as yourself who read and summarize the RfCs do much more work than I and deserve more praise. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Children's Chapel
Thanks Cunard for doing the work to archive the sources I used in the article Children's Chapel, St James' Church, Sydney. I've taken the liberty of moving your comments from the DYK nomination to the article's talkpage and I have addressed them, point by point, over there: Talk:Children's Chapel, St James' Church, Sydney. I'd appreciate it if you could have another look, even though it's now too late for the DYK itself. Whiteghost.ink 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my suggestions. I have replied on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Middlesex
Hey, so as to let you know, I am not giving up on this article. I am trying to gather and read up on the sources, which is taking up time. I am growing a bit concerned that the article might be having too much stuff and is too reliant on non-scholarly text. Just my thoughts at the moment (might change with time and further reading). Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. Please provide examples of non-scholarly sources, so I can better understand your position. Are you referring to the newspaper book reviews I've used? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. I apologize for saying this, but I am no longer able to continue work on Middlesex. I have decided to cease contributing to the WMF projects. In short, I no longer have the enthusiasm I once had; before taking this decision, I find myself constantly questioning why am I spending a substantial time (even while taking short wikibreaks) thinking of ways to improve articles and searching and validating "free" images when that time can be spent with my family or to advance my career. I again apologize; I arrived at this state of mind halfway through the work on Middlesex. I offer a synopsis of what my proposals in mollification.

Indeed, I do think relying on newspaper articles for thematic studies is not a good choice. Questions could be raised on why 30 pages of Shostak (and 22 pages of Cohen) are only used once while journalists are cited more than that. I also have an issue with presenting Thea Hillman's opinions in the article as salient points (i.e. more than a slight weightage). Hillman is a writer, not a critic or scholar. Furthermore, Hillman is also an intersex. I dare say Hillman's opinion towards the portrayal of intersex in the novel is less than objective. The novel's portrayals of intersex has been assessed by scholarly text that unforunately seem not to have been used here. Hillman's opinion could have been used but not to the degree that it is offered as a heavy counter-weight against mainstream views.


 * Appleton's is an early scholarly text; yet, it is not used at all. This (exclusion) is particularly strange to me; Appleton talks much about the transgender issues, pointing out that reviews tend to think the novel skimps on the gender identity issues and showing the novel had much to offer.
 * A peer reviewed journal: the article looks inside the racial/cultural theme of assimilation.
 * D'Erasmo might be an author and talks about Transformation here; however, I think only a short quip (most of it seems like meanderings and off-point ramblings to me) could be used for flavor.
 * This article might be too recent to judge its suitability for use; it does refer to Appleton's work.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * D'Erasmo might be an author and talks about Transformation here; however, I think only a short quip (most of it seems like meanderings and off-point ramblings to me) could be used for flavor.
 * This article might be too recent to judge its suitability for use; it does refer to Appleton's work.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.

I had certain candidates for images as well, subjected to space concerns:


 * File:Ellis Island immigration footage.ogg: A choice to illustrate parts that talk of the Stephinades immigration to the US
 * File:Condor Club North Beach1973.jpg: For parts that talk of Cal's work in San Francisco
 * File:DSC04480e Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Ermafrodito - sec. III a.C. - da Pergamo - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg: Hermaphrodite

That said, my personal belief is that currently the article has too much content in Themes. I had plans to go through and rewrite the section. Critical reception is also getting a bit large and acquires a quote farm-feel when the contents are mainly "he said .... she opined ... he thought". I was thinking of looking for common themes among the opinions and grouping them into a third-person presentation, as well as assessing whether an opinion was insignificant (held by only one or two). Even minor viewpoints (held by a minority compared to a common view) may have to be excluded or reduced, depending on how much have already been written. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the time and effort you've spent composing this final reply to me. I will carefully consider your suggestions about how to rewrite the "Themes" section to be based more on scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, rather than newspaper articles, and your apt image suggestions. I wish you success in your career and thank you for the innumerable hours of selfless service you've devoted to writing and improving articles and mentoring inexperienced editors such as myself. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for invitation
Thanks, mate. However I am no longer interested in martial arts articles since some valuable contributions of dedicated users are wasted by people with no decent expertise. I don't want to take a part in that ridiculous fashion. There're people who think they protect the site, while they are only satisfying themselves in topic they are obsessed with. I've got no time to waste for them, I'm not here to patrol and defend the article to be nominated each week by same people. They decrease my productivity.

Best Regards, Umi1903 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I notified you because you had participated in the previous AfD. Your accusation that the article was "nominated each week by same people" is without factual merit. I procedurally nominated the article for deletion and had not participated in the previous AfDs. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing Others' Comments
I notice in your RFC about joke "You have new messages" banners that you have reproduced arguments made in other discussions of the topic, arguments that you have edited, as you say, for concision, spelling and clarity. I strongly recommend that you either remove the signatures from any that are not exactly as written by the editor, or that you use only the complete unedited version. Changing something that someone has signed is generally not supported as "best practice" on Wikipedia. Bielle (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised the view to reflect that comments as reproduced have been adapted from the users. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To continue your good work: if I were one of the originators, I would expect to find a notice on my talk page pointing out where my comment had been adapted and inserted, and asking for permission to keep the adapted version. It is never wrong to ask permission; it may be wrong to adapt without permission.  You are on the right track. I just think you have further to go, especially if everyone's goodwill is important to the success of your RFC. Regards, Bielle (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I am in a quandary. Before I started the RfC, I considered asking the users for permission; however, I decided not to because such an action—posting on the user talk pages of around ten users—could be construed as a violation of WP:CANVASS. I reasonably could be accused of trying to sway the discussion in favor of my position. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While anything is possible in a group as large as WP editors, including somewhat bizarre interpretations of canvassing, your wording should take care of that problem. You can just say you have summarized their comments originally made here A, and inserted them here B. You'd be pleased to have them review the summary and amend or delete as appropriate. Of course, you have given equal weight to both sides of the argument, have you not? In that case, we have generally held that WP:CANVAS does not apply. Bielle (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Canvassing is applicable in this case. The editors whose arguments I quoted all favored prohibiting "new messages" banner hoaxes. When I reviewed the arguments from the previous debate, I found the opposing arguments to be extremely weak. Take a glance at the comments at Village pump (proposals)/Archive A. The caliber of those "disagree" votes ("How lame can you get?", "The panties-in-a-wad brigade should be stopped", "Everyone who thinks there is the need for some new rule here needs to chill and buy a sense of humor.") mirrors that of today's "oppose votes" ("Grow a sense of humor", "Get lives", "Obviously the support votes are too busy looking at User Pages than contributing anything meaningful"). Having reviewed the earlier discussions, I am not surprised that the "oppose votes" cannot refute the core argument that this template is a net negative and must resort to demeaning others. My summary of the comments is in the "View by Cunard" section, so beyond 's table, I chose not to summarize the "oppose" arguments from the previous debates. Because I do not see anything positive about these banners, and because I have not seen any convincing arguments not to disallow them, I am not the best person to summarize the "oppose" arguments. Someone who favors these banners is more fit to do so. Cunard (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I sit firmly with those who favour keeping prohibitions to a absolute minimum and to imposing them only where there is significant damage possible, I would not deal with the minutia your proposal represents. The oppose votes sound perfectly rational to me. :) And there I will stop. If I am not prepared to devote time to arguing the point itself, then arguing about the motivations of those who actually do care to argue in support of it is a bigger waste of time and smacks of the ad hominen to boot. Thank you for considering the problem of re-writing others' comments. I don't believe you have gone far enough, but you are entitled to your view. Bielle (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the Avoid instruction creep position and addressed it in a supplementary comment below my view in the RfC. I would like to contact the editors I quoted, but I am afraid that notifying only those who have previously expressed an inclination to prohibit the "new messages" banner hoaxes might taint the RfC results. How can a balance be struck between not violating the "vote stacking" mentioned in Canvassing and informing users that I have adapted their comments? Cunard (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Alpha_Quadrant. Thank you. —Taric25 (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
Hi SilkTork. Would you watchlist Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if you have not already watchlisted it? There is a backlog at the noticeboard. I hope you're able to close a few of the discussions there. Thanks! Cunard (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link. I'll put it on my userpage, and when I am in the mood for doing a closure or two, I'll take a look.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RFB
Just a note to say that I am working on the questions, and that I appreciate your discretion so they don't look neglected. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:WilliamH. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seton Medical Center
what's a spotcheck?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A spot check is a "cursory inspection or examination". I did a spotcheck of a source at Template:Did you know nominations/Seton Medical Center to see whether there was close paraphrasing. When I found none, I passed the article. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hello Cunard, I am currently considering the possibility of running for adminship. Given that you are the only editor I have ever had a major conflict with, it was suggested that I bring this to your attention. A few days after that October incident, I had a fairly long discussion in IRC with User:DeltaQuad. After my discussion with DQ, I realized that I had erred, so I genuinely tried to take your advice to heart. And to put it mildly, my attitude during that October incident was quite poor, I apologize for that. If possible, I would like to resolve the past conflict, rather than having it continue to linger.

So, before I even consider creating an RfA page, I would appreciate your thoughts. However, given the past conflict, I would understand perfectly if you would rather avoid interacting with me. Regardless of whether or not I do decide to RfA, I sincerely want to resolve this past conflict and improve. While RfA is part of the reason, I have been thinking about bringing this up for some time. I don't relish having outstanding conflict. To assist in demonstrating my sincerity, if you don't think I would be fit to be an admin, then I will hold off at least six months before even considering it again. If I have made mistakes anywhere, please feel free to be blunt about it and tell me, I won't take offense. I thank you for your time. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I applaud the maturity you have shown in coming to my talk page and admitting you could and should have responded better during the incident. I am unconvinced, however, about your sincerity. At a discussion above, I wrote about 's note at User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 10 regarding your selective elision of the subsections he added. Flatscan's comments added context and insight to the discussion. They included a link to our further discussion at, where I refuted several claims made on your talk page. I understand that Flatscan's additions were unfavorable to your position, but I expect editors—especially administrator candidates—to be open and willing to consider evidence that contradicts their statements. Not hide them. Not pretend that they do not exist. You replied: "By the time you joined the discussion, it had been over for almost two days. Rather than continue another round of a discussion over the same issue, it seemed quite appropriate to archive it. Also see my comment above. It pretty much sums up the conclusion of the discussion. Your links and comments from other editors have demonstrated that there is a disagreement beyond just this discussion. Changes should be made at WT:AFD, not here. Also per the talk page guidelines Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred." Policy permits me to remove comments from this talk page without archiving them. The comments are still available in the page history if anyone is interested in them. I read the comments you added, but the links you provided I had already seen through my own search of the talk archives. I still came to the same conclusion. Hammersoft's statistical comments were accurate, as many discussions are closed early, despite the fact that there is an 11 day backlog at AfD. Arguing to change this fact here is not the correct venue. I am not the only editor making early closures. WhatAmIDoing's addition to WP:AFD was not unilateral. The information he added is already in WP:SK. Now that I believe that answers all the points in the discussion. Best, Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The evasion and dishonesty in this reply is breathtaking. The quote from the talk page guidelines is unhelpful. Flatscan never disputed your right to remove comments from your talk page. He asked you to explain the motive behind the erasure. Flatscan spent much time researching and compiling the links. Flatscan's hard work was dismissed. The links were erased, as if they had never existed. They still do not exist. The edit summary of the manual archival from your talk page and the edit summary of the moving of the discussions to the talk page archive. Neither reveal that you chose to erase part of the history, to forget some of what had been said. I did not notice this deceit, but the keen Flatscan did. I would not register an oppose at RfA merely on the basis of a six-month-old dispute over the early AfD closures. I would review your most recent contributions to see if the intransigent attitude has persisted. I would review your talk page archives to see whether friends continued to post unhelpful replies to people who had constructive criticism of your edits. I would see whether you asked your friends to refrain from obstructing discussion and attacking them. At Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive145 in mid-February,  wrote, "I have been giving him a hard time about [the creation of poorly sourced BLPs at AfC] on his talkpage, but he's got friends who think he did nothing wrong". At User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 14,  and  interfered with the discourse, attacking Nomoskedasticity and rendering constructive dialogue impossible. You did nothing to reign them in. As an admin, any questioning of your actions may be met by commentary from an inexhaustive supply of well-meaning but unhelpful friends. They should be told to back off to allow for unshackled conversation between you and the original poster. But such review is not necessary. The deceit in erasing history has irreparably shredded any trust I had in you. Perhaps you are young and the disingenuous erasure is the mistake of youth. To borrow 's words at Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin, "If [you're] not yet an adult, I'd be willing to consider this question again, in 5 years or so, whenever [you're] grown up. If [you're] already an adult, then I find it hard to believe this problem will ever improve." You have asked for me to be blunt and I have been. Now for some positive feedback: A review of your recent AfD closes show you have refrained from closing AfDs early. While I would not support your becoming an administrator, I thank you for the work you do here, particularly at WP:AFC. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You make some very good points above. Regarding the archival of the October discussion, yes, it would have been best had I noted my removal. At the time of Flatscan's comment, the discussion had been dormant for about two days. The points brought up were the same points brought up previously, only with extensive research. I had no interest in renewing the discussion, so I blanked it rather than archiving it. Yes, this action was inappropriate and I should have continued the discussion. However, there was no deception intended, nor were Flatscan's comments permanently deleted. Anyone can freely view them in the talk page history.


 * In regards to the Roomi S. Hayat article, after replying to the editor's concern, I was attempting to rectify my mistake. Until I edit conflicted with the user's cleanup tagging, I had not even checked back to my talk page. After fixing the edit conflict, I skimmed the messages added since my last reply, and I dropped a brief note asking for him to hold off adding cleanup tags while I was actively editing the page. In retrospect, I agree the discussion would have gone better had it just been the other editor and myself.


 * While I can understand your mistrust and skepticism of my actions, I sincerely wish for that to eventually change. I appreciate the time that you put into this review. Your helpful input has given me a fair amount to consider. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that you continue trying to justify the selective archival. The discussion among you, Flatscan, and myself had not been "dormant for two days"; it was ongoing—your final comment about the matter was not six hours old. At 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC), you wrote "No point arguing about the rest anymore. I have agreed to disagree." You had failed to understand what you had been told, so Flatscan did some research for your edification. added the "Review of the daily logs" subsection on 04:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC) and the "168 hours" subsection on 04:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC). His words were met with no commentary, merely swept under the filthy carpet. This is a slap in the face of a user who has very limited time to spend on Wikipedia. A complete waste of his time and efforts. That he responded to this dismissal temperately speaks to his unflappable, good nature. The points brought up were the same points brought up previously, only with extensive research. – 's research at the "168 hours" subsection supported the theory that save for closes that met the Speedy keep criteria, early closes were not the norm. Hiding research that is against your position is the mark of shameless dishonesty. Flatscan also linked to my rebuttal at User talk:Cunard. Removing this served to prevent people from seeing that the assertions you had made—the footnote added by  and your unsupported assertion that "the policy you quoted makes the exception for early closures in the last sentence"—had been rebutted. I had no interest in renewing the discussion, so I blanked it rather than archiving it. Yes, this action was inappropriate and I should have continued the discussion. – this justification is nonsensical. You archived the discussion on 18 October 2011 when discussion had not occurred on either User talk:Alpha Quadrant and User talk:Cunard since 13 October 2011. Archiving the discussion concludes it. Blanking conceals it. Both cease a discussion from being renewed, but you chose the latter because Flatscan's words were unsavory to your position. However, there was no deception intended, nor were Flatscan's comments permanently deleted. Anyone can freely view them in the talk page history. – it is true that everyone can "freely view [Flatscan's comments] in the talk page history". But a viewer will not only have to wade through hundreds of revisions to find them but also must know what to look for. You know this, and you know I know this. Please do not treat me as a fool. You were unable to hide the comments through any other means, so you chose the only tool available to you: sly deletion when manually archiving the page. The Roomi S. Hayat article: Thank you for returning to the article to correct your errors. Kevin Rutherford  posted a flippant WP:SOFIXIT link on your talk page at 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC). When you returned to your talk page at 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC), I don't understand why you did not tell him to back off. He made another unhelpful comment at 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC): "Funny, because he did not create it. Why don't you work in the AFC backlog for a little while, and let us criticize you as you have just torn AQ apart. As a wise man once said, 'Do not criticize someone's job performance unless you have done it before." I now recall that I filed a contributor copyright investigation on this user in April 2011: Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101. I'm surprised that he is working at AfC and is a Campus Ambassador when he had such a shaky grasp of the copyright policies. I hope he has educated himself about the copyright policy and plagiarism guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment
Hi to both of you. I happened to see the RfA section header in my watchlist yesterday. I wandered over and, having been reminded of the dispute, browsed Alpha Quadrant's archives. Cunard, thank you for valuing my work. While I was not pleased with AQ's removal of my research, such removals are not new to me, and I will gladly settle for User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 10. Alpha Quadrant, I rarely participate at RfA and do not plan to comment at your RfA, should you proceed. Flatscan (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Flatscan, thanks for the comment. I owe you an apology as well. As Cunard noted above, I dismissed all of the long and tedious work you put into the debate, merely because I wanted to put it behind me. That doesn't make what I did right, I should have been more opened minded toward what you had to say. Nor should I have left your messages out of the archives. While it does not make up for my past mistake, I have corrected the archive link. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  05:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a step in the right direction. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology and adding my work to the archive, Alpha Quadrant. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your work is indeed invaluable, and it is unfortunate that some do not value it. I agree that such removals are not rare, but they are seldom done underhandedly. Only one good thing has come of Alpha Quadrant's deceptive removal of your research: We have seen his true character and are given a taste of how he'd behave as an admin. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit of an involved comment as I've been talking to Alpha Quadrant about this RFA but he hasn't asked me to respond here. Is it possible the above examples are the exception of Alpha Quadrant's character and not the rule?  You paint a very different picture of him than I am used to seeing.  Can you outline what it'd take to demonstrate to you a change in the behavior your concerned about?  You've made it out that these issues are irredeemable, but I am sure you can find it in your heart to forgive him if he can show you that he's improved, right?  I am concerned because AFC and AFD both need more sysops and I think we have a candidate here who knows both in depth.--v/r - TP 16:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that honesty and integrity can be taught or instilled in an editor. This is not a case of forgiving him—I bear him no ill will for wasting the time of Flatscan, S Marshall, Spartaz, and myself—but one of honesty and integrity. The intransigence during the early AfD closes discussion would not by itself have compelled me to oppose Alpha Quadrant at RfA six months later. The Roomi S. Hayat incident reflects poorly more on Alpha Quadrant's talk-page watchers than on himself. But I raised it to give some feedback on his more recent edits. The reason I cannot support this user is the dishonesty caught by Flatscan. From Sir William Gurney Benham's 1907 Book of Quotations, Proverbs and Household Words, "Honesty is like an icicle; if once it melts that is the end of it." I can only repeat what I said above to Alpha Quadrant: "Perhaps you are young and the disingenuous erasure is the mistake of youth. To borrow 's words at Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin, 'If [you're] not yet an adult, I'd be willing to consider this question again, in 5 years or so, whenever [you're] grown up. If [you're] already an adult, then I find it hard to believe this problem will ever improve.'" Although there is a lack of administrators at AfD (I don't think working at AfC requires the tools), the community would be better served having Alpha Quadrant as a regular user rather than one in a position of authority. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AFC is in need of administrators. Page moves tend to get held up by existing pages and AFC also has the odd history merge here and there.  I just would really appreciate it if you could take the time to reflect on if this was intentional dishonesty by Alpha Quadrant or if it could've been misunderstanding coupled with stress and a bit of confusion.--v/r - TP 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given this case deep thought and stand by what I have said. My initial view at 06:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC) has been confirmed by his reply at 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC). It was somewhat possible it was "misunderstanding coupled with stress and a bit of confusion" in October 2011. But the evasive March 2012 justification confirms it was "intentional dishonesty". Most AfC requests do not require administrator intervention. I'd prefer he work on those rather than seek a position of authority. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for "Illegality in Singapore administrative law"
Hi. I believe I've addressed all the remaining issues relating to "Template:Did you know nominations/Illegality in Singapore administrative law". Could you give it a green tick? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have verified the article as ready for showcasing on the main page. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of R. Peter Ubtrent reference
Hi,

You deleted my reference because you said only a few books in print do not make a person notable. Have you looked at the other people in the List of Science Fiction authors? Most have as many books in print as I do. You said that you couldn't find the books on Google Books. They are there. I just looked again and found them without a problem. Can the page please be undeleted? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SANDIABLONDE38 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The R. Peter Ubtrent article was deleted following a community Articles for deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/R. Peter Ubtrent. My rationale for deletion was that there was no significant coverage in secondary reliable sources about you. A Google Books search returned primarily entries for your books; the other entries were not related to you. Each Wikipedia biography must pass Verifiability, Notability, and Notability (people). The key barrier to your article's getting restored is the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, which the Articles for deletion participants were unable to uncover. The article may be undeleted if you can provide at least two third-party reliable sources that discuss you in detail. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 82
I invite you to provide your views at this discussion, which I think is important in clarifying when quoting or close paraphrasing is appropriate, or at least is allowed. This should not be a matter of personal preference. If close paraphrasing is not allowed in any circumstances, we need policy or guideline changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at the discussion. Cunard (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Opium Nation
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of astronomy websites for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of astronomy websites is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  W.  D.   Graham  14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

bloke
"..promises that she will advance more specific arguments at AfD.."


 * 'He', not 'she'. For some reason Cardamom confuses people :) Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be fair to inform the people who edited the article after it moved into mainspace while the RFC was active. The reason is the whole process got screwed up when the article was moved from tempspace into mainspace before the RFC was completed, so proper notifications didn't occur; I think we need to inform those people since the deletion was under discussion at the time they were editing the article but there wasn't proper notification about it at the time. They were editing an article they didn't know was under deletion discussion and probably would have been part of the RFC had they known (presumably since they cared enough to edit the article). Green Cardamom (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually what happened is that you (inappropriately) created the article in mainspace as a subpage of the existing disambig page -- in violation of procedural policy for drafts, common sense, and the consensus of other editors -- and then another user mistook it for an established page that was misplaced and moved it to its own page. In any event, what you are proposing now would clearly be canvassing and is not allowed.   Given that (as result of consensus at the time and the fact that the pages was created through an illegitimate means) those who opposed your position could -- and probably should -- have simply blanked the page and redirected it back to the original (disambig) page and foregone the AfD altogether, you really should not be looking that gift horse in the mouth.   You seem to be willing to use any advantage you can to protect and maintain this pet project of yours, and not all of it is really appropriate. Snow (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Green Cardamom: Thank you for the correction. I've made the correction at Talk:Bloke I agree with Snow Rise that notifying everyone who edited the article would likely fall afoul of canvassing. A review of the edits to the article indicates that most of the edits were trivial in nature (e.g. copyediting). made a nontrivial expansion to the article, so I've notified her. The editors who made trivial edits probably do not need to be notified. @Snow Rise: I agree that the creation of the article in the mainspace as a subpage was improper. I was close to closing the discussion as redirect the article to the disambiguation page per WP:NOTDICTIONARY but decided to give Green Cardamom an opportunity to make more substantive arguments as promised. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Snow, chill (a small pun). I've been on WP since 2003 and have always done it that way and never had a complaint. I'm not surprised to be in the wrong procedurally, but this is the first I've heard of it. No one said anything when it was done (including you), if someone complained I never saw it, and would have accommodated anyone wanted. Didn't see it as canvasing because it's a neutral requester and they are not cherry picking based on supposed position, but procedural matter and fairness due to how screwed things got. It was a suggestion. If anything I could complain that the AfD should have been done immediately when the article moved into mainspace, closing and replacing the RFC, and that would have caught the DYK and had a ton more interest in the AFD (over 4000 views in one day). Gift horse all around.

@Cunard, thank you for the consideration and notification. It's not just me who wants to keep the article. If you had deleted without an AfD procedure, I would have contested further up the resolution chain, you made the right choice for a speedy resolution. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely incorrect and misrepresentative of the chain of events. Consensus of the RfC was that the page should not be made in the first place.  Once it got added anyway through inappropriate means the consensus was that it should be removed.  You argued (without being honest about how the article got promoted in the first place) that now that it was in main article space it was entitled to an AfD.  This is incorrect - going on consensus and the invalid process that led to the article being moved into article space in the first place, any editor involved could have blanked the page and redirected it and would have been doing the right thing, adherence-to-policy-wise.  This process was considered but not followed through on because we didn't want to turn the talk page into a toxic environment and the article page into an edit war and it was figured there was little harm in letting an AfD proceed -- we were following the same thinking Cunard references as his motivation above -- though, again, if we were following policy to the letter we should have reversed the moves made in violation of consensus.  The fact that this never happened is also not a point against any editor involved, so I don't know why you are suggesting when you say "If anything I could complain that the AfD should have been done immediately when the article moved into mainspace"; AfD's do not have to happen within a given time frame and the facts have not changed here.  And I am quite chill (well, maybe ever-so-slightly less so since you said that), I assure you - if this were a matter of aggravation for me surely I would have redirected the page or nominated it for deletion months ago when this all first came up. Snow (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC


 * There was no consensus. As you said at the time, "Well, I wouldn't exactly say we had an emergent consensus" (13 June 2012 (UTC)). A neutral admin looked at the RFC today and said: "The discussion has petered out, there is obviously no consensus that bloke (word) is the primary topic, and articles cannot be deleted via a talk page discussion, they must go to AfD." That's the reason Cunard started the AfD as far as I can tell.
 * You also said: "we didn't want to turn the talk page into a toxic environment and the article page into an edit war and it was figured there was little harm in letting an AfD proceed" .. just curious, who is "we" and where did this conversation take place? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here on my talk page; there's nothing nefarious nor inappropriate in it, just a routine exchange concerning who should nominate and sorting out exactly how the page had been promoted to article space to begin with. Now that you've brought it up though, I do encourage you, and anyone who cares to follow the chain of events here, to take a look at it, since it raises some of the issues I had with how you had misrepresented how the article had come to be located in article space, downplaying your role in it and then using the technical snaffu that your mistake caused as an argument that it now deserved an AfD and even going as far as to say that person who moved it had essentially endorsed your position, even though their edit summary clearly stated that they moved it because it seemed to be an misplaced article.  And in fact, given it was Bearcat, it was almost certainly a bot action.  I feel you did the same thing here today on Cunard's page, suggesting a canvasing action that was clearly not appropriate and suggesting as justification that very same technical loophole that resulted from your actions, while glossing over that it came from your error.  I don't understand, if you see why the article having been added in that way was not proper procedure and you see how it derails the process -- as you implied above that it did -- then why didn't you just blank the page yourself until after the RfC? And said RfC did have a consensus against you, if a slim one;  you selectively quoted me above by using a comment from early in the discussion.  I take it on good faith that the misplacement of the draft was just an error, but a pretty big one that someone who has edited since 2003 should have owned up to and reversed himself, not exploited to gain procedural advantages in protecting his contributions.  These are all things that I considered saying in the last post but held back on, because I hoped we wouldn't have to delve too deeply into them and create bad blood since the article's AfD doesn't need to be concerned with any of this -- but I must speak frankly about them now if you want to open that door.   As an editor of nine years you must surely be familiar with the fact that even the best of us sometimes finds ourselves bending both our personal rationale and policy a little to protect content we are involved with.  I respectfully suggest that you review the course of events and discussion on this matter and consider if its possible that you've fallen prey to this understandable (and incremental) pitfall of all Wikipedians, with regard to this article.  I hope we can leave the matter at that, aside from mutually-civil debate of our opinions on the AfD, of course, but if you wish to discuss matters not directly relevant to the AfD further, please feel free to message me on my page so we don't consume anymore of Cunard's talk page.  And I do apologize for the length which I went on here, Cunard. Edited to add: For the record, I'm to "blame" for the AfD not going up immediately after the RfC: I told Rossami I would take care of it, but it got buried in my to-do list.  But again, an AfD was never required - the changes should have been reverted and, if you chose to pursue the matter further, the RfC relisted to get a clearer consensus; the article was never entitled to an AfD and this was merely an indulgence to maintain good will between editors.  Snow (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the two of you using my talk page for discussing this issue, as it's best to keep behavioral issues from the AfD. By the way, I looked at your talk page, Snow Rise, and was disturbed by the aspersions cast by another user against you because you voiced a different opinion than he did. I've had the same happen to me and find AfD to have become an extremely negative environment. Cunard (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the solidarity. Yeah, I was a little blown away by that exchange, all things considered.  But like most such events it was soon done.  But yeah, AfD's often don't bring out the best in contributors and I think that's probably the biggest factors to why participation is often so low in AfDs and why many go unresolved even after multiple relists/nominations; experienced editors know the importance of the process, but often the process ends up being the least pleasant part of your time spent on the project, so you question yourself every time you go to check the log.  The contentiousness  (and often bad blood) that they can generate are the reason I limit myself to 2-4 a week.   Though sometimes you come up with a novel solution that bridges the gap between the two sides or find/translate the source necessary to keep valuable content that otherwise would have had to be chucked -- that's always nice.  But there's times that, yeah, I find myself questioning why I got involved in the first place, because you can usually see which are going to be the most volatile from the get-go and you have no one to blame for standing in the line of fire but yourself!  It's to be expecting, I suppose, that discussions with potential of removing content will be more prone to created acrimony, but it doesn't need to get as out of hand is often-times can.  Anyway, as regards your current little quagmire, bear with it - it'll likely pass briefly enough, as I'm sure you know.  Snow (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous time I was involved in a contentious AfD was in May 2010 at Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). I had forgotten the personal attacks and shameless behavior of participants bent on retaining a non-notable topic dear to them. I don't regret filing either the May 2010 or the current AfD but am cynically reminded of the unbridled dishonesty all too common on Wikipedia. I agree that AfDs tend to be the most unpleasant part of the project and much prefer to work on fairly uncontroversial subjects like Nancy Kwan. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nancy Kwan's still kicking, huh? That's nice to know. Snow (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, she thankfully is. She still looks very young in her recent documentary To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey. A timeless character. Cunard (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion review filed at Deletion review/Log/2012 July 21. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up
Thank you for the notice on the AfD for Bloke (word); I meant to nominate it myself months ago but it got lost in the mix. Appreciate you notifying everyone who participated in the RfC. Snow (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination)
If I were going to list the above at DRV, I might post something like: Consensus that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject an argument that is based on a straightforward and well-established application of WP:GNG and a strong reason to delete an article at AfD per policy, policy practice, and per User:Sandstein/AfD closing. Instead, the closer asserts that evaluation of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, which is not in User:Sandstein/AfD closing (admin explaining his discretion application) or any policy or guideline. The delete arguments addressed in depth both the collective coverage of the topic and individual reliable sources coverage of the topic, and both arguments were strong reasons to delete that were not overcome by those proposing to keep the article. Contrary to the close, the amount of coverage in reliable sources under WP:GNG is something that can be evaluated at AfD rather than merely being a matter of editorial judgment, consensus was that the holistic approach pursued by the "delete" side was stronger than the holistic approach pursued by the "keep" side, and consensus established that the topic failed WP:GNG. In addition, applying the closer's own discretion policy supports deleting the article. The close should be overturned to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your exhaustive search for sources at the AfD. Deletion guidelines for administrators states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Ad hominem arguments, arguments that an article written by a Universe Today staff member was sufficient to establish notability, arguments that a name drop or a citation established notability, and the like are logically fallacious and cannot reasonably fall under "editorial discretion". wrote, "On the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, I am inclined to close this discussion with a deletion." Like you, I am confused by Sandstein's closing rationale. Based on the strength of argument, I think the consensus was that Universe Today failed Notability and in most cases, should be deleted. However, because I had merged some content to List of astronomy websites, the close could have been to redirect to List of astronomy websites (with the content preserved under the redirect). The "When in doubt, don't delete" statement is inapplicable in this case. Sandstein is a reasonable AfD closer, and I'd like to hear his thoughts about the matter (and perhaps amend his close) before determining whether to file a DRV appeal. Cunard (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been asked to comment here. I agree with you that the "delete" side has the better arguments. However, while AfD is not a vote, it is also not only a contest to get the closing admin to agree with one's opinion. Numbers matter as well. That's why I tend to not base my closures only on the strength of argument when both sides have somewhat valid arguments that can be made by experienced editors in good faith, even if I happen to think (as here) that one argument is stronger. In this case, the "holistic" approach of the "keep" side, considering the sourcing to be sufficient in aggregate, is still within the range of defensible interpretation of our practices and guidelines related to notability. More generally, assessing whether the sourcing is adequate for notability is a matter of judgment that lends itself poorly to an admin decision by fiat; such closures tend to be derided as "supervotes". For these reason, I am not ready to find a "delete" consensus against a majority of "keep" opinions in this case. But do feel free to take it to DRV. I imagine commentators there might at least be inclined to consider a relisting, but I would not like to make a unilateral relist decision.  Sandstein   20:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, thank you for the reply. Uzma Gamal, I won't be taking this to DRV because I was the nominator of the AfD, where I was subjected to ad hominem attacks that will likely occur again if I were the DRV nominator and would be a distraction from discussing the AfD close. I encourage you to consider filing a DRV nomination or perhaps start a merge/redirect RfC discussion on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have much interest in listing it at DVR. I thought that you might, so I posted my thoughts here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I have listed the AfD close for review at Deletion review/Log/2012 July 19. Although I may be subjected to more ad hominem attacks, such possibilities should not dissuade me from an appropriate, policy-compliant action. The deletion review is confined to discussion of a relist of the discussion to allow for more policy-based opinions from the retention side, which I believe will find more support in the community than an overturn to delete in an AfD where a plurality of participants voted "keep". Cunard (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your additional thoughts on the matter, Sandstein. I see you also edited an article I wrote two hours after I posted the above on Cunard's talk page. So thank you for that. I agree that the "holistic" approach of sourcing to be sufficient in aggregate is a basis to keep an article. In fact, on seeing the AfD, I had planned to cobble together an article based on reliable sources and post it. However, between all the references found, there just wasn't enough material. The closer didn't have to assess the sourcing to determine whether it was adequate for notability since the participants in the AfD did that. It didn't appear to me that weight was given to the delete's position on the holistic approach of sourcing, particularly those of us who specifically analyzed each sourcing as to whether the collective was adequate for notability. The keeps appeared to merely post conclusory opinions on the collective of the sources. Your position about not wanting to make a unilateral relist decision make sense. I apologize if I came across as disparaging your efforts rather than merely disagreeing with the close. I do appreciate your willingness to not only close a 4th AfD, but to post your reasoning for doing so. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, but the kudos belongs to closers such as yourself who assess the consensus at difficult RfCs and who clerks WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined RfC close
I've declined to close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, which you brought to Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and explained there. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jeff Civillico
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Francis_Anhalt
I've spent some time trying to improve the article, verify sources, and substantiate the article. Let me know what your thoughts are. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Jensen
is now userfied -- it was not in great shape as an article, so why don't we simply get it into shape and then back into mainspace? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks! As soomn as we get it in shape with a few more sources, I think it would pass -- some of the "deletes" were based on the use of "psychologist" and not really on "notability" I think. All of the non-contentious SPS claims were deleted when the goal was to make it uncited . Collect (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article would pass AfD now because the sources provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. Per the closing admin's comment, db-repost wouldn't apply to the article because of the substantial revisions. Would you consider returning it to the mainspace now? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good examples?
Hi there. I haven't forgotten your post about helping close RfCs. In light of the edits you made to the guide on assisting with RfC, do you have any good examples of fulfilling RfCs you can share? It will help me in perhaps providing any additional ideas for refining the steps to responding to RfC requests. Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided some examples of RfC closes on your talk page, and here are some more: Talk:Sister Roma, Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 2, Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, Talk:God, Talk:Pakistan Zindabad, Talk:Said the actress to the bishop, and Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 14. Some of the RfCs are merge discussions; others involve whether or not to use an image, whether including a statement in the lead is appropriate or undue weight, and whether an image, template, or category should be used in an article. Because editors found the issue significant enough to start an RfC, I've been listing expired RfCs at WP:ANRFC to hopefully bring closure to the disagreements. When responding to RfC close requests at ANRFC, I recommend making sure that 30 days have passed (especially if the discussion is very contentious) to avoid process-based complaints about the close. However, if the discussion has become inactive, or if the consensus is in favor of an early close, then an early close would be fine. Unlike deletion discussions which have Deletion review as a venue to appeal closes, there is no established appeal venue for RfC closes. So I recommend that if someone contests your RfC close (either it is reverted or someone disagrees with it on your talk page), that you list it at WP:ANRFC for a third opinion. I hope this answers your question and look forward to your RfC closes when you're ready. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the examples you provided of closes; I was more so looking for any good examples of fulfilling a RfC request (that is, actual comments). It has been said those who fulfill a RfC should not "vote" or weigh in with their personal preference, but should instead point out any rules/guidelines/policies which the group may not be aware of, or provide clarification of rules/policies/guidelines being thrown around. I fulfilled a RfC here, and although I did not disclose my personal preference in my comments, I stated both sides of the debate had valid arguments and thus recommended a sort of truce. However, an editor involved with the discussion felt I was stepping across the bounds by making reaching a conclusion (a ruling?), stating I had committed a "supervote," although I see in some of the "good examples" you've provided links to (such as this one), the RfC editors have in fact done such. I am essentially asking: does fulfilling a RfC allow for the editor to a) let their preference (based on guidlines, precedent, etc. of course, not merely opinion) be known and provide links to guidelines/rules that may be of some help to the group, or b) only point out guidelines where the group may find answers to their issue without giving the yeah or nay for proposition #1, #2, etc. and not intervene in any way with a poll (such as "#1 is the strongest option because...")? Zepppep (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A good example of fulfilling an RfC through an actual comment is Hobit's comment at Talk:RT (TV network); he disagreed with how the consensus had been formed, so he commented rather than closed the discussion. Uninvolved editors who fulfill but do not close an RfC can weigh in with their personal preferences (i.e. their application of the guidelines, policies, and precedents to the question being posed). RfCs are created primarily to attract the participation of uninvolved editors who can impartially weigh everything and then declare their opinion, so there is strong precedent for editors who fulfill RfCs to state their preferences. Your fulfillment of the RfC at Talk:Beef Products Inc. is fine as a comment from an uninvolved editor. But it would not be fine as a close because there was no consensus to apply the quotation marks to both terms or omit the quotation marks for both terms. I think editors found fault with your statement "RfC Response: Both terms shall be used" because it read more as a close rather than a comment. A better way to phrase the comment would have been "I recommend that both terms should be used." Cunard (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hobit's talk page
Some descriptive comments there, if you are interested. Take care. NTox · talk 04:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on Hobit's talk page. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your Questia online library codes failed to deliver
We tried to use Wikipedia email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of Special:Preferences. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers, Ocaasi 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi WilyD. Thank you for reading through the contentious MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) and closing it. Your closing statement was: "The result of the discussion was Weak keep - large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page.  Wily D  08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)" I endorse the assessment of the consensus in full: that "large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not". However, I believe that that assessment leads to a different result than "weak keep". wrote, "Remove the soapboxing content." He was explicitly joined by Beyond My Ken and myself who revised our positions from "delete" to "remove the soapboxing content" and implicitly by the editors who considered the "large chunks of content [to be] problematic" per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG. There is a long-standing precedent that MfD is the proper venue for reviewing pages that have both problematic and unproblematic content. See for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag in August 2011. In July 2010, there was a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5. More recently, the issue was discussed at the RfC Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Taking into account the discussions in July 2010 and July 2012 and MfD precedent, the closer wrote: "I am closing this discussion with the outcome: There is clearly no consensus to adopt the proposed language. A misleading announcement may have distorted discussion somewhat, but most of the editors commenting are experienced and must be presumed to have read the proposal they are commenting on. This will not stop MfD discussions of pages based only on parts of the page content -- a page containing inappropriate content for user space is not automatically off-limits to MfD simply because other content on the page is appropriate. DES (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)" Would you consider revising your close to "The result of the discussion was remove the large chunks of problematic content and keep the large chunks of unproblematic content"? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this question. But it's not straightforward to consider (partly because it's a quite long discussion), and I'm not terribly fond of the "compromise by fiat" closes of redirect or merge where only a small minority argued for that, with a lot of straight keeps and straight deletes (which I think this closely parallels). But I'm considering it. If you're unhappy that I'm slow (which I'm likely to be), feel free to try DRV, but I doubt it's likely to be all that helpful. Wily D 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Taking this to WP:DRV is undesirable because I don't think further debate at a deletion forum is healthy or productive. Please take as long as you need to consider the request I posed to you, as it is a very difficult one, and I would prefer that you think carefully about it rather than rush. I will likely take some time to reply to your decision because I will not be that active on Wikipedia in the upcoming weeks, so I wouldn't mind if you are slow in reaching a decision. I wouldn't consider this a "compromise by fiat" close because in the MfD, the sole point of contention was the soapbox–blog material. Those who voted "delete" voiced no opposition to the userboxes, templates, and Wikipedia-related links. None of them voiced any objection to the "Awards" link, the "Why do I choose to contribute to wikipedia? - Is wikipedia reliable? - 1000 APH references can't be wrong!" links, userboxes such as User:UBX/male, User Adelaide, User WP AUP, User:Timeshift9/freedom, and User:UBX/triplecrown, or the links below "A picture tells a thousand words. Need to find free Public Domain or Creative Commons images? These are the places I search most:". They bolded "delete" rather than "remove" because of the misconception that MfD can only result in "keep" and "delete". (Their "delete" bolding may be interpreted as meaning "delete the soapbox–blog material material" by either deleting the entire page [if they incorrectly believed MfD does not permit nominations based on portions of user pages] or deleting just the inappropriate content.) So rather than focusing on the bolded "delete" votes, I think placing more weight on the editors' underlying arguments will show that their positions are identical to those of Robofish's, mine, and Beyond My Ken's. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (from Ironholds)

 * Hi Ironholds. Thank you for your kind compliment about my work on the Jeff Civillico article. I noticed you granted me the autopatrolled right. Thank you for trusting me with the userright. However, I would like the autopatrolled flag to be removed. One, I do not wish to have any userrights. Two, I want my work to be seen by newpage patrollers such as yourself. With more eyes on articles I create, there is a greater chance that editors can catch and fix any factual errors or typos I make. And the occasional praise and barnstar don't hurt. ;) Third, my article creations are very sporadic, so I don't think my not having the tool will burden the system. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Would an admin remove my autopatrolled right per my request above? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Snowolf How can I help? 08:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
You seem to be running that page, and I appreciate it. I was wondering, when I fulfill a request for closure, do I need to put the or can I just remove the request altogether if there is no conversation associated with it?  MBisanz  talk 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MBisanz. Thank you so much for your prolific work at the requests for closure page! I'm very grateful for the work that you and the other closers do. When a request for closure is fulfilled, the closer usually puts in the section. The requests will be archived later at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4. Archiving versus removing requests was briefly discussed in this discussion. I supported archiving because I use the archives to read RfC closes when I've been away for extended periods of time. Browsing through the ANRFC page history rather than the archives to find links to the closes would be more tedious. I noticed that you are using rfc top in your closes. ("A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.") I've rarely seen the template used outside of Requests for comment/User conduct. Would you consider using another template like discussion top or archive top in your non-RfC/U closes? The rfc top template places closes at the bottom of discussions, while the other closing templates place the closing rationales in more prominent positions. For example, in your close of the Welcome template discussion, users must scroll down several pages to reach your closing summary. Users are also more likely to miss the discussion if it is not noted at the top of the section. If you prefer rfc top, though, feel free to continue using it, as I do not want to impose my preferences on others. Also, for your closes of Requests for comment/User conduct (Requests for comment/Kurmaa and Requests for comment/Offender9000), would you list them at Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive? Best, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do on the future archive top templates and already done on adding the two RFC/Us. Thanks for listing pages on ANRFC. Also, I couldn't help but notice your recent comment at RFA. While I don't want to discourage you from commenting, I know Legoktm well and have seen E around a bit and never noticed anything amiss with either of them. Maybe it's a little harsh on E to oppose him for not knowing his nominators would do things you think are question AFTER he accepted the nomination?  MBisanz  talk 05:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At the top of the RfA vote, I wrote: "Summary of oppose: uncommunicativeness and immaturity." At Requests for adminship/Σ, I wrote: "The two underlying themes in Σ's demerits are (i) uncommunicativeness and (ii) immaturity." It is clear that the nominators' poor behavior does not form the basis of my oppose. The attempt to brand it as such overlooks the key issues. The nominators' poor behavior was added to ask Σ to review their behavior and decide whether it is acceptable. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks for clarifying. I had merely skimmed it on my way here and missed the beginning part.  MBisanz  talk 05:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you for taking a second look. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

RfCs at AN
Recently I received a notice on my talk page from Dennis Brown suggesting that I consider helping to clear out a backlog of RfCs at the administrator's noticeboard, saying that anyone can close them without even being an administrator. When I got there to check through them for the first time, I noticed you had actually submitted the majority of the ones that were open for closure, but were explicitly asking for "an admin" to assess the consensus at each discussion. I was just wondering, would you accept it if a non-admin such as myself were to close some of the RfCs you've brought up over there?

Thanks, and take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kurtis. Thank you volunteering to review the RfCs at WP:ANRFC! For most of the discussions, non-admins can close them. I have recently changed from using "admin" to using "uninvolved editor". The only discussions non-admins should avoid closing are contentious XfDs, WP:MRVs, and WP:DRVs. Content and policy RfCs can be closed by an uninvolved editor, admin or non-admin. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift response. Admittedly I hadn't looked at AN for at least a couple weeks, so I had not been aware of your decision to alter your comments in posting the RfCs there for closure. I appreciate your sentiments and I'd be glad to help out there, once I clear some real-world issues up. I'm dealing with a lot of stress right now and it's really taking its toll on my emotional state, so I might not be as active in the coming weeks as I've been during the month of August. Nevertheless, I still want to pitch in whenever I'm available. =) Kurtis (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the significant emotional stress you are facing in the real world. There is no rush to close RfCs, so I look forward to your doing closes when your real-life situation improves. I wish you the best in overcoming those challenges, which I hope will pass by very quickly and be just a blip in your life. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope so, too. Thank you so much for your well wishes, though. I really appreciate it. Kurtis (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your support, there has been very little from elsewhere. I saw nothing wrong in your detailed analysis. It clearly helped a number of editors to make their mind up and anything that does that is helpful. Obviously some entrenched supporters will always attack that sort of detailed expose of their candidate. Did you agree to it being hatted by the way? . Leaky Caldron  17:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you for standing up for what is right in the face of unwarranted harsh criticism from multiple editors. I'd take their criticism with a grain of salt because they are understandably peeved that their candidate has received numerous opposes because of legitimate concerns about immaturity and uncommunicativeness. I disagreed with my rationale's being hatted, so undid it. Please also note the comment I made about equity, administrators, and RfA. Cunard (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA 2
I removed the quote you included of mine at the RfA because you clearly used it out of context, trying to make it look like I support your right to bludgeon the RfA when you know perfectly well that I think you are abusing the process. That I was mistake about admin status is irrelevant to the fact that my stand on this issue is perfectly clear, that NO ONE should be this verbose and dominate an RfA. Do not quote me or anyone else out of context again. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cunard, could you please  explain  your removal of this  post? Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunard's edit summary on the pair of edits was " restored per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=516733077 ". Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Flatscan. I  asked for an explanation, not  for a repeat  of something  I  already  know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your word choice of "removal" gave the impression that Cunard's edit was an isolated removal rather than moving the discussion back from the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Flatscan, thank you for your unsuccessful attempt to clarify the situation to Kudpung who admitted above that he deliberately misrepresented the situation. Attempting to set the facts straight with such users will almost always be hopeless so I thank you for trying. Cunard (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the RfA is closed and the threat of additional drama is reduced, I'm wondering if a discussion at WP:AN is needed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, see diff 1: "Discussion restored per this comment. It is unfair to move the discussion to RfA talk page when one of its participants is forbidden by the Arbitration Committee from commenting there." Malleus felt it was disgraceful that he was unable to comment on the talk page, so I moved the discussion he participated in back to the main RfA page. It sets a poor precedent if honest discussion can be stifled if moved to the talk page. Dennis Brown: You have engaged in threats of blocks/bans against me for posting a lengthy dissenting rationale at the RfA (example). Several supporters were eager to move the well-researched vote to the talk page, but other editors disagreed with doing so. There was no disruption and allegedly "bludgeoning and quoting [you out of context]" are not strong reasons for an RfA topic ban. Rather, it seems to be an attempt to silence the dissenting opinion of an RfA participant with whom you and the community disagree about what constitutes disruption. I consider you and your administrator tools WP:INVOLVED as you have become heavily biased against me, calling me "much more disruptive that some of our more "famously disruptive" editors who were dragged to ANI and Arb". As I wrote at the RfA: Would someone who writes with effusive praise for the candidate a similarly sized RfA nomination statement or RfA support vote be considered disruptive like that? I think not. Cunard (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this issue resolved Cunard? I have some thoughts but I don't want to add to a closed discussion. Leaky  Caldron  19:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As Kudpung and Dennis Brown have not returned to this talk page, I consider the issue resolved, though you are welcome to add your thoughts to the discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what Dennis had in mind although I've learned today that WP:AN isn't for sanctions so I assume it was to do with any alleged disruption caused by lengthy oppose and whether long such are acceptable, etc. No point in dragging that over to another board like some sort of wiki equivalent of the Cadaver Synod when there are numerous RFA reform discussions under way. Be good to see you over there Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued). BTW, I see someone got a block at that RFA. Not sure what that was about, it's all WP:TL;DR. Might read up on it later. Rgds,  Leaky  Caldron  20:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very clear what Dennis Brown intended at WP:AN, where site bans and topic bans are imposed, after his forumshopping revealed that no one other than himself and the supporters considered the lengthy dissent to be disruptive or actionable. was inappropriately blocked by an admin who had a dispute with him at a previous RfA ("no one cares which version of the 2000-year-old fairy tale you believe in"). Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued): I endorse the comment here by  who is withdrawing from the WikiProject. I also strongly agree with 's comment here and 's comment here about the premise of the revived project. I recommend not participating in it as it is agenda-driven and no longer worth your time. Cunard (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, in fact said so when I saw their comments on that page. Not too happy with the hypocrite remark, bit like being called a liar - not nice. I think Dennis is a decent sort of bloke and has probably reflected and thought better of it. rgds. Leaky  Caldron  23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, your requests on AN
I see sometimes you ask for an admin to close and at others for an uninvolved editor. Are you just using the words in a rather general way or do you specifically mean some of the discussion do need admins? I realize contested Cfds and the like need admins; for RFCs there is no policy requiring such (as I am sure, you know), so is your wording reflecting a desire echoed in the RFC itself, or on your reading of the situation? Churn and change (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looking through your talk page I see the answer. I guess the reason I am getting confused is because I am closing RFCs in no particular order; your older requests have admin in them and newer ones "uninvolved editor" I guess. Churn and change (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the past, mostly admins serviced the requests on the board, though today it is serviced by several indefatigable non-admins. I agree that admins do not have exclusive jurisdiction over RfCs. In some cases, I've found that non-admins such as yourself have been better at explaining their closes than admins. Thank you for your numerous RfC closes. I've noticed that you generally collapse the discussions after you close them. I'd recommend against collapsing because one, it hides the discussion, which is needed to assess the context of the close, forcing the reader to click "show" to reveal it. Two, searching for posts on the page will be made more difficult because they are hidden under the collapse box. Third, if the section has subheadings, the collapse box breaks the links to them from the table of contents and from other pages. A very strong benefit though is that it removes clutter from the page, so if you prefer collapsing discussions after your closures, please continue to do so as I do not wish to impose my preferences on others. At Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a non-admin close was reverted by an involved participant. If any of your closes are contested, I recommend raising them for review at WP:AN, as was done at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228. Click "show" on the "extended content" box to review the informal RfC close review's guidelines that I drafted at User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive9. This will avoid edit wars and headaches over having spent hours reading and summarizing a discussion and then having it reverted because you are not an admin. That is unacceptable and dissuades non-admins from closing controversial RfCs. Thank you again for your RfC closes! Cunard (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thing about Malleus and RfA
I'm not sure if you're actually involved or not, but given that you acted on Malleus' complaint before, this arbcom clarification/amendment request may at least be of interest to you either way. -— Isarra ༆ 23:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)