This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cunard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
BTW, you cited UP#GAMES. Note that it does allow games where Wikipedians who also do serious edits can play. It's the ones where users without or with very little other edits that are 'outlawed'. Kayau VotingISevil12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content (WP:UP#GAMES) refers to "Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", particularly "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project." This does not condone Wikipedians with serious edits who use Wikipedia as a web host or as a game. Why should established editors who violate policy be treated differently from less serious editors who violate policy? I believe that all editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy. Note that I when I refer to "all editors", I am excluding administrators because they are, of course, immune from the policies and guidelines which we inferior editors must follow. They can wield the block, delete, and protect buttons willy nilly while we inferiors cower in fear. ;) Cunard (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cunard, I am afraid I must disagree. While Wikipedia is not a place for MySpacey edits, however, as Jimbo puts it, Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. If hidden pages can help Wikipedians know each other better, and, as stated in the DoF, keep Wikipedians here, then it is a good thing because often the editors stay to do good edits. However, if a hidden page game concerns only editors that have little or no other edits, it means that they are using Wikipedia SOLELY as a MySpace tool, which is of course unacceptable. As sockpuppetry is unacceptable in Wikipedia, and causes confusion even when not abused, setting up multiple accounts for the sake of hiding pages in 2 userspaces must not be allowed. even if the editor has made 100000000000 good-faith edits, and is an admin, crat, and everything else. Kayau VotingISevil00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The encyclopedia would be bettered if editors were to build a spirit of collaboration in the mainspace instead of handing out barnstars and finding secret pages in the userspace. I'm afraid that I don't hold double standards when it comes to inappropriate use of the userspace. Experienced editors and novice ones should be held accountable to the same standards. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cunard, please note the difference between novice editors and WikiPuppies. Novice editors are editors that do make serious contributions to Wikipedia; WikiPuppies don't. BTW, is that why you've never made a userpage? (Just curious.) Kayau VotingISevil09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be off-topic, never mind. But what I want to stress is, novice editors should be allowed to make hidden pages as long as it does not mean eating into too much of their time. However, WikiPuppies do nothing else, so theirs should not be encouraged and should be deleted. Kayau VotingISevil03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint but am still of the opinion that secret pages are unacceptable for an enyclopedia. I ask again what you meant by the question above. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a userpage for several reasons but am now reconsidering. First, if I had a userpage, I'd probably update my edit count every five edits I make so that 20% of my edits would be of me updating my userpage. What a great way to get up my edit count! Then, instead of slaving away on Middlesex (novel), I would be able to spend endless hours searching for the "right" userboxes that describe who I am. I would also be able to include hidden links to MY secret page, as well as to a couple "false" ones. Finally, I would be able to join the clique of elite editors who possess secret pages. Oh, I'd have to withdraw all my MfDs so that I wouldn't be proclaimed as a hypocrite. I also need to give vandals two playgrounds. My talk page is not enough for their amusement. What do you think? ;) Cunard (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Userspace is not all that gloomy, Cunard. And there is no need to get to sarcasm. I dare say more than half of the users who are currently active have a userpage. (I'm counting the cases where the userpage redirects to the talk page. That's something you could consider.) Hidden pages are not necessary, and you don't have to have UBXes. Too many of 'em would mean your userpage running too slow, after all. You just need to tell everybody else about your Wikipedian life, ie how you started and what you usually do, and that's about it all to have a good userpage. Kayau VotingISevil04:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I thought so!
See this? I thought I had the pages deleted before, and I was right! How'd they get back, though? Did I recreate them? I didn't think I did... ALInomnom20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not know if you recreated them because as a non-admin, I cannot view deleted edits. You'll have to ask an admin to find out. Thank you for requesting deletion of the page. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - Fulton–Taylor House, Fulton-Taylor House:
I didn't mean to be insulting or condescending. I just meant to let you know that I had removed the speedy. When I saw the redirect to a page that existed, I thought I should check whether the topic was notable, and since it was, I created a stub at the redirect's target – not that easily, since I don't know much about Oregon. Eastmain (talk • contribs)16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
While I thank you for notifying me of the declined speedy, I don't think the message telling me to review the speedy criteria was very appropriate. The speedy tag was correct in the first place and only became inaccurate after your creation. Perhaps you could have left a personalized message explaining that the redirect no longer applied due to your creation of Fulton–Taylor House. I, as well as other editors, are more responsive to personalized messages than templates which contain words/sentences that are inapplicable to the circumstance. This is just a little advice that you probably already know.
Thank you for creating the article, though. Most would have deleted the redirect instead of expanding Wikipedia's knowledge. I am frequently impressed by the work you do rescuing articles from CAT:CSD and WP:AFD. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize in advance for anyhting I might say to anger you. I have just served a two week suspension from Wikipedia that YOU caused. I helped you find the proper source for Miranda Uhl's article and I thought that was all behind us. The next thing I know, I'm banned form Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet. I then try to defend myself and I am called a liar and totally disregarded. Eventually even my right to defend myself is taken away from me and I am forced to sit and wait out my suspension with my mouth gagged! This all stems from you. I am not here to insult you or to scream at you but I would like to ask a favor of you. Next time you see what might be a sockpuppeting case, ask those involved for an explanation before putting them at the mercy of the fascist administrators that I have met over the past two weeks. Thank you.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I advise you not to continue editing in this fashion. More name-calling and comparing admins to Nazis will result in an indefinite block. Cunard (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Middlesex
Hello, Cunard, I'm afraid I don't have time for another read-through/peer review. I can quickly say, however, that you need to add initial publication info to the "Background and publication" section. "Middlesex was published on October 7, 2002 by..." etc. Hope this helps, and sorry I can't do more at the moment, María(habla conmigo) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's all right. The help you have provided in your two read-throughs is very valuable. I'll add the initial publication info and put Middlesex through a GA review to get more feedback before I take it to FAC. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion regarding deletion of page
Dear Sir / Madam,
I wrote this page on a great personality who served in army medical core and was awarded with Tamgha-i-Khidmat (medal for good services) from Government of Pakistan. He was a sufi saint and guide of people especially young generation towards spiritual teachings. He has many followers from ordinary people to scholars from different subjects.
I just wrote a page on Wikipedia first and a full team is busy in collecting information about his life and welfare works to develop a website. Soon this web site will be available online. We also working to upload his video addresses on web.
Hi, Mian. Do you have any reliable sources that verify Mian Muhammad Zia ul Haq Zia's existence? By reliable sources, I mean books, as well as articles in newspapers or magazines. Facebook is not a reliable source because it has not received fact-checking and/or a peer review. If you can locate a reliable source about him (it does not need to be online), and if you include the source in the article, I will withdraw my deletion nomination. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually in the middle of my first read as we speak. Sorry I didn't get started sooner, I thought I could have began the review a day or two earlier but I got caught up in some other things. Already I can tell you that the article seems to be in good shape. I'm sure I'll have some comments and suggestions, but I'm confident any and all can be addressed easily. And fortunately, I just read (and enjoyed) this novel myself for the first time about one month ago, so it's all fresh in my head. — HunterKahn05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at the article. You don't need to apologize for the delay; as long as you provide a good review for this lovely novel, I'll overlook that. ;) Middlesex (novel) is the first article I've taken to WP:GAN and will be the first article I take to FAC, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide advice about how it would fare at FAC. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've left my initial comments here. I'm going to take another look at it (probably tomorrow) focusing primarily on the sources. As I said, none of these problems are insurmountable, and in fact almost all are very easy and I'm confident can be addressed quickly. (Your work is especially impressive considering it's your first GAN. Well done!) — HunterKahn05:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, those are great comments so I forgive you for the delay. Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't heard anything back yet but did just poke back so hopefully we'll hear something. James (T|C)09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to answer something you said about the number of fake secret pages, just so that there isn't any misunderstanding about it. User:Hi878/Right Secret Page is the barnstar, User:Hi878/Wrong Secret Page is the "You didn't find it." message, and User:Hi878/Secret Page List is the lit everyone can see so that they see how many people have found it. The other four are the actual, and the real. I'm not still trying to convince you of anything, I just didn't want any misunderstanding about any of it. Good luck with editing. Hi878 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That may be a good idea. First, though, I suggest you need to identify a list of secret pages where the pages of productive editors are filtered out. I think that with this filtering at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages, I see a consensus to delete the rest. Many of the keeps were influenced by a notion that these things contribute to social cohesion. Such notions do not apply to non-productive editors. User:MZMcBride might well be able to help with an automated method to filter out pages in the userspace of an editor who has appreciable mainspace edits in the last year (for example). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've pinged MZMcBride. I'm thinking about a mass MfD to get rid of the secret pages of non-productive contributors, and after that, MfD'ing one by one the secret pages of the other users. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Cunard, I do think that removing the secret pages of non-productive users is justified. However, does it really matter whether or not productive users have them? I really don't see the harm. I don't want to have an argument again, but could you explain to me why the secret pages of productive editors should be deleted? If there isn't anything other than the WP:EQUAL argument, then there is no need to explain, I already understand your point. However, if there is more, please explain it to me. And if I worded anything in that paragraph in a way you might think is offensive, I didn't mean it that way. (I've found three spots where you might think that, but there wasn't really a better way to word them. :) ) Hi878 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not find anything in your post offensive so there is no need to apologize.
Secret pages, whether from productive editors or non-productive ones, are inappropriate because they promote social networking. Secret page barnstars devalue the reputation of barnstars which are meant for commending those who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, not for praising those who play hide-and-seek games.
[W]e block admins for edit-warring just as we block regular editors for the same; we don't maintain a double standard. I believe that we should avoid a double standard regarding secret pages as well. We should not be telling newer users who ask, "Why are you deleting my secret pages and letting admin X keep his?" that "Admin X is a better user than you, that's why." That's unacceptable; we should only pass judgement on an editor's merits if he solicits such judgement (i.e. at WP:RfA, WP:RfB, WP:RfBAG, WP:ER, etc.) or if his conduct is so problematic as to demand such judgement (i.e. at WP:RFC/U, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, etc.).
Do you believe that there should be vested contributors, such as yourself, who are allowed to host secret pages, whereas those with less productive edits have their games deleted? Cunard (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, in most cases, I would say that vested contributors are a bad idea. However, in some cases, such as this, there isn't really any harm in keeping them, the don't distract the editor, and they don't cause any problems. Anyways, I don't think that at this point this argument is worth continuing, because I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. I think we just need to save it for the next MfDs that happen. :) One more thing. I think that I can throw right back at you another comment by A Stop at Willoughby (talk·contribs). I'm pretty sure that it would apply here too. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the congrats! Your copyedits played a significant role in ensuring that the article had good prose. I hope that Middlesex will soon have a little bronze star on its corner. :) Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
If AFD's have come to a "no consensus" result three times in the past, what sense does it make to invite the same people that have proven incapable of agreeing back to the discussion?—Kww(talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice, however I can only comment that this is yet another nomination by an antagonist of said individual. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute to the article at the moment per sources I easily located per my earlier mentions in prior deletion nominations. There are other mentions which make an individual notable aside from the very specific "lacking" ones mentioned in the latest AfD. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I don't have an opinion about the motives of the AfD nominator, the article's merits, or the subject's notability but hope that a consensus can be formed this time either to "keep" or to "delete". Cunard (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As I'd expect, thanks. I suggest prior uninvolved review prior cases without attaching labels to participants, focusing on what is found regardless of source as opposed to what is not found in non-Eastern European oriented sources. That's as much as I can say. Good luck. Best regards, Peters PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk01:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I only see discussion limited to English language sources. WP is not anglo-centric. If anglo-notability were a requirement, a large chunk of EN WP would disappear. Enforcing EN notability can be taken to be discriminatory. I recall participating in some discussion of that somewhere at one time, alas, diffs escape me. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:NONENG, which permits the use of non-English sources, is policy. The problem with the article currently being discussed at the AfD is that editors have not been able to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, either English or non-English. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, any editor who can add Polish sources will, I am afraid, line up an infinite string of ten foot poles to stay away from the fray especially as it has turned into rather repugnant off-Wiki ugliness, just as EEML did. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The real problem with the past AfD was the mud-slinging, which apparently has already started again. Now you have been accused of a "campaign of canvassing among the EEML warriors" [1]. Pantherskin (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me about this accusation. It's not surprising that such fallacious accusations, borne out of frustration that there is a near-unanimous delete consensus, are being made. I notified the participants at the DRV, many of whom were uninvolved in the WP:EEML case, and they were able to provide an unbiased analysis of whether or not the subject is notable.
I will not respond to the subject because that would lead to need discussion and would be distracting from the discussion about the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It is wise for you to refrain from participating from the debate (I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)) and I commend you for your restraint and for your sound advice to other users in the same position. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for not consulting you before restoring the {{Delrevafd}} tag. I noticed the AfD was missing the DRV tag when Tim Song closed it as "List at AfD" and believing that I had neglected to tag the AfD a week ago, restored the tag without checking the page history.
Hello Cunard. No, I haven't forgotten about your suggestions for improving the Benet Academy article. Unfortunately, while I've managed to fit in a few edits per day, some stuff I need to do in real life has prevented me from fully participating in the FAC process. I'm really sorry for keeping you waiting for so long. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's all right. My comments are just nitpicks, none of which are major enough to bar the article's promotion to FA (except for the dead link issue, I think). I hope you're doing well in real life. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, you're right - that article does indeed pass the general notability guideline. That was a bit of a drive-by tagging, and a mistake. I'm still not 100% sure it should have an article on Wikipedia, but I'll take a closer look and think about it carefully before deciding whether to take it to AFD. In any case, you were right to remove the template. Robofish (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you look at the userspace draft for Julie Stoffer [2]? I believe it's improved a lot since you commented at the DrV. Not sure it's enough to change your mind, but it's now got two sources that are primarily about the topic and two others that are at least fairly reasonable. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
...and I think everyone on Wikipedia can blame you, Cunard, for this horrific failure. Also, I hope my edit to the article of at least 97 seconds ago is to your liking. I think 50% of it is probably not up for debate, and 50% of it might be, and either way it's not stuff that's getting in the way of an article that has, in all sincerity, gone from good-to-superb in truly commendable time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I wallow in shame and disgust in myself that Middlesex lacks the bronze star of fulfillment. Incidentally, part of the blame will have to rest on your shoulders as well since you have just caused the article to have an unsourced paragraph. Despite your aversion to references, you do have a good eye for typos so I must begrudgingly admit that you have redeemed yourself.
I agree with your condensing as the review is unnecessary detail, probably what Awadewit would call a "fluff quotation". If you have any input to add to the discussion on the talk page, feel free to join in. I need all the assistance I can get, especially with copyediting.
I will review Middlesex' talk page, despite my total contempt for its omnipresent sourcing.
Or something. Really, it's an excellent article. The re-read which led to my curious mix of constructive/destructive editing was a good re-read. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
1. I hope neither you nor Awadewit will consider this a fluff quotation. I will fight with all my will to keep those beautiful words in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. You know that you're doing something right when they yell at you! Say, maybe you could help with this problem... Could you look at Shunan English School? I think that after the first few lines, the problem will be obvious. I'm not entirely sure how to handle it, so... So I'd love it if you could sort it out. :) Hi878 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I suppose I could have looked back a bit further than I did... Thank you for fixing that. Hi878 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It's quite interesting that the person who vandalized the article is the same person who created it nearly three years ago. I wonder what happened in those intervening years to cause the user to make this edit years later. It must have been a traumatic experience at Shunan, i.e. a disgruntled employee was laid off. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed he was blocked after no longer noticing snarky edit summaries for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Not surprising considering his disruptive edits over the past few days. The block has since expired so I don't think he'll resort to sockpuppetry unless he wants to votestack. But I'll keep an eye on that. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Robert Titzer's Page
Hello Cunard,
I work for Your Baby Can Read and I made extensive edits to the Robert Titzer page per his request, and I just became aware of you reverting everything back to the old text. I will try and make the page more neutral like you stated. What do I need to do to make the changes? I don't want to put more work into it if it is just going to be deleted again. Let me know how to proceed. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Your baby can read (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Have a nice day, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for your fine contribution to that page---and may all your Wikipedia posts stand the test of time. It was a bit frustrating to see that page almost deleted because it lacked "references" and "meat". No longer a danger I'm sure. I had linked to that page for some time---admittedly mostly as a back-handed stab in closing a sarcastic email message: "Have a nice day!" :-)
Best regards, Bruce D. Lightner (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the page. After I happened onto the page and discovered the deletion tag in the page history, I knew it was in a precarious state in that it might be deleted for being original research. Thankfully, there has been plenty of coverage about "Have a nice day", including this gem from The New York Times, which I used to expand the article. Mmm, closing a sarcastic email with a link to the article is perfect! That's a "nice" suggestion that I'll have to use in the future. ;)
I used the phrase on Ginsengbomb (talk·contribs)'s talk page here, in the hope that he would get the subtle suggestion to copyedit it to fix any awkward prose. Being a simpleton and slacker, Ginseng has ignored my hint and the article has remained untouched. He didn't even tell me whether he followed my insincere order to have a nice day! I must immediately rush off to his talk page to inquire about whether or not he has been obedient. For his sake, let's hope he has. ;) Cunard (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Have a nice day, an article that you made an ill-advised attempt to improve despite your questionable command of written English, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; however, you are not welcome to edit the article to address these concerns because we are concerned any further editing will only serve to break Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.
I am shocked and saddened, disturbed and depressed. It appears that my dear Gingsengbomb has NOT had a nice day. He seems to have a had a very, very, very, very bad one. So bad that I am banned from rectifying the tortured prose of Have a nice day, an article which Ginseng has been strenuously opposed to copyediting. Not only that but despite being a member of this group (and an opposer of it), he seems to have forgotten that Have a nice day doesn't apply. Have a nice day isn't just a "particularly bad article"; it is an extremely twisted, tortured, biased attempt at article writing that leads me to conclude it is a VERY bad article. The writer of it should indeed be banned from the wiki, not indefinitely but infinitely. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I was sincerely tickled to see such a grand improvement effort at such a fun little article. I'll definitely take a look at it with my editor hat on at some point soon -- been on a semi-break from the Wiki of late, popping in occasionally to yell boldfaced messages of delete, keep, support, oppose, etc., at various people about various things of minimal import. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I look forward to your copyedits and hope you'll be having a nice day while doing them. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I made good on my overdue pledge to do a bit of copyediting on this wonderfully fun little article. Perhaps I'll continue working on it. I love it. We need more people working on articles like this. It's noble that Wikipedia attempts (and often succeeds at) matching and/or surpassing the level of quality of a classic encyclopedia on "serious" topics, but Wiki's ability to bring a ridiculous amount of focus, erudition and research to bear on something like Have a nice day is the truer differentiator. And I mean it when I say "ridiculous." This article is plainly ridiculous. Happily, I have much love for the ridiculous. I think Wikipedia wins the Internet on the day it declares Have a nice day an FA. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
These were beautiful copyedits. Well worth the wait. I fully agree that the weird and the outrageous make perfect "Wikipedic" topics. Hence, I felt a glowing sense of accomplishment after I hit the submit button for the rewrite of the article. Do you think Have a nice day has a chance at passing GAN or FAC? A little on the short side, it is near the length of Halkett boat which passed FAC very recently. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Topically, my response is an unequivocal yes. I think it could use some additional work, particularly with regard to the overall structure. I'll take a stab sometime today (I promise!). Perhaps then it ought to be submitted for a review...there's a lot of interesting stuff in there! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My primary concern is trying to separate usage from criticism. The usage section (I've separated History) incorporates an awful lot of latent criticism, which makes it feel less than encyclopedic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Good work as always, Gingsengbomb. I'll list the article at WP:PR later this week or next week to get another opinion after I make another pass at the article for the issues you've brought up. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know I do not see how a being founded by a notiable person is a claim of significance since it is accepted that notability is not inherited -
I discounted a merge on the grounds that there is nothing sourced to move and with regards to a plain redirect to which link Giorgio Moroder or Casablanca Records. Codf1977 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Although notability is not inherited, A7 requires a lower bar to pass than Wikipedia:Notability. I consider a company being founded by a notable individual to be a credible assertion that the company may be notable. In this case, I cannot find significant coverage about Oasis Records, so I have redirected the article to Giorgio Moroder since it is a plausible redirect and is mentioned there. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reaching out to CaB for the Korean work. Why do I always seem to stumble on the really messy/crazy AfD's? Argh. Regardless, CaB made it a bit easier to interpret this mess, and I've adjusted my vote in the AfD. I didn't think to request assistance from a Korean editor, and I'm pretty happy you did -- I was dreading trying to figure out how to evaluate those sources. A simple translation wasn't going to cut it.
By the way, I know it's been mentioned on your talk page before, but allow me to mention it again: you would, in my opinion, make an absolutely superb admin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I always keep Wikipedia:Translators available in mind when I come across deletion discussions that involve non-English sources. Why do you "stumble across messy/crazy AfD's"? It seems to be involved with part of your name but this not part. If you want a serene, lovely wiki-life, I suggest changing your name to Gingsengrose or Ginsengsweet.
Adminship? I've thought about it but decided that I do not need an admin account to bully and harass lowly, non-admin editors such as yourself who are guilty of negligence for not copyediting Have a nice day. If I became an administrator, I must confess that I would be desysopped in less than 10 minutes after I am sysopped because I would be sure to make my first admin action indeffing you for being lazy and negligent. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for sending the messages to CaB. I really cannot thank you enough. I am also extremely sorry about this whole mess, but I am really sort of happy I stumbled across the Wiki community. I think I found a lifelong mission now, which is really, really funny and totally unexpected. I just thought I was going to do a couple things here and there, but now I am literally obsessed with Wikipedia, which concerns me.People bios (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you want to write some more Korean biographies. I suggest taking a look at South Korea at the 2010 Winter Olympics or South Korea at the 2010 Winter Paralympics for some ideas; there are many red links of Olympians Paralympians that still haven't been written. There are many inspiring stories; for example, I wrote an article about the Paralympian Miranda Uhl who won a gold medal in the 2008 Summer Paralympics despite being burdened by excruciating pain in her back and knees because of the disease achondroplasia.
Wikipedia can, at times, be a challenging place, but it's rewarding in that it helps improve your writing and researching skills. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about working on my editing skills for awhile. I am also not sure if I will try to write too many of my own articles, mainly because I am getting very emotional about them. I feel like they are my babies and it's too emotionally demanding.People bios (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the article on Have a nice day was hilarious, but the witty back and forth commenting was even funnier. I am sort of glad I started on this project, because I really enjoy the humor I've been seeing here.People bios (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And [here] is my retort. I am actually loving the improvements I've been making on my HTML skills, as well as my writing skills. I enjoy writing and I am a History Major, so I think it's important to document these things. I love to write inspiring stories based on facts.People bios (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
But I do love editing and being involved. I'm in education (I actually have a ridiculous amount of hobbies) so I really am big on grammar and clarity. I try to state things clearly and in a coherent manner while abiding by basic English rules and grammar.People bios (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I really am big on grammar and clarity. Maybe you can be a copyeditor? I'm planning on bringing Middlesex (novel) to WP:FAC in a few months. When I am finished with writing the article, would you take a look at it and make the article's prose flow better? (Ginsengbomb, I still want you to look at it, but at the pace you're doing copyedits, it'll be 2050 before the article is half done!) Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
wow. I hit save without finishing my thought. This is why I need to seriously get some sleep. Anyways, I just realized that the automatic complaint generator was coming up with a new complaint each time. I am really glad you sent it to me though, because I plan on using it in my classes now. I love these things because I always end up using them when I teach.People bios (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha and don't cry because of my "astringent words". Come on now, I could have written you a real complaint letter, rather than an automatically generated one, which would have been far worse.People bios (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't cry? But the words were so dreadfully cutting. I was thinking about running for adminship so that I could block you for saying those mean things to me, but hey, we're not in kindergarten anymore and you've done penance. I guess I'll leave the drama to the administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding this, but the sentence at the end (In this context, the phrase diverges from its usual 'end of a transaction' usage; however, this gives one example of how the phrase has developed the cultural connotation of sarcasm.) is considered Wikipedia:Original research because no reliable source notes that the phrase was used sarcastically in that instance. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've actually more than paid my dues for that [last offense]. Am I forgiven? I am getting more familiar with how to survive in this political arena. I just casually throw around my insults, personal attacks, and automated letters of complaints without discretion, and then I ask for forgiveness later. If all else fails, I resort to editing for free. I am not above whoring myself editing for free (I should clarify on these things before people start taking me seriously) when it comes to seeking forgiveness from the Wiki community you know.People bios (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, after whoring yourself at Have a nice day (such risqué word choice, naughty, naughty!), you have saved yourself from a barrage of insults and threats of blocks from a powerless non-admin. Consider yourself lucky. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see the folly of my ways. I just made the If A=B, and B=C, then A=C error, haven't I? Forgive my foolishness. I should have known that this was me trying to push my own theories again. I shall also have to reconsider the article I was planning to write, "People Bios Great and Noteworthy People".People bios (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but "may be viewed as sarcasm" is still original research since the source doesn't say that. I can't think of how to improve it, though. Gingsengbomb (or any of my talk page stalkers), any ideas? Cunard (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
haha yes, but isn't it arguable that since I used the blog merely to support the claim that it has been viewed as sarcasm by some individuals, it is a reliable source? I did not say that the claim itself was sarcastic, or that the claim was intended to be sarcastic, but merely that it was viewed as sarcasm by some people. The blog would be considered supportive enough, no? Or would this still be considered unreliable?People bios (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Blogs that can be written by anyone are not reliable sources. That sentence sourced from the blog should be removed, I'm afraid. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, by "whoring" I was referring to "compromise one's principles for personal gain", but of course, Wikipedia seems to only know [one] such definition of the word. I find this offensive...but I find your threats of blocks from a powerless non-admin combined with the barrage of insults to be redeeming in some sick, twisted sort of way. Maybe it's because in actuality, I don't have any principles.People bios (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know. Your purposeful double entendre and your attempt to trick me into believing it was the Wikipedia version demonstrates your complete lack of principles. You should be ashamed of yourself! Tut, tut. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What? Blink blink. I am innocent. I swear it. I know of no double entendre. I remember that word from the 10th grade vocab test we had on it.People bios (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha wise fool? This is true. I have been a wise fool lacking principles my whole life though. being in the 10th grade had nothing to do with it...also, i would like to thank you for the automatic complaint generator. I used it in my class today with my students. they learned a lot :) People bios (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I just saw this...I had my students read a letter of complaint with each of their names in it and they had to look for comparisons...
I was trying to have them look at structural similarities in the letters in terms of organization, voice, etc. I actually integrated it into a lesson on The Sorrows of Young Werther by GoetheƤ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know the complaint generator could have an educational application like that. You're creative! Cunard (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for everything. If you need anything (like images, which I can make and/or find photographs of for you) please let me know.People bios (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you as well for helping me through my very first Afd. If you hadn't stepped in and asked for translations, along with helping in copyediting the article to ensure NPOV, I am sure it would have been on the fast-track to deletionpedia. I have been telling people about what was happening here, and they think of you and Ginsengbomb as heroes. I heard there are even more sources on Dr. Kim, so I've been looking for them in order to make the article stronger (I heard he's offering free breast reconstruction surgery to people who have breast cancer.) Also, I am very happy to have worked on Middlesex (novel). I actually ordered the book (which just came in today) because I became interested in the story after I started editing the article.Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 00:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for the praise but the credit belongs to you. Kenneth Kim would not have survived AfD had it not been for your patience with the Wikipedia community's arcane rules and your willingness to find reliable sources and improve the article. All I did was provide a little support for your endeavor and point out the faulty arguments of some of those advocating deletion. That you are still here editing Wikipedia after the unpleasant experience at AfD is a testament to your resilient character. You are the hero, not I.
More sources for Dr. Kim will strengthen the position for retaining the article, so if you can find more sources, be sure to add them.
Haha the book Middlesex (novel) did sound very compelling. I am hoping to get started on reading it, but I think I might finish editing its article before I ever get around to reading the actual book. I have a stash of books I collect in my room to read once I retire from work and school. I have been lending out the books to other people, but have not been able to get around to reading many of them myself.
I am definitely planning on adding the sources once I find them. Thank you for editing his article some more. I am actually learning HTML, how to cite sources, etc. by looking at how you and Ginsengbomb (along with some other users) edit and cite things. I sort of wish I received a bit of more formal training on HTML, rather than just trying to copy what I do. I am sure if I had taken a course on HTML, then I wouldn't be having such a difficult time trying to figure out such silly things like why my tags don't always seem to come out right...which is very embarrassing when I find them 2 days later without the format but the "attempted" format....(I know I did '"comment"' one time). Oh for shame...Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely don't look at me for guidance/example on how to edit and cite things. It would be a shame if you confused my relative competence* with regard to Wikipedia policy with actual technical editing ability. I can copyedit and get into a war with people over AfDs/ANIs/CSDs/DRVs/RFCs/ETCs with the best of 'em, but I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to anything beyond basic technical editing chops. This despite having been here for many years now. I still need to do extremely cautious copy/pasting when I put together an infobox. God, what an insufferable noob I am.
One tip from a perpetual noob such as myself to you, a noob who wishes to one day not be a noob: make extensive use of the Preview button. Don't hit "Save page" until everything looks perfect. Particularly if you've been drinking. Speaking of which, it's Friday. Cheers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Make extensive use of the Preview button. Don't hit "Save page" until everything looks perfect is something I definitely need to work on. Unfortunately, I tend to be too much of the "dive in head first, ask questions later" type, so I might be testing the patience of a couple more Wikipedians. However, I am sure that the multiple "oops" I leave in my edit summaries stop being cute and start being annoying after the 2nd or 3rd one (I also realize I am being a bit presumptuous in thinking they were ever cute at any point). Thus, I will definitely try to be more conscientious of previewing my work from now on.
Speaking of cute, I think this has turned into one of my favorite lolcats.
As for the self-proclaimed noob, I am ready to engage in a debate on who is the bigger noob. I am such a noob that I didn't know what 1337 meant until another wikipedian explained to me that it was the opposite of a noob. How much of a noob does one have to be to not know the definition of the opposite of a noob? Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 22:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
To the two have spent Friday night getting drunk and are uber noobs who can argue like cavemen but have as much knowledge about technology as they, I have expanded Have a nice day and opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Have a nice day/archive1. When someone comments there, I would be grateful if you two would help address any concerns. Cunard (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cunard,
I learn so much about wikipedia editing through [watching you] and Ginsengbomb edit. I am planning on trying to introduce some multimedia to some of the articles. One seasoned editor has been helping me in the process. Once we get something going, I'll send it over to you for your opinion/input. Also, I believe that one day, when I have reached 1337 status, I shall have to find some way to indefinitely collapse all this nonsense above about me being a self-proclaimed noob talking to other self-proclaimed noobs about doing nothing but Wikipedia editing on Friday nights. All this information could be extremely compromising for all my future Wiki career endeavors. Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll help with your multimedia project in whichever way I can, but I have to admit that I am a noob when it comes to Wikipedia:Image use policy, multimedia, and the like. By the way, per WP:EMDASH, em dashes shouldn't be spaced, so I have made a couple changes to Middlesex to fix your noobish errors, which is funny considering the fact that I had to be corrected earlier in the year. Cunard (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
'By the way, per WP:EMDASH, em dashes shouldn't be spaced'
Thanks, yeah I saw that you removed the spaces and I was grateful I saw you do it because now I know. I am really glad I'm doing this because every time I stop working on my writing I forget about half of the English grammar/punctuation/writing rules and it's such a pain (although, to be honest, the 'no-space when using em dashes' rule was one I never heard of before). I swear writing is like a musical instrument—you have to keep practicing it or else you lose your ability to write well. I am going to be working on this multimedia project tonight, and once it's done I'll run it by you for your opinion. The other editor, User:Daniel J. Leivick, and I were going to just drop it off in Wiki commons and see how the wiki community reacts to it. Apparently, I like living on the edge...Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 17:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I've done several WP:MOS changes to Jaeson Ma. As you can probably tell by now, MOS is a pain but it's helpful for standardizing all the content on Wikipedia. From time to time, I make MOS errors and am corrected by those who know MOS from by heart. I've commented out the information about Jaeson Ma's birth per WP:BLP because it is unsourced, sensitive information. When you find a source for it, feel free to un-comment it out. Good work on your second article! Cunard (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for these. I am definitely going to try and figure out more of the nitty gritty details when it comes to WP:MOS. I am looking over your edits to see what you did and learn from it. It really helps that you explain things in all your edits.
The information about his mother I believe was from his own biography on his website, but I am not sure if that is something I can use as a source and I would rather not include it since I can see what you mean about it being sensitive material. Writing in itself is a task, but writing and learning HTML at the same time is a full time job. I am now thinking about taking more technology classes to get up-to-par on HTML.Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 18:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wiki markup is a little different from HTML but it's good practice for learning HTML. I've removed the sensitive information about the circumstances of his birth because I don't think it's good to keep such information in the article (even though it's commented out) without a reliable source. His website mentions abortion, but I don't think it's good enough as a source. We need a solid source like CNN or CBN in order to have that information in the article.
I looked up whether or not examiner.com was a reliable source (before I added it to the article) and I came across this, but it's funny because there seems to be answers to it now, which were not there before when I looked at it 5 days ago. I remember also reading that examiner was blacklisted because it had problems in the past with viruses or something, which was why I didn't directly link the source. Do you think this is still a bad idea to use it? The stuff I was reading was that you had to be careful when using examiner unless you know the writer of the article is an expert in their field. I saw that the writer of Jaeson Ma's (http://www.examiner.com/x-15489-Internet-Examiner~y2009m10d20-What-do-you-know-about-Love-Jaeson-Ma-gets-to-the-heart-of-the-matter) article was an expert in the field of computer technology/internet trends, so I used her article to back up the information about his video getting a lot of hits on youtube.
However, I can see what you mean, and considering it's not worth the hassle since there are discrepancies, I will go ahead and see if I can find another source and I will just remove the claim for now. I am going to work on his article more tomorrow with my tutoring students since I also found some more sources on him and I want them to work on their writing. I am glad you said CNN and CBN as solid sources, because I was guessing that those were the two solid ones (which means I'm figuring this out faster than I initially thought). Thanks Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, some of those answers are quite funny but misleading. Examiner.com is actually been used on Wikipedia in several articles; see Talk:Examiner.com#Blacklisted? (and the link provided by Abd). I think the sentence it sourced is uncontroversial enough, so I'll request whitelisting of that link after I take a closer look at it. Best of luck with your students, but be sure not to violate WP:ROLE, which prohibits people from sharing the same account. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence was pretty basic, but I found 2 other sources that were similar so I just removed the examiner.com source and I used those instead (they were just about youtube hits and Amazon mp3 sales). My students are not very well-versed in HTML (not that I am the expert) so I do all of the actual editing and uploading for them.
I also went to the peer review for Have a nice day and I moved the picture to the lead. I'm going to try and spend some more time working on Middlesex soon. I got the book, but I have yet to open it. I ordered a ton of books since I started my wiki obsession, but it seems like the only thing I read these days are more wikipedia articles.Ƥ Ɓ❤ ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Abigail Child
Hi Cunard,
I have been trying to edit the Abigail Child page for the past few months and all of my changes have been discarded, even the most recent ones I've made at the beginning of May in which I simply deleted all of the information I knew to be factually incorrect. I don't have a lot of time to spend working on this page so I was wondering if you could tell me exactly why these edits were rejected/what I need to do to have my edits accepted. Would you be willing to look over a draft of my changes so that they can be accepted? Thanks,
I commented on your talk page in March 2010 about your changes and reproduce them below:
Abigail Child is an artist whose original montage pushes the envelope of sound-image relations with sensitivity, smarts and passion. – the phrases I have bolded are not neutral descriptions of Abigail Child.
Your changes caused the article not to have wikilinks (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing#How do I make links? for how to make some). Also, your edit removed the sourced content that was already in the article; please incorporate your changes into the current revision instead of just writing over it.
{{cite news}} : for news websites like CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSN, etc. I normally use {{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |work= |publisher= |date= |accessdate={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} }}
{{cite web}} : for web pages. I normally use {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} }}. If anything (such as the author's name or the date) is not on the web page, then you should remove it from the template. The same goes with other elements in this cite web template.
{{cite book}} : for books. I normally use {{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= }}.
These templates will allow you to better format your references so I ask that you use them for all the references you wish to include in the article.
I reverted your changes because they were not neutral, removed external links, categories, and interwiki links from the article, caused the article not to have wikilinks, and replaced valid, sourced content with other information. Please rectify these concerns, and your changes will be fine.
The comments were well deserved. I am baffled as to why the article was nominated for deletion when this restaurant is obviously notable. Good luck when you take the article to GA and/or FAC. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Cunard, this may alleviate your bafflement a bit. The user that nominated the article for AFD, has previously been involved in prior formal dispute resolution with me [3], and appeared to have been upset that a WP:GA-rated article exists regarding controversial history of a group that the user has an interest in. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
MFD monitoring
Yes, I'll be glad to go through the page. It really is a bit of a mess. Thanks for thinking of me and thanks for your support. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The article gives an informative overview of a highly important topic. Kudos for all the writing and researching you have done for this topic. I have not finished going through the article yet so will continue reading it today and possibly tomorrow before I give it a review. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I am honored by your offer to nominate me to be an administrator but I do not wish to be an admin for the reasons I provided at User talk:Cunard/Archive 2#RFA, and User talk:Cunard/Archive 4#You are not admin, User talk:Cunard/Archive 5#Supplication, and User talk:Cunard/Archive 5#Admin?. I find that contributing to Wikipedia as an editor unburdened by the administrator tools is more helpful to accomplishing my goals on this project, namely producing content, than if I were an admin. I have noticed administrators who once produced quality content contribute to articles less and less because they have become distracted by the mundane tasks which admins are charged with performing. I do not wish for this to happen to me, so I am content to remain a non-admin. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I suppose your reasoning does make quite a bit of sense. :) I do think that you would be a great admin, but I won't bother you about it. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I did look at the reviews you mentioned when closing, and agreed with the others who checked them, that on the evidence available the book was mentioned in passing. There appears to be no or little material present in those reviews that could be used to build an article. Essentially they are reporting that the book exists - which means it meets WP:V but not necessarily enough for WP:GNG. I left it open for people to merge in useful material to the parent article, and that would be an appropriate first step to recreating the article. Build up the content in context within a parent article, and when you have enough material for a standalone article, supported by appropriate reliable sources, move it back out into mainspace. SilkTork *YES!09:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a pitty to see that people do bad research on the Internet, especially Wikipedia, which to me starts to look very strange in the way editors handle deletions. Why i say this? Well if you find, amongst others, the Dutch Olympic Committee and the Dutch National Handbal Federation not impartial and say they are part of the company FIR-TEX i sincerely doubt your ability to judge anything... Flying Dutchman 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicky747 (talk • contribs)
Hi Cunard. You've done well establishing the community consensus about secret pages. Your MfD nominations appear to go ahead unchallenged. Perhaps you could write an essay/guideline incorporating all the links and information from the last year of the discussions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking a simple new page that is basically what your MfD nominations are. User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages is very good for a comprehensive coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
An interesting page. You have done a good job of collecting together the various arguments. Some of the things said may possibly not give quite the same impression as they did in the context of the debate where they originally appeared, but that is a minor detail, I suppose. At present I can't think of any improvements that are needed, but I will let you know if I think of any. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. There are some parts of your quote that won't be understood because they are in a different context. Because the quote is attributed to you, I don't feel that I have the right to change it. Would you make some changes to your quote so that it is more general? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I will think about that. I don't have time to do it now. If I haven't done anything on it within (say) 48 hours, please feel welcome to remind me, as it may well be because I've forgotten, as I often do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cunard. I was never committed to the view that these pages needed to be deleted, but I am very happy to see the difficult issue resolve. I think this page will be most useful down the track should the issue resurface with new people. Briefly, I see this development as a sign of maturation of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I strongly agree with your last sentence and believe that nearly all of the secret pages that exist today will be deleted through MfD by the end of next year. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. A creator may remove a {{db-blanked}} template from a page if s/he doesn't want the article deleted. The other db templates, though, cannot be removed by the creator. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Secret pages 2
Don't you think it's better to nominate every secret page in one MFD? Yes it would cause more drama it saves time from listing every single one after the mfd closes. Thanks Secretaccount02:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yea I remembered closing that now, I wanted to delete them so bad, but I just couldn't find consensus, I think consensus has changed with secret pages since then as people don't play with them anymore, I'll endorse a mass nomination. Secretaccount04:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree. A precedent setting mass deletion is appropriate. Doing them one by one is disrupting MfD, like covering the whole page in snow. Beware nominating false positives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
One note: if you are going to do this, please look at all the pages first. I recall a mass MfD where about 10% of the pages were perfectly legit. If people find even one or two that are debatable you're likely to hit no consensus as people aren't going to be willing to walk all of them themselves to see if there are other mis-categorized pages in there. I personally don't have a problem with them (think userspace should have a fair bit of freedom, find them harmless and perhaps have a small bit of value) but no reason for this to get bogged down in details rather than addressing the issue. Hobit (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Considering how I just became aware of your proposal and the large scale of your nomination, I must abstain from !voting for the moment. But I do have a few suggestions; firstly, that the MfD would be allowed to run for more than seven days, say fourteen, given how divised the community was on the previous issue; secondly, that the nomination may include an RfC tag, because of the nature of the previous discussion(s) (Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, etc) as well, and to avoid some of the problems associated with talk page spamming; and lastly, that, in the interest of achieving consensus, but not to simply count the !votes, that it be divided into the keep and delete camp, if possible. I also have another page you might be willing to consider, User:TeleComNasSprVen/Sandbox3, but it contains many false positives, some of which I kept because of the reasons in the other MfD (that the barnstars contain possible information to the location of other secret pages). :| TelCoNaSpVe :|10:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yea do it each one individually consensus is clear on mass nominations not to delete them and also on individual pages to delete them. Secretaccount01:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There seemed to be a clear consensus not to delete, but not a clear consensus about how to keep it.
By the way, I've been looking at your contribution history and I am surprised that a productive editor like you has not yet been granted some enhanced user rights. Say the word, and I'm happy to grant you WP:ROLLBACKER and WP:REVIEWER status. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words but I prefer not to have any extra rights. Rollback frequently leads to mistaken reversions when users misclick links. I prefer the undo button which gives me more time to analyze the edit. I don't want the reviewer rights for similar reasons. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad I asked before giving you an unwanted "gift". Rollback is a convenience when there is a series of vandal edits in a row, but generally I agree, and I use the "undo" feature myself except in the case of obvious vandalism. If you change your mind, just ask. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For the excellent contributions such as in Abaz Kupi and many other articles where I have seen you move sensibly upward the quality of the articles, please accept my recognition of your very fine work. Sulmues(talk)06:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You give me too much credit, though. Your prolific creations/expansions of numerous articles are more impressive. I have to say that I'd call you "tireless" and myself "tired". :) Cunard (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE remove the struck and redlinks, as we've seen it creates confusion. Also, please template the pages nominated - to do as you say you wanted to, and delay templating until after you had consensus for deletion looks like an attempt to game the system and prevent proper discussion. I'd strongly advise you to ask for an admin to close the nom as malformed, and leave it awhile. If you jump in with a lot of prods when the nom is closed as keep would look distinctly like sour grapes. I'm sure your intentions were good, but the way you have gone about it does not look like it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
On 16 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LucyPhone, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Cunard. Thanks for fixing this for the new editor; I wasn't sure that it is acceptable to move a redirect to a mainspace name, that 's why I made all the hasty suggestions. --Kudpung (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cunard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
