:You're welcome. In cases such as this one, I prefer a history merge over deletion to keep the history of the article's development intact. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard#top|talk]]) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:You're welcome. In cases such as this one, I prefer a history merge over deletion to keep the history of the article's development intact. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard#top|talk]]) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
== Myraids of MFDs ... ==
Cunard, instead of one-by-one dealing with things at MFD per [[WP:NOTWEBHOST]] and [[WP:BLP]] issues, for example, specifically with regard to numerous discussions lately involving userspace-drafts by {{user|Geo Swan}}, might it be more logical to have one centralized discussion, perhaps in the form of [[WP:RFC/U]]? Cheers, -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Listen, don't take whatever I write in Parentheses (This is an example) as truth, but everybody has a cow about it, then I'll stop. P.S. I'm not homophobic nor have I ever treated homosexuals with nothing but the respect I show everbody who has treated me the same respect I show them.- Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that this comment—particularly the part: A while ago, I read in People Magazine (Yes, I read People Magazine, that does not make me gay)—is not meant to offend. In the context in which you used it, you seem to be implying that something being "gay" is negative—I would consider this a form of homophobia; would you clarify what you mean when you used the word "gay"? I have seen a number of instances in Wikipedia, such as here, where editors intentionally use that word to harm and mock others.
Think about what you say. If a gay or lesbian contributor comes across your statement, what would they think about you and the substance of what you are saying? You say that what you write in parentheses shouldn't be taken as "truth", but contributors who have not met you before do not know that. Gay or lesbian editors may think you are attacking them and people who are gay. I ask that you not use such language in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I've still got your page on my watch list, and couldn't help but notice this bit of dialogue. It's both funny and sad that the same stuff goes on that did when I was a kid - namely, that participating in certain activities, or not participating, somehow marks you as being something less than manly. I'm assuming that's what Some Dude's little joke was supposed to mean. In the 1950s and 60s, they would have said the same thing except they would have used a different term (such as "homo") for guys who were into "girly" things - of which reading People is assumed by Some Dude to be a typical assumption. In fact, it goes back farther than that. There's a joke in a W.C. Fields movie from the early 1930s in which somehow he's describing some guy who has two sons: "One of them's a tennis player; the other's a manly sort of fellow." There used to be joke "tests" around on subjects like "How to tell if you're [queer/fag/homo/gay/etc.]", with questions about whether you like sports or whether you like decorating, and on and on through endless stereotypes. Even in this supposedly enlightened and liberated era, some things don't seem to change. In my day, the junior high schoolers would say, "That's so queer!" Now they say, "That's so gay!" and they mean it exactly the same way as their forebearers did. (And lest you wonder, I do sometimes buy People, if they've got a hot babe in a skimpy swimsuit on the cover - which they've been known to do from time to time. And that kind of undermines the concept that only women buy People, I would say.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Listen, I have no problem with somebody who is gay or straight, democratic or republican, etc. I've just thought that since my sister reads People magazine in the bathroom and I read it when I forget my own magazine (or I'm just REALLY BORED), I just thought People would be considered kindy sterotypical gay-ish. I suppose it could have been worse since I was raised by parents who forgot the 50's ended way to long ago. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that until today I had never heard of reading People as somehow being effeminate. Ladies Home Journal maybe, but not People. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. People does not seem effeminate to me, though Bitch certainly does. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Though people are always talking about progress, in some ways, the world does not change. The same old joke is passed on from one generation to the next, albeit in different forms. Quite sad; will this ever become cliché enough that people stop using it? I hope so. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Listen, before this becomes a real conversation, can I re-edit my statement on the "Octomom" page, mainly because it states that I read it in People, but can't find it online, so that if he who find it could upload it to Wikipedia. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you listened to the excellent YouTube video that Airplaneman provided; it provides more context about Gay#Generalized pejorative use.
Yes, you may restore your comment on the Talk:Nadya Suleman as long as you do not use "gay" in the pejorative or violate WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP. Writing "I heard that the Octomom is planing to give birth to another child" (mine emphasized) is not appropriate for obvious reasons. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at your edit here. Though I do have to give you credit for your have a nice day reference, your aggressive, sarcastic attitude at User talk:SummerPhD is unwarranted. I have read SummerPhD (talk·contribs)'s comments and do not see how she deserves that. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Why secret pages should NOT be deleted
I'm probably going to write a policy page on this at some point, but for now my rationale is this:
If it takes 5 minutes for me to create a secret page, and 1 minute for someone else to sign it, how does that detract from many hours spent improving Wikipedia?
It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that if an editor has come here solely or primarily to nurture a secret page for use in gaming or as a blog or a free personal web page, then they are misusing wikipedia, and having a "secret" or "hidden" page is just the tipoff. If they are so silly as to label it "hidden" or "secret", that draws attention to it. If they give it an innocuous name (such as "sandbox") probably it would be off the radar. It comes down to case-by-case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that all secret pages should be treated equally. I do not believe that tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" editors the right to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE by hosting secret pages on Wikipedia's servers. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
From User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages: "Many Wikipedians will create a secret or hidden page in their userspace. They usually offer a reward of some kind for finding it, often a barnstar (such as File:Secret page barnstar.svg). The hidden page is usually accessible by following a link (or possibly many links) somewhere on the user's main userpage or talk page." Cunard (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think I get it. It's the "reward" aspect that makes it a problem, because wikipedia is not supposed to be about easter egg hunts. Is that what it is? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That and the fact that Wikipedia is not a game server but a serious encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. But you said all secret pages should be treated the same way. That's why I raised the question of what constitutes a secret page. I think I understand the issue a bit better now. If a secret page is being used in the ways you describe (easter egg hunts, gaming, personal web page, etc.) then it's fair game for zapping. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Good grief, a whole nest of them. And the colors alone are jarring: red on lavender - yikes! :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Where's the RfC we were promised? Is it going to be a piecemeal chipping away at them, without linking to the previous, failed, mass MfD now? DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Secret pages were nominated and deleted before and after the mass MfD. I considered starting an RfC for Proposed deletion (Miscellany) and after reading your comment here (That such an RfC would be viewed as PROD has the advantage for him of removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions, and his apparent inability to understand how human beings get along.), I have concluded not to start one. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea when you link a diff not to then misrepresent what was said - I said "There may well be individual pages which should go, but as the instructions at MfD say that you should talk to the page creator before nominating pages in userspace for MfD, and also that you must template when actually nominating at MfD, and there's never been a consensus for mass deletion of these before, I think he was a bit out of line with the MfD nomination and refusal to inform. PROD has the advantage for him of removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions, and his apparent inability to understand how human beings get along. Still, it appears some editors feel his blatant disregard for policy and procedure make him an ideal candidate for adminship (and if he gets to be an admin, he won't need to bother with MfD or PROD, he can just speedy and be done with it)." Still don't understand why you haven't gone for an RfC, which might get you the consensus for mass deletion that you want. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Still, next time you say you'll do one thing, I'll know not to believe you. I am truly sorry that I asked for help for you to convert your failed MfD into an RfC, as it is now clear that you were never interested in looking for consensus, but rather in forcing your own interpretation. You had a profoundly unethical approach to informing editors in the failed MfD (saying you would only bother to inform them once you had the deletion sewn up), and then you lie about what I had said (rather clumsily, as you linked to a diff shewing that the quotation was wrong), and your talk of RfC appears only to have been a smokescreen. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have not gone for an RfC precisely because it would have no chance of passing if my intentions were mischaracterized as "removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions". I will participate in a RfC about Miscellany (Prod) if someone else were to start it, but I myself will not initiate one. A proposal where the initiator's intentions were misrepresented would easily fail.
You charge that I lie about what you have said. No, I have not. The diff shows that I have not misquoted you. Point out a lie, and I will retract it. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify. You say "It's a good idea when you link a diff not to then misrepresent what was said" and in your edit summary had said "you misquoted me" which is apparently contradictory. Furthermore this could be seen as an egregious personal attack. I think Cunard has deferred enough to you, as you clearly state you disapprove of a miscellany prod, and he has offered not to create an RfC that could potentially lead to it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Primary schools
Hi Cunard, could you please point me to where it is suggested that primary schools are not de facto notable. I know it's there somewhere but I just can't locate it. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education states that verifiable high schools are generally kept and that primary schools that "don't source a clear claim to notability" are usually merged to either its school district in North America or to the lowest level locality. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't forget...
...to notify users of pages in their userspace that you nominate for deletion, using the {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~ template. Thanks, Acps110(talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I generally notify users of MfDs in their userspace but forgot to do so yesterday. Thank you for the reminder. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly! I notified those that you had forgotten. Acps110(talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
When you tag articles for speedy deletion because of a closed MfD, please don't use the db template with a custom reason, because it puts the page in the unspecified reason category. {{db-xfd|votepage=name of MfD subpage without slash}} was designed for this purpose, and it puts the page in the G6 category. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for making me aware that db-xfd can be used in these cases. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Secret Pages
I understand your viewpoint but you can't retrodate rules, it just isn't done, since the dates on the pages in question is clearly before the guideline date then the pages stand, also 5 minutes to create a page vs. many hours spent improving wikipedia. Delete them if you MUST but be warned you WILL lose me and many others in the process. Thanks Djminisite - Talk | Sign 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not leave Wikipedia because of the deletion of this page. If you do decide to retire from Wikipedia, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the very helpful suggestions in your review of this article. Back from a trip now, and with a better understanding of Wikipedia referencing requirements, I intend to work on modifying the article in my workspace as necessary to appropriately rely on secondary sources, and believe that this can be done for at least some of the subject's notable accomplishments. I will gratefully accept your offer to look at it again after some of this work is done. Music43lover (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I look forward to reviewing your userspace draft when you have completed your work on it. Cunard (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I have started to gather the material to implement the changes that you have suggested. A question: many of the reliable secondary source references that can be cited are in foreign languages, including German, Russian, and Georgian, the last of which is a very little-used language. Latsabidze spent most of the first 19 years of his life in Georgia, and the rest mostly in Germany and France until about 4 years ago when he came here to attend USC and study with Gordon Stewart. (When he came here, he spoke fluent Georgian, Russian, German and French, but very little English.) Is it acceptable to cite such foreign references that are relatively inaccessable to American readers? That concern largely guided my non-use of these sources before, forcing me to rely more on the primary sources cited and on other supporting "notes". I have original (paper) copies of numerous newpaper articles about Latsabidze in these languages that can be cited, none of which are available online. There are other reliable sources in these languages, such as the German news documentary on Latsabidze in Salzberg and news interviews of Latsabidze on Georgian TV. There are relatively few secondary sources on Latsabidze in English, and I will try to maximize my use of those where they can be considered "reliable", but what about the others? Music43lover (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, non-English sources may be used in Latsabidze's article when there are no English sources of equal quality. Feel free to use as many non-English reliable sources as you have; they do not have to be online. Ambarish Srivastava is an example of an article that passed deletion review though nearly all of the sources are in Hindi. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
RE: Template Issues.
Sorry, It was taken care of because of a request on WP:VPT, I was sure I removed this request, or noted on it. Sorry for the inconvience. --Wolfnix • Talk • 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you keep an eye on the civility issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't, or ask another disinterested admin to. It's a book by Rich Zubaty. Zubaty's interventions are escalating both in length and in the degree of personal attacks on those participating in the discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops! I thought you were an admin yourself. I remembered that you had asked some other admins to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty, but assumed that was because you had previously participated in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, he seems to have calmed down for now. Voceditenore (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am speechless. Such arrogant rubbish need not be dignified by a reply. I recommend that you pay 72.234.207.192 (talk·contribs) / Lew Loot (talk·contribs) no heed. The user seems to be afflicted with a case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT and a lack of common sense. Because all uninvolved editors have concluded that the subject is non-notable, and because the debate is a clear delete, I recommend that you avoid further commenting at the AfD, as it will only be a waste of your time. I am impressed by the patience and grace you exhibited in responses during the onslaught of personal attacks and ludicrousness.
Thank you. I've said my last piece there, but will keep an eye on it too, if nothing else to see who he compares himself to next. So far it's been Tolstoy, Mark Twain and... er... Voltaire. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable. A more accurate comparison would be to a schoolboy who deems a girl inferior because she has cooties. What a grownup, mature way of thinking! Cunard (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
According to CSD, criteria that is listed on WP:NOT is not enough criteria to delete a page... A p3rson ‽ 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but even if it is in my usersapce, the criteria provided shouldn't apply, per WP:NOT, because what is on WP:NOT is not enough to request deletion of a page. A p3rson ‽ 00:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Secret Page Tagging
Could you please explain as to why you think you are in any position to demand editors delete their own user pages? The link you have provided to the discussion is worthless as it does not indicate any change in policy it merely affirms what is already stated. Whilst secret pages are sometimes frowned upon if there is excess usage of it or it detracts from the project, they are not in essence banned or written into policy as outright disallowed. I would request you stop demanding editors to CSD tag their user pages or you may find yourself being warned for such actions. Regards ZooPro 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Replied there. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for my delay! Based on the answers you got at RS/N, it looks like you're in good shape there. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I know you're very busy with the tasks of a FAC delegate. I'll use Hyde Flippo's source in the article since it seems to be an acceptable source. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant that you're in good shape to proceed with the source, although reviewers at FAC might have different feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. It'll be interesting to see what the reviewers think about the source. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
On 18 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michel Maxwell Philip, 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.
Cunard - I am not sure why you reverted back all the updates for Empower Orphans. I had updated the 'Projects' area and summarized the information and made it up to date. The info currently on wiki is a year old.
Anvcomp (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)anvcomp
The material is still a copyright violation even though the text on the website has been changed. Since you can change the website and own the copyright to the material, please consider following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. At present, the material is still a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cunard
The following email has been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org
We own the copyright to the text mentioned in Wikipedia for "Empower Orphans" and permit its use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Can you please remove the Possible Copyright Infringement note on our article.
Details requested by Wikimedia:
Original Publication (website) - http://www.empowerorphans.org/civicrm/contribute/pcp/info?reset=1&id=31
Owner of copyrighted material - Empower Orphans (Neha Gupta)
Copyright being released - Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
Link to uploaded material - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empower_Orphans
Would you please create your user page? If you can't think of anything to put on it, could you at least redirect it to your talk page (this page)? That way, the link to your user page is no longer red, and you won't be mistaken for a newbie. ~NerdyScienceDude 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to ask this, because redlinked users on Mfd's screams "Sock of banned user" to most users. Access Denied[FATAL ERROR] 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that red-linked users on MfDs "screams "Sock of banned user" to most users". Your belief that a user with a red-linked userpage is a sock is a form of prejudice. There is a fair number of editors who do not have a userpage, and I am one of them. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need addressing.
0. Why do you not have a user page?
A. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that you do.
I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.
I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.
DropDeadGorgias puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of not creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people not creating web pages on Wikipedia every day, all of whom are "disrupting" it. The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly.
Xe also talks of "establish[ing] some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm not doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym — just like DropDeadGorgias is — and a lack of a user page is precisely the opposite of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an account in my actual name.
But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as DropDeadGorgias and Jonathunder both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history. (Note that Jonathunder, whilst asking here how other users can determine who I am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the only identity that truly matters when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both Pavel Vozenilek and jag123 for judging me upon it.
Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is autobiography, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Wikipedia restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content. I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... cough ... a little while now, I know not to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)
People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely tell them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.) The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on Microsoft Pascal or a sentence in chav, and as such is entirely egoless. The "face that I present" to other Wikipedia editors within these projects is through discussions and edit histories. To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere. (If you still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of the users that are currently banned. I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several banned users whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)
You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards (which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future.
Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a technical requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator. As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use User talk:Uncle G rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.
Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this as a hobby. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist. (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.)
For the record, JzG (talk·contribs) has no userpage, and I don't think that he would be mistaken for a newbie. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!) 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I doubt users would suspect he'd be a sockpuppet of a banned user either. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
UncleG talk page stalker here. I use WP:Popups to identify users, hover over a user name and it shows you their number of edits, date of account creation and editor rights. Ironically, the User name redirect that NerdyScienceDude's sig uses renders that unusable, but I'm not about to ask him to change something he's perfectly welcome to do. Swings and roundabouts of collaboration, I guess. Bigger digger (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Rescue Barnstar
The Article Rescue Barnstar
For rewriting Yahoo! Kids with reliable sources to save it from deletion. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It was a pleasure rewriting that article. It was in want of a little bit of love and care for too many years. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Cunard, thanks for looking over it before. I think I've done all I can... but I've tried to be thorough. I am here to take you up on your offer, please copyedit/review when you get a chance. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you've done on it. Hit Em Up is a very informative and eye-opening article. I've done a copyedit on the article, and have a few comments:
"The video for "Hit 'Em Up" has been called infamous as well." – is "infamous" a direct quote from the reviewer? If it is, it should be placed in quotes?
"It surpassed the song and video for "New York, New York", by DPG in popularity." – I don't see the relevance of this sentence. (Probably because I don't know much about "New York, New York".) Is the sentence relevant because DPG's "New York, New York" had been one of the most popular songs in the genre? Perhaps you can elaborate on this.
"It has also been noted for erroneously informing the amount of money the jewelry was worth that Shakur had taken from him during the shooting incident." – this sentence is a little unclear. I don't think "informing" is the right word here.
""Hit 'Em Up" has been called many things; controversial,28 infamous,13 as well as disturbing,43 and brutal.10" – are these direct quotes from the reviewers? If so, these adjectives should be in quotation marks.
the author said "infamous video and song", I'll put it in quotes.
The sentence does not necessarily need to be there, "New York, New York" is somewhat pro East coast, east coast rappers and since 2Pac's song is pro West Coast, and sort of overtook the top spot, I guess thats what was significant, at least according to the author.
changed to "It has also been noted for erroneously stating the amount of money the jewelry was worth that Shakur had taken from him during the shooting incident."
Put in quotes.
Let me know what you think. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Your changes look good to me. On the second point, if the author explained why this comparison is significant, it could be included in the article. If he didn't explain why, though, I recommend that you remove the sentence since the readers will be left wondering why that sentence is included there. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This page was created by the marketing department of BlueMorpho. I know the guy who created this page; his name is Malcolm. I have exchanged emails with him and Hamilton (the owner) and asked them to edit this page. This is purely an ad for their center created by them posted by them. I have been to this Center three times and I am friendly with the people at the center. I love Wikipedia and would like to see its integraty stay intact. Thank you, Daemon777
Here is one email that was sent to them:
Hi Malcolm,
Erm, yeah, [sic] drew my attention to this, so I've had a read and I bounced it off some other Blue Morpho Alumni and the reaction was universally negative, ok thats only 4 people but it's also 100%. I was a little surprised to read you have been talking to representatives of wikipedia as wikipedia has no editorial board and does not review pages, they are particularly proud of that fact. Could you let me know the user ids of whoever claimed to represent wikipedia please so I can discuss this with them
To quote the contact us page (their emphasis, not mine)
"Wikipedia has no editorial board.
Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff."
I've listed the objections I have below, I don't really want to get into an email discussion though, I'd prefer it carried on on the wikipedia discussion page.
Notability
Subjects on wikipedia should be 'notable' a really good rule of thumb about notability is that if you had to write it yourself it probably wasn't notable otherwise it gives rise to a conflict of interest, there are plenty of guidelines on wikipedia about conflicts of interest, I include below a quote from the guidelines that an article should be..
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]
Significant media coverage can be an indicator of notability; I understand that being so close to Blue Morpho you may think it is really famous, but outside of the 'community' it's actually not, even inside the community; it's not like it's world famous.
Verifiable.
That Blue Morpho page falls very far short, comments like "Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center is the largest Ayahuasca shamanism and Universal shamanism center in the Amazon jungle." largest in what respect? land mass? turnover? staff numbers? visitors? where are the references to support that claim? this is why people are discouraged from writing about themselves, people close to the subject will find it extremely difficult to maintain neutrality. The rest of the page is just advertising blurb again with no supporting information and some more promotion of related items at the end. I can't point at a section of the page and say 'this is wrong, this should be changed' because the whole page just looks like marketing and bears little resemblance to an encyclopaedia article.
Independant
I think it's obvious that an article written to promote an organisation by staff of that organisation is not independant.
I actually agree with [sic] it's my opinion the page is not notable and does not contain any significant information, maybe one day it will become so famous as to justify a page but wikipedia is not the tool to get there. It has no merit on it's own and should be deleted, I see it's already been recommended for deletion a couple of times. In fact, it is clear that the page exists only because it is linked to from the ayahuasca page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemon777 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
On 2 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yahoo! Kids, 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.
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (3rd nomination)
Umm... In fact I participated in the 3rd discussion. (And might still say a few words there.) I was notified through WikiProject Deletion sorting, like all others who monitor the Croatian or other WPDS subpages. Thanks for letting me know anyway. GregorB (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought you were the only user from the 2nd AfD who either has not participated or has not been notified about the 3rd AfD. The user I should I have notified is Marcusmax (talk·contribs), whom I will notify. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, I would have never known otherwise. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice and for your work in cleaning the userspace of promotional drafts and unsourced BLPs. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal questions
Hi Cunard. Not meaning to be personal, but I am wondering.... Did you previously edit under a different account and did we interact back then? Did you have any involvement in Esperanza? I observed, but did not get involved. Why is your talk page move-protected? Not that it is a problem, but it's unusual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Those questions aren't personal at all, so feel free to ask for clarification. I heard of Esperanza through senior editors alluding to it in various discussions and skimmed through the discussion and the associated deletion reviews after I tagged it with the Delrevafd templates. I used to edit under dynamic IPs and don't remember interacting with you (as an IP I mainly tagged pages for speedy deletion—an area you're not involved in).
My talk page is move-protected to prevent page-move vandalism. I've dealt with this user before and my talk page undoubtedly would have been targeted had it not been protected at the time. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I just felt some deja vu. It's probably because your saying things to me similar to what others have previously said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the recent {{mfd}} from Iqinn are similar situations.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. In cases such as this one, I prefer a history merge over deletion to keep the history of the article's development intact. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Myraids of MFDs ...
Cunard, instead of one-by-one dealing with things at MFD per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP issues, for example, specifically with regard to numerous discussions lately involving userspace-drafts by Geo Swan (talk·contribs), might it be more logical to have one centralized discussion, perhaps in the form of WP:RFC/U? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
