User talk:Cunard/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

I missed Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs)'s note that I missed the referencing in the description section and have now added them as I should have. Would you consider reopening the nom? Thanks! --Kev min § 15:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sourcing the unreferenced paragraph. I've reopened the nomination per your request. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage

If you want, I believe you can have your userpage unprotected for you. Depending on exactly why it was protected however, it might not be. Just something I wanted to let you know of. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I do not want a user page. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Dewi Persik

Hi Crisco 1492. You closed Template:Did you know nominations/Dewi Persik, your own nomination, and moved it to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 with several other hooks. I ask you not to move your own hooks to the prep areas because of the inherent conflict of interest in doing so. I noticed that you placed your hook second on the list. While you moved the hooks to prep four in the order in which you closed the DYK nominations discussions, placing your hook second could give the impression that you are placing your own hook in the second most visible position.

Please let another user move your hooks to the DYK prep in the future. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Your explanation justifies your promoting your own hook. Because there are few people moving hooks to the prep area at DYK, I suppose it is okay for you to promote your own hooks. (I myself do not move hooks because I do not have the time to read all the articles moved the the prep area, and I do not feel comfortable promoting to the main page articles I have not read.)

In the future, I recommend that you let 48 hours pass from the hook's being approved before moving it to the prep area. Hopefully an editor will, within that timeframe, move the hook to the queue in that time. If there is no action in two days, then there is clearly a backlog, and it would be appropriate for you to move the hook.

Thank you for your hard work at DYK. You and Orlady seem to be the only editors actively reviewing the hooks at this time. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant

[1] Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartaz, for following the discussion. I hope your stern warning will put an end to Alpha Quadrant's bad attitude: his unwillingness to discuss his actions, to reverse himself when he has violated policy, and to acknowledge his errors. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Spartaz. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I did acknowledge my errors with the closure Kww overturned, as well as the four relistings by S Marshal. Then you came back the next day trying to tell me that making early closures was against policy. There is no policy forbidding early closures. No matter how much you want there to be, doesn't matter. Until there is such a policy, your arguments don't hold any weight. And, "bad attitude and unwillingness to discuss my actions" is unfounded. I have been more than willing to discuss the issue and explain to you, your misunderstanding of the early closure policy. I haven't been uncivil, I haven't made threats. Accusing me without evidence is considered a personal attack. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 :Thank you, Spartaz, for following the discussion. I hope your stern warning will put an end to Alpha Quadrant's bad attitude: his unwillingness to discuss his actions, to reverse himself when he has violated policy, and to acknowledge his errors. Best, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard#top|talk]]) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 ::Strongly agree with Spartaz.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
+:::I ''did'' acknowledge my errors with the closure Kww overturned, as well as the four relistings by S Marshal. Then you came back the next day trying to tell me that making early closures was against policy. There is '''no''' policy forbidding early closures. No matter how much you want there to be, doesn't matter. Until there is such a policy, your arguments don't hold any weight. And, "bad attitude and unwillingness to discuss my actions" is unfounded. I have been more than willing to discuss the issue and explain to you, your misunderstanding of the early closure policy. I haven't been uncivil, I haven't made threats. Accusing me without evidence is considered a [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|personal attack]]. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">'''''Alpha_Quadrant'''''</span>]]  [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#00680B; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>''(talk)''</sup></span>]] 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)