Jump to content

User talk:Cunard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Cunard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 7 (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 14 May 2009 (→User page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.




Articles that I have created/rewritten:

Thank you!

Hi, just wanted to thank you for saving the article I was writing from speedy deletion.

Cheers, Trixie1127 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Trixie1127

You're welcome, but I didn't save ENC Press from speedy deletion — I just removed the invalid speedy tag. You've written a very nice, detailed article; it was definitely mistagged by the new page patroller who discovered it when looking through Special:NewPages. I've wikified and cleaned up references in the article. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Thank you for your help and editing. I see I've got quite a learning curve ahead of me. But I'll get there. Having somebody show enough patience to fix my mistakes is a great motivator.

Cheers, Trixie1127 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Trixie1127

My pleasure. I'm glad that you're interested in writing and improving articles on Wikipedia! Here are some templates to help you cite sources. There are three main templates:
  • {{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=8 January 2009 }}
  • {{cite web}} : for web pages. I normally use {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=8 January 2009 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=}}. 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= }}.

Another good link about sources is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which states that Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Remember to keep this in mind when you are researching an article. Sources from Myspace and most blogging sites are not reliable sources and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. Also, using "third-party sources" means that the article should not solely rely on sources that originate from the company/organization that the article is about.

Only "third-party sources" confirm an article's notability. Otherwise, the article may be deleted, so make sure that the article asserts notability before submitting it.

Some good websites to search for news articles to source an article are: Google News and Google News Archive, AccessMyLibrary, and Factiva. Google Books is a nice website that stores all kinds of books from many different authors and is a valuable researching/sourcing tool.

Also, to prevent hasty new page patrollers from tagging your unfinished new articles for speedy deletion, you should store them in User:Trixie1127/Sandbox, your sandbox, until they are ready to be moved to article space.

Good luck with article building! Feel free to ask me further questions if you get confused about anything. Take care, Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In appreciation of your fine work

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For doing a fine job in saving Schoop's Hamburgers from being erased via speedy deletion. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

American Gnostic Church

Crowley did not found this org, see the article itself. And it's not an NRM, it's an organization, organizations are covered by A7. Sticky Parkin 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Part of my rationale for removing the speedy was partly wrong. However, I do not consider this to be just an organization, but also a new religious movement which is not covered by A7. Another reason that this article should not have been speedied is that it contained one reliable source, which was The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Even though this is only a brief mention, the article asserts notability and is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I do agree with you, though, that this religious movement does not pass the general notability guidelines, so I have voted delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gnostic Church. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for this mistake

Sorry Cunard, for my mistake by clicking on TW.Could I remove this {{db-g7}} tag? Or you do again because I am not Admin. Again sorry for my mistake.-Thanks. Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's okay! I've made similar mistakes too. I've removed the speedy tag. By the way, any user (including non-admins) can remove a speedy tag on article that s/he has not created per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. I'm not an admin and I do that a lot when I see mistagged articles at CAT:CSD. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

db templates on vandal's talk pages

Why have you placed so many speedy deletion templates on talk pages? I see you quote WP:DENY in all of them - how does this apply? We are not categorising the talk pages into CAT:GRAWP or CAT:EPIC VANDALS or anything like that. The pages will be deleted after a month or so anyway as talk pages of indefinitely blocked users, so this seems redundant. Matty (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY will have a low chance of working with Grawp. Yet, I do not want Wikipedia to build shrines to him. The talk pages are also deleteable as a repost of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp as well as being the talk pages of a banned user. I'm tagging all those talk pages for deletion because they do not automatically go in CAT:TEMP. Some vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely but are not given a block template, so their talk pages will not be deleted in a month. The same goes with the Grawp talk pages; none of them have the block template, so none will get placed in CAT:TEMP. By putting these pages up for speedy deletion, I hope to get them deleted immediately since they serve no purpose on Wikipedia - Grawp will not have any legitimate unblock requests. Hope this explains my mass deletion tagging. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Woops, sorry. Fair enough! Didn't realise that, i'll think twice before questioning someone who knows what they're doing when I don't haha. Have a good one, keep up the good work! Matty (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng-tips.com

Just a friendly comment, your statement asking if I have read the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng-tips.com might be considered by some as uncivil. You may want to consider removing it. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

eng-tips.com

Thanks for the nice comments on the article I started about eng-tips.com. I had posted four previous versions of the article that were all speedily deleted. When I wrote to the people who deleted the articles, all were mum and wouldn't explain what needed to be done differently to make the article acceptable. Everyone simply labelled me as a spammer and one who was incredibly ignorant of Wikipedia's rules (which I am). I simply think that adding an article about eng-tips.com makes sense for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! I dislike when legitimate articles get deleted for erroneous reasons. You're ignorant of Wikipedia's policies, but you're definitely not a spammer. The article you wrote was very well-written and contained no promotional content at all. I'm going to give your article some wikification and some references. Don't let those people bite you off Wikipedia! Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion followed--though I do believe that writers need to do a good job of writing. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

on Black president (United States)

thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
You deserve this, keep up the good work. — Dædαlus Contribs 09:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Barnstar

You're welcome, and are you sure it's him? Have you checked out the sockpuppet investigation I've been having going in relation to him? Also, why is your userpage indef, sysop protected?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sure it's JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp. The vandal in the sock investigation has never done any page move vandalism, while JA/G does this type of vandalism on a regular basis. He's also called User:Future Perfect at Sunrise a deletionist scum. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more information about this JA/G's long history of trolling and disruption.
My userpage is indefinitely protected to prevent recreation because I have no intention of creating a userpage. Using a colorful sentence, a vandal "helped" me create it in May 2008. It was speedily deleted by Antandrus, so I requested protection so that my userpage will not be created again. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.

It'll be done before you know it. I think it had been tagged as an A7 by someone else. Only takes a moment...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! Cunard (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for Danat Al Emarat hospital

Thanks for editting this article, you have done high quality editting indeed.Glasszone33 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Cunard (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoot Hawley Tariff Act RFC

You marked a page for speedy deletion with the description "Bot error." Though the comment clearly did need to be moved or deleted, and the page probably qualified for speedy deletion under A6 G6, I don't understand why you would blame it on the bot (the bot appears to have no other problems, so it seems likely that it was user error). Brian Jason Drake 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Although there was user error involved in that edit, the bot was in error too. The bot should not be creating pages in the mainspace. Shouldn't it just be placing RFC notifications in the article talk and Wikipedia space? I didn't know why the bot created the page, so I tagged it for deletion as "bot error," so that someone would take a look at it. Also, this edit is a major problem, so the bot does have some bugs that need to be fixed. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't actually look at the bot's interface before. Now I have, and I see that it clearly says to include the "Talk:" if posting to a talk page. Doesn't that make it the user's responsibility? Brian Jason Drake 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It is the user's responsibility, but the bot should also check to see if the RFC comment is posted on the right namespace. I see that you've made this suggestion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RFC posting script. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joan Snyder

Updated DYK query On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan Snyder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zimmer Dental

HI - I revised my Zimmer Dental entry. How can I make it live?? Thanks Troydanderson (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article still contains copyvio content so it can't be moved to the mainspace yet. If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on User talk:Troydanderson. After you have secured copyright permission, then you should take the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review, since the article has been deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zimmer dental. If you would like me to do that, then contact me on my talk page when the copyright problems have been resolved. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I am a designated spokesperson for Zimemr Dental and am able to post this company info. I authored it as well. Please move to live space. Thanks.

- Troy Anderson Manager, Customer Communications Zimmer Dental

Troydanderson (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to go through WP:DRV as I said above. Also, did you e-mail Wikimedia that you release the copyrighted content under GFDL? Cunard (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

All those deletions you made were made by my little brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.161.133 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 February 2009 UTC

You're welcome. Make sure he doesn't do it again. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairway Markets

Hi there - perhaps I've only muddled things, but should the speedy delete tag instead be on Fairway Market? That's the correct title form, but if we want to preserve the edit history of the content from Fairway Markets then don't we need to delete Fairway Market and move Fairway Markets to that title? Gonzonoir (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right! The {{db-move}} tag belongs on Fairway Market. Sorry for the mix-up. I've placed the speedy tag on the page with the singular title. Cunard (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'll drop the creator of the non-plural version a note explaining what's going on. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick edits

Cunard, I'm a high school teacher who's showing my students how easy it is to alter information on wikipedia. Thank you for the quick edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooperjones (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, but please don't make these test edits again. This is considered vandalism. By the way, you may be interested in Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey stop of rvert my edits on Pucca episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaspet (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop blanking those pages which you did here, here, and many other articles. Many of the articles you have been restoring do not pass WP:FICTION, so the redirects should stay there. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Haggar?

My 2c are that is doesn't matter as he gets blocked with no editing of his own talk page anyway. As such I think it should not be a speedy. Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see how the retention of this user talk page would be a benefit to Wikipedia. Since talk pages of indefinitely blocked users are placed in CAT:TEMP and deleted after one month of the blocking, I don't see why this page should remain for the full duration of the month. It serves no purpose at all, since the blocked sock of a banned user can't even make an unblock request. Furthermore, since the template you've placed on that talk page doesn't even list it on CAT:TEMP, the page will remain undeleted. Wouldn't it be better to just delete it immediately before there can be more disruption from other socks? Cunard (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the hurry? That user cannot disrupt anymore not by email or on his talkpage. Another user can if we delete the page or not. I have seen User Talk pages that you have asked to be deleted which then where re-created with the block notice. So give them at least the month from the temp category you speak about. As far as the block notice not being in the tempcategory you will have to take that up with Chris G (talk · contribs) who runs the bot which blocks the culprit. The bot leaves definite instructions to replace his notice with that template upon checking the automated block. Agathoclea (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep those pages for the full month. Before I began tagging those pages for deletion, I would place {{indefblockeduser}} on the pages, but within two days of my placing the tags, an IP removed one of them. I reverted the IP, but then several hours later, another IP reverted me. Those were likely Grawp socks who saw me placing those templates. To avoid the trouble of having to revert the IPs every single day, I began placing speedy tags on the pages.
As to the user talk page which was re-created, I think you're referring to this one. I doubt there are any other ones which have been deleted and then been re-created by an admin. This talk page was re-created because I placed the speedy tag on the page about two to five minutes after the block. In the future, I will wait an interval of at least half an hour before tagging the talk pages for deletion.
If you would like a policy reason for deleting those user talk pages before the full month is up, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp. In that deletion discussion, it was decided that all the userpages (and subsequently, the user talk pages) of Grawp socks would be deleted per the uselessness of having them here. Hence, I think the talk page where you removed the speedy is speedy-able per that deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In passing, my recreation of the above user talk page was inadvertent. The user was blocked for the username and vandalism - I didn't associate it with Grawp. Given the slow speed of this PC it took me a few minutes to post the block template during which time the original talk page had been deleted. The template post therefore recreated the page. I would not have recreated it if I had known either the identity of the editor or that it had been deleted in the interim. Euryalus (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Euryalus, thanks for the clarification! Cunard (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I left a message with the bot owner to change the suggested block template. Apart from that I don't think it should be speedied as the block was done by a bot and at least for a while the message serves as a quick check that things have been dealt with and it gives others a chance to see who confirmed the bot block. Agathoclea (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And while we have been muttering in a back corner of wikipedia unbeknown to us the template has been changed -- Agathoclea (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That's efficiency for you. :) Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice! I'm not going to waste my time tagging those pages again. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I borrow this?

Hey, I was wondering if I could use your speedy deletion info thing at the top of your page to put on mine. I am constantly getting the same barrage of questions after I tag something and it would make my wikilife much easier. Thanks. --Woland (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but I didn't create that wonderful page. Jonny-mt (talk · contribs) did that. Once you borrow the speedy deletion page, remember to follow the instructions here and give Jonny some Wikilove. Take care, Cunard (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!--Woland (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Woland, I've created a CSD subpage for you and changed the link at the top of your userpage to point to User:Woland37/CSD, instead of User:Cunard/CSD. It belongs in your userspace because I don't want to receive hate mail from angry article creators who wonder why their article has been deleted. :) See here for CSD subpages of other users. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Cunard, I would like to thank you very much for helping me with the article. Now it looks much much better from contents, references and layout points of view, and I am sure your contribution is extremely valuable for the community. EugenyBrychkov (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! I enjoy rescuing articles from speedy deletion when they are definitely notable. Thanks for catching this mistake. I'll try to be more careful when I add content. Feel free to ask me questions if you need any help. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:JoshEdgar

Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cunard (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure how I missed that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fennemore Craig

Updated DYK query On 19 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fennemore Craig, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Zimmer Dental

Yes, I emailed the permissions group, as you instructed, but have not heard back.

- Troy

Troydanderson (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) about the OTRS permissions here. Cunard (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nihonjoe has replied here. Did you receive a ticket number when you emailed the permissions group? If you didn't, please resend the email. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BookRags

history undeleted. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cunard (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with my Ghost Pirates article?

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ghost Pirates Are Coming (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article you created has been redirected because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. See WP:MADEUP. Your creation here falls under WP:MADEUP. When you create articles for Wikipedia, remember to use reliable sources. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pranab Das deletion

I had marked the Pranab Das article for deletion because it seemed to be a test, irrelevant of the subject matter. It does not seem to be a discussion or attempt at an article about the person, and (even though I can't find the source material) could be copyright infringement. I have posted some cleanup templates instead, but I will be checking back on the article to see if it changes or improves.--Jakebathman (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was not a test page; the creator was not experimenting with Wikipedia, so {{db-test}} does not apply. The article contained some content that is coherent, even though it is not verifiable. I've prodded the article since I can't find any sources to verify this person's notability. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks (I'm still learning the ropes for all of these things, so I appreciate the help).--Jakebathman (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To learn more about deletion-related stuff, be sure to read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Also, don't miss out on the essay by I'm Spartacus! (talk · contribs) titled Why I hate Speedy Deleters. That essay made me think twice before tagging an article for speedy deletion. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Removal of Speedy Deletion tag on Bob Cranmer

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

This is a cut and dry case according to WP:POLITICIAN. Please read the discussion page before removing a SD tag as you're not an administrator. In case you need clarifying of the reason he doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; as a county commissioner, he's considered a second-level sub-national politician when first-level sub-national is the cut off.OlYellerTalktome 09:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I'm not the creator of this article; Cranmr (talk · contribs) is. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not have to be an administrator in order to remove speedy tags. Please read this talk page for the discussion about non-admins being allowed to remove speedy tags. Since I do not want to edit war, I've placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article and have asked the reviewing administrator on the talk page to remove the speedy and add a {{prod}} tag to this article since I agree with you that this person is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the template. I wasn't able to discern how long you've been on wiki and I didn't realize the template was only for the author. In my time on wiki, I can see that people mark new articles for speedy deletion rather quickly and often jump the gun so I can understand why you would be an advocate for protecting pages from overzealous speedy deletion. I'm still looking for my best niche in wikipedia and someone suggested I check out the New article portal. I don't think I like it as I don't want to become one of the overzealous AfSD taggers. I've started to look into wikiprojects. Have any other suggestions?OlYellerTalktome 10:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
When I first began editing Wikipedia, I was one of the overzealous SD taggers, see my contributions from March 2008. Many of the bad speedies that I added to the articles were declined. Then, gradually I became more interested in rescuing articles from CAT:CSD and WP:AFD, by adding references to the articles that are in danger of speedy deletion. For example, I've rewritten an article that looked like this into its current state. I've also transformed an article that looked like this into its current state. If you are interested in doing work like this, I recommend that you patrol CAT:CSD and WP:AFD to see if there are any articles that can be saved. You can find sources for these articles at Google Books, Google News/Google News Archive. You can also join the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which is a WikiProject that tries to rescue notable articles that are at AfD. If rescuing articles isn't your thing, you can be a recent-changes patroller, and revert vandalism by using tools like Twinkle or Huggle. If you like to watch drama enfold, spend some time at WP:ANI, where there are many interesting discussions. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that's something I could get into. I want to create rather than destroy. Besides not wanting to destroy, I usually get upset by people adding article for self promotion and when people mark articles for deletion with little to no reason. I think I'd like to get into policy discussion but from what I've seen, I don't think I could deal with the long winded, listen-to-my-voice responses. I'm used to discussing policy in a more formal setting with parliamentary procedure. Also, I'm not into drama... at all. I've also watched the recent change portal but I think I'd get most into rescuing articles. Thanks for the pointers. I really appreciate your time. I'll probably bug you in the future for more info if you don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to ask me for more info. Good luck with saving articles! Best, Cunard (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
So I've been doing a lot work in CAT:CSD. I really enjoy it as it's more difficult to prove a subject is notable that to just throw up a AfsD tag if it doesn't appear to be notable. In the short time I've been doing it, it looks like a lof of wiki members will tag an article for deletion before doing any real work at all. Thanks for pointing me in this direction. OlYellerTalktome 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: UAA

Odd; I could have sworn I'd blocked the user, and when I checked one of the links in your report to verify and got an error message that the user wasn't registered, so I assumed that's why the bot hadn't removed the report. Oh well - the user is blocked now. Sorry for the confusion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the spammer. Regards, Cunard (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sitebrand

 Done and my sincere apologies for my mistake. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. Thanks for restoring the page! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Knight Trading Group

Nice job on cleaning up Knight Trading Group! -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in cleaning up the article and removing the POV. Take care, Cunard (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Select Registry

Restored, go for it. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article. Thanks for restoring it! Cunard (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice job, too. Deb (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Cunard (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Miss Dominican Republic pagents from year 1927 to 1955

You rushed to remove the tags that I placed in articles about Miss Dominican Republic pagents from the years 1927 to 1955, based on fast search you did in the Internet and placing a link that clearly states that it was copied from Wikipedia. To the best of my knowledge that is not a source, right?

All information found in the internet about this subject is copied from Wikipedia and done by the same author.

Before I tag those articles, I reseached for about a months. I called the Dominican Tourist Office in Santo Domingo, and spoke to a person who has covered the beauty pageants in the past and who has access to their history. I consulted the oldest newspaper records available in Dominican Republic and there are no information nor records of Beauty pagents those years. Please be more careful before removing a tag. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles have been taken to AfD, and I have commented there. Thank you for discovering that those articles were hoaxes! Best, Cunard (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who removed the prods and speedies because they did not appear to be blatant hoaxes...and so I opened an afd. I, too would like to thankyou for discovering the hoaxes.=DSmallman12q (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both

What motivated me to participate as an editor in Wikipedia, was that I was searching information for the Miss Domininican Republic 1969, for which I was one of the contestants. I found the page, and was surprised to see that the whole article was an invention of this person. The names did not match, the date and place of the event all were made up. I changed the information and provided a reputable link in the edit summary. I also provided images and newspaper clip, to prevent this person to change back the information. I have also noted that User: MDRU08 not only invents information about pageants, but also about geographical subjects. He changes the names of Provinces. Beacuse of the large quantity of bad articles he has created it is to much work to be done. Please see MRDU08 (talk · contribs)page to see debates about his pattern of invented information. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for your hard work in keeping Wikipedia free from vandalism and hoaxes. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Lake/Leo Lundahl

I agree with this move, however you might want to consider protecting. There's a certain user who's hell bent on reverting it because it's not where he thinks it should be re-directed, which is the only reason the AfD is still open. Don't have to, just food for thought before you get reverted. Have a good day! StarM 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be protected because I think the edit warring has ceased, but that's not my call to make. I'm not an admin, and I don't want to be one. The AfD should be closed as merge/redirect to the district per precedent. I have the article on my watchlist, so I'll revert anyone who is going against consensus. Take care, Cunard (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit the page

Hi Cunard, first I wanted to thank you so much for editing my page so it won't be deleted. I must say, it's not as easy as i thought to post articles on wikipedia..which is good cause this way I learn how that works.

Now, getting back to the HFMA page, I would like to expand and add few other stuff, how do i do that? when i click on [edit] i can only see the external links, not the content where I want to add to it...can u please help me a bit on that?

Thanks sooo much again Greatinfo2009 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the entire article by clicking "edit this article", which is at the right of the buttons that say "article" and "discussion". See Help:Editing for more information. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep AfterWorld Alive

Hi Cunard...you are my only ally so far in keeping AfterWorld (virtual world) alive! Thanks for all your help. Unfortunately, people keep scheduling it for deletion. Can you outrank them perhaps? Thanks. Epicahab (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't outrank consensus. AfterWorld (virtual world) is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Per the comments at the AfD, I recommend that you wait until the game has been released before recreating the article. Be sure to find reliable sources to establish the article's notability. Otherwise, the article will be deleted again. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


How long it takes to delete

I have seen articles nominated for delation dated for almost a year and still pending. What is the process? how long does it really takes. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It typically takes 5 days for the articles to be deleted. If there is little discussion in the AfD debate, an admin might relist it. At the most, deletion should not take more than 10-15 days. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadbodhini boys high school

I am unable to reproduce the search that got me the directory listing. I'm afraid it wouldn't have been helpful anyway. All it confirmed was its existence and an address. The article content you want to merge would still be unverifiable if I found it again. - Mgm|(talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there's nothing to the merge, an article about a high school will probably be deleted. That's too bad, but thanks for taking another look. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaynarca Sakarya

Fixed the edit history. Not sure what you need to do with it now. A dab page for one blue link seems a bit pointless? Black Kite 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new article for Kaynarca Pendik from the information at the dab page, so there are now two blue-linked entries at Kaynarca. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. There are 2 Kaynarcas in Turkey. You performed what I tried to do :) Gercekkaynarca (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cunard (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've amended the scheme of things slightly with these two articles; if interested, an explanation has been posted at Gercekkaynarca because a subsequent cut-and-paste move attempt botched things further. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please assist me?

I am attempting an AfD for the unsourced, non-notable article Paul Vanezis, and am not sure if I have carried out the proposal correctly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Troughtonfan (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, please don't be offended by my jumping in but I went ahead and fixed the AfD page and added it to the lists of AfDs for today. OlYellerTalktome 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Troughtonfan (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Troughtonfan, and welcome to Wikipedia! OlYeller, thanks for helping out this new user. I didn't know I had a talk page stalker who is constantly watching my talk page for new users in need, but I'm glad for the assistance. Talk care, Cunard (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol. I promise I'm not a stalker. I had your talk page on watch a while ago and forgot to take it off. OlYellerTalktome 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that was a joke. You're not a talk page stalker; you're a talk page watcher. Please keep my page watchlisted, so that I can have someone to rely on if I'm not on Wikipedia when a new user needs help. I have your talk page watchlisted, and I'll do the same for you (if you consent, of course). In this case, I didn't log on to Wikipedia until five hours after their request for help. Your help saved a new user from waiting five hours for a response. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh ya, I assumed you were joking. That's cool with me. Anything to help. OlYellerTalktome 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. I thought I was going to lose my first talk page watcher/stalker. That would really suck! Cunard (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob Cunningham (Aviation Artist)

This is my first Wikipedia page. I am working on getting my content donated. Can you see any other problems with my page? I am still working on it offline although, I cannot make the changes online yet. Thanks for your help.<br\>--Aklamers (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article at this version looks good, but there are a few issues that need to be fixed. Currently, the article does not cite any reliable sources that would show that Bob Cunningham passes the notability guidelines for people. You might be able to find sources here. If there are not enough reliable sources, this article may be deleted at an AfD discussion.
The templates for citing sources are as follows:
  • {{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=8 January 2009 }}
  • {{cite web}} : for web pages. I normally use {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=8 January 2009 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=}}. 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= }}.
Good luck, Cunard (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cámboya redirect page for discussion

Please see my new comment on the discussion page for Cámboya --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jalandhar Copyvio Issues

Yo. I was sniffing through AfDs and found an article's whose test was taken verbatim from other websites. While googling the text, I also found that the exact text could be found at Jalandhar. Instead of flagging the whole article for deletion, I'm attempting to remove copyvio info but the more I look the more I find. Would you mind helping me out with this article? It's not in AfD so I don't want to put an rescue tag on it but it definitely needs some help. Any help you could provde would be greatly appreciated. OlYellerTalktome 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response — I logged out of Wikipedia a couple minutes before you posted on my talk page and have not returned to the computer until now. Removing copyvio content is necessary, but most of this article isn't a copyright violation. Most of the links you've provided at Talk:Jalandhar#Copyvio are mirrors of Wikipedia, which means that the Wikipedia article existed before they did and those sites are copying Wikipedia's content. Many of those sites are violating the GFDL rules; Wikipedia isn't. The first website and the last two websites in your list are not mirrors, so the WP article might have some copyvio bits from there. I've restored most of the content but defer to your judgment as to whether or not any of the stuff I've restored are copyvios of the three non-mirror links I've mentioned above. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about some of them being mirrors. They so exactly copy what's on Wikipedia that it's hard to tell if it's just some sort of portal. I couldn't find anywhere that jalandhar.org was a mirror, jalandhardirect.co.uk seems to be a commercial website, absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Jalandhar claims to own all the info on their website. I could go on about these websites but I wasn't sure how to react and I'm not sure about how to see if the info was on wikipedia first or not. So what do we do at this point? I've never really gotten into the GFDL violation issues. I read about sending a letter to the website's owner but honestly, I think that my time could be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps I should go back and restore all the info I've removed and just forget about it lol. It seems like a whole lot of work, in a very sticky situation, where the benefit of ironing everything out is very small. I think at this point, I might leave it alone. OlYellerTalktome 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Many sites are untruthful about where they get their information from, so it's important to evaluate whether or not they are reliable, primary websites. Since I'm not an expert in copyright issues, I've sent the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 24, where Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), an editor who knows the in-and-outs of copyright violations, will review it. Cunard (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. OlYellerTalktome 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stellar Charter School

You declined my speedy tag on Stellar Charter School with the rational "removed speedy, CSD has been declined by Amalthea". However, Amalthea (talk · contribs) commented, when removing the speedy, "decline speedy, let's give the user a minute, shall we? I'll keep an eye on it". After three to four hours, there still has been no improvement. Should I tag the article again? KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the article has content (an infobox), so it can't be speedied; A3 does not apply. I'm also working on integrating information from the infobox into prose, so please don't re-tag the article. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I trust that you will be able to fix this article properly. As I see it, it's deserving of an article, but the current content (merely an infobox) was unsuitable. Good luck, and sorry for the trouble. KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that article up, and turning it into a useful stub! :) Cheers, Amalthea 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the article a chance to be expanded and referenced, instead of speedying it! Best, Cunard (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction books are not Novels

I notice you have described and categorized a number of autobiographies and biographies as novels. They aren't, so please don't do this. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about this difference between autobiographies and novels. I will be more careful in the future with regards to that.

I saw you merged content from Chief: My Life in the LAPD into Daryl Gates but neglected to note the direct target of where the content was merged from per Wikipedia:MERGE#Full-content paste merger. Please remember to do that to satisfy the GFDL requirements.

I contest this merge because I'm certain that this autobiography has independent notability from its author and passes WP:NB. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First point noted. No doubt the book has independent notability, but there is no reason to merge it when only about 20 words needed merging. Anyone interested in the book, which now redirects, will get far fuller coverage from the biography article, so merging is the correct solution. If anyone wants to write a proper article on the book they can. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Shot Off Posse

What was it that made The Shot Off Posse article an attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjackjokerz (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regr My biographical article called: Ali Mirzad

Dear Cunard, thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag from my article which was posted by another fellow by the name Orangemike. I was extemly disappointed and confused. I am new to this site and while this is my 1st article (which BTW I have thoroughly followed the Wikipedia policies) I have already been ordered to do too many edits that I couldn't possible count with my fingers. Hence my extrem happiness and gratitude for your kindness. I had added a post on Orangemike's talk page questioning his decision of "speedy Delete Tag" my article. And here I am saved by you. I just want to past in here my debate pointers that I was about to send him which I wish to also run by you as well, since it seems you obvioulsy appreciate my work.

1)Neutral point of view: representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias I am merely telling his biography. The only area that was slightly non-neutral was in a quote of Ali Mirzad; the person that the article is about..which I have filtered.

2)Verifiability: whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations All info in my article are there with a verifiable concrete official source (which are all BTW listed there)

3)No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas My article is full in compliance with this point as well. It is a Biographical article about a living politician.

4) a)Biographies of living persons: must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives My article is about a living Politician currently in office. A person that has written a book about stopping the ethnic cleansing of the Hazaras (native people of Afghanistan, now a minority). He is the 1st Afghan part of the new generation that grew up abroad in Canada and chose to volunteer to work for free for the liberation of his people. He is also the youngest Afghan Politician at 27 years of age.

The article is short, concise and to the point. It doesn’t contain his hobbies, favorite food or any such thing. It has only his short bio (past-present) education and Political role and aspirations. The article is propaganda and discrimination free.

b) People who are relatively unknown ("non-public figures") :Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. My article is about a new politician notable for his peacfull cause of fighting the oppression of an entire ethnic group (the Hazaras). He is also notable for the book he has written which has been widely printed in the Afghanistan and Iran. As explained above, the article is STRICTLY focused on his short biography. And all info is clearly sourced. --AfghanGov (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Extè

I'd appreciate your thoughts on why the Extè page isn't blatant advertising, as it seemed to me to be totally company copy, entirely promotional, and to need fundamental re-writing and sourcing to be acceptable, i.e. the criterion for speedy deletion. Thanks for your time. Fences and windows (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the promotional content (two sentences) from the article. The rest isn't that promotional. {{db-spam}} specifically states that the article must require a fundamental rewrite in order to meet that criterion; I removed only two spammy sentences from the article, so db-spam clearly doesn't apply. If you wish to pursue deletion on grounds of notability, then I would recommend prodding the article or nominating it for AfD. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For not only saving the Matt Matheny article from an unjustified speedy deletion, but for going the extra mile to start expanding the stub and make it very difficult for anyone to go back and make the same mistake. Thanks! fuzzy510 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure! Cunard (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michal Maria Czartoryski

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michal Maria Czartoryski, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Maria Czartoryski. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Kpalion(talk) 08:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, this article is about a Polish noble, and you say nobles are notable. Could you explain WHY? Antivenin 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied at the AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles

Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles (2010 film) is a blatant hoax. The "sources" are a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedtiger (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally removed the {{db-nonsense}} from the article because the text was not "patent nonsense". The game seems to be in production, but I don't know much about these games, so I'll let someone else take a look at whether the article should be speedied or sent to AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate Baldwin

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! I dislike when the hasty speedy taggers place incorrect tags on well-sourced, well-written articles. Cunard (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anne Heaton

I ran across this article by accident. I'm having trouble with proving notability and wanted to see if you could take a crack at it. She's had a little bit of coverage but not much outside of The Boston Globe. The only other coverage mentions the name Anne Heaton as being the winner of a talent competition put on by Jewel (put those refs on the talk page). There was also some info up earlier but it was all refed with Facebook and a bot took it down. As it stands, the article may or may not claim notability and I don't think the 2 refs I added would make it through an AfD. OlYellerTalktome 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the there's a ton of articles that use the name "Anne Heaton" but many are to another person or simply list that she'll be playing at a local venue. OlYellerTalktome 23:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've referenced the article with references from the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post, so Anne Heaton's definitely notable. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good work guy. OlYellerTalktome 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Baba Shanti Giri

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baba Shanti Giri, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Shanti Giri. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A NobodyMy talk 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd on Charis School

Would you reconsider your edit and vote in merging the article of Charis School into the article of Marikina City be reverted? The article of Marikina City is about the local government per se. Coverage of the article of Marikina City about education should be of the Public schools in their area. Charis School is a private school and is regulated by The Dept. of Education. Its organizational structure does not follow that of the US where it is categorized under the municipality or school district. Thanks Xapis (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Anne Bishop

Can you review your decision to remove the speedy tag on this article? I believe it was based on a false premise. There is indeed currently a Wikipedia article for the series this author wrote, but the article cites no third party sources to indicate that the series is in actuality notable. (and in any case, notability is not inherited. there is no specific third party coverage of the author herself.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Or find sources that I was unable to find. Thanks for revisiting!-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The two interviews I added to the article should be enough for Anne Bishop to pass WP:BIO. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Homeostatis

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I did decline your request for speedy deletion. The reason being is because while the user did provide information about themselves (assuming it's true), the information provide is not highly revealing. If the user had provided more revealing information, such as, but not limited to, a facebook/myspace account, home address and/or phone number, then the page would certainly be deleted and oversight would have been requested. I hope that helps explain it. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 05:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the page gives too much information for a minor, but since it only provides a first name, I guess the userpage can stay. By the way, the essay, Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, is connected to an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Catching my search error

Hey thanks for catching my search error, like I said I was copy/pasting the name into the previous search, but I do think (for the most part) the articles will be about the team rather than about the player.--kelapstick (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way the list of all the minor league player AfDs (22 of them) is at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox#Articles at AfD if you want to check the others, I wont be able to add my "stock comment" after yours though as I am leaving for the day.--kelapstick (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! I agree that most of the news articles likely are "not substantial coverage" of the subject, so I just placed a comment instead of voting keep. I'll take a look at the other AfDs too. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. I didn't know about the English Translation place.--Abce2 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. I made that mistake before. See my talk page archive. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Boy in the Shade

It is notable. Why don't you do some research before saying it's not notable. --Academiic (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I did several searches for sources and could find little to prove the notability of this band per WP:BAND. If you can add more sources to the article, then I will not take this band to WP:AFD. I did a Google search and a Google News Archive search, which either returned only sites that were unreliable or a passing mention in The New York Times. More substantial coverage is needed before the band can have an article on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chaosian

Mostly for my own education - I suspect from the way it's written that this is about some work of fiction or other and not the real world so I don't think it's intended as a hoax. However, there's no indication as to what fictional universe it's from. In these cases, is CSD:A1 inappropriate? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chaosian is a fictional character that is a "breed of warriors within the Tielra realm". Even though it doesn't provide which work of fiction, this provides enough context to pass A1, so that speedy deletion criterion is inappropriate. I've prodded the article on the basis of it being a hoax. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Patit Pavan Mandir

CSD-A7 doesn't apply to temples, you say. That's true. I did, however, not realize it was an article on a temple! Haha. It came up on a list of uncategorized BLPs and I couldn't figure out what it was talking about. It started out like it was talking about a man, so... I don't know. I even asked three other editors, including two admins, and we were left looking like o_O. Terribly written article, but notable nonetheless. Knowing it's a temple, it makes more sense. Thinking it was a BLP... not so much sense. Anyway, thanks, لennavecia 12:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. When I first came across it at CAT:CSD, I thought it was a hoax. It took me at least five minutes to figure out that it was not a made-up story but is a legitimate article about a temple. Anyway, nice work on the BLPs. There are so many of those unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. I'll try to reference a couple of them this week. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The t-shirt's a bit small for my corpulent frame, but I'll hang it in my closet with pride! - Vianello (Talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That's why it's a "crappy T-shirt". :) Cheers, Cunard (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stain blocking primers

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at User talk:Dank55/Apr.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy tag removal

If you see an article tagged for speedy, and you think it wrongly tagged, it is totally in order to remove the tag. You've been doing this, and you've been doing right,. It's at your option then whether or not to nominate for deletion via another process. Of course, if it really does need to be deleted, it helps to keep the process moving. as long as you do it in a constructive way, anyone who blames you for it is wrong. Refer them to WP:CSD "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. " That's any editor, not just admins. . DGG (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. I'll try to use prod and AfD more when removing speedies from wrongly tagged articles. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All salted!

I went ahead and salted what I hope is that final "Sheree Ali" variation. I've seen persistent self-promotion on this site, but this gal took the taco. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for salting the page. Best, Cunard (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Long Island Ping Pong League

I weighed in on the AfD. Apologies if my speedy tag made extra work for anyone. Any guidance or instruction you can offer with regard to this kind of thing would be appreciated. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 22:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy tag caused me to spend ten minutes looking for sources to determine if the tournament was notable. But that's all right, since the speedy helped me uncover six hoaxes. {{db-test}} only applies to articles that are obviously tests, but it can be used in place of {{db-nonsense}}, {{db-nocontext}}, and some cases of {{db-vandalism}} articles. {{db-test}} is a lot less bitey than the other tags. A new user would prefer to believe that his new article was an experiment rather than vandalism. See User:I'm Sparacus' essay for some more info about this CSD criterion. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I chose "test" for that very reason. The user was obviously putting a lot of work into the articles (I know...vandals expend a lot of energy, too). I had already looked for sources before I tagged the articles....and I think I tagged them all. Sorry about that. I'm checking out the essay next. Thanks for all your help. Tiderolls 23:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
For non-blatant hoaxes like these, a prod or an AfD would be the best action. Speedy deletion tags should only be applied to articles that clearly meet the CSD criteria. Thanks for tagging all those hoax articles! Take care, Cunard (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD for DDLS

I assumed that DDLS was spam, as Ddls had been previously nominated for deletion, as indicated on User talk:Id1.andrew. My error:) Greedyhalibut (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The creator probably rewrote the article to make it less promotional, so {{db-spam}} no longer applies. Since most of the Google News results for this subsidiary of Dimension Data Holdings are press releases and I can find no independent notability for DDLS, I've redirected this article to that target. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Commandate of Samana Cay

I did not nominate it as a "country," I nominated it as a club or private group (which is what micronations are, after all) about which there was no assertion of notability. However, if you prefer to go the AfD route, that's fine with me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in addition to being private groups, micronations are small countries, which do not meet the CSD criteria. The notability of this group is also asserted by "Samana Cay has two district parks and one national park". This claim cannot be referenced, which is why I believe that it's a hoax and have nominated it for deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint Catherine of Siena Parish School

While I don't see much (if any) encyclopedic value in the current article ... the redirect you supplied is also not correct. There are multiple schools that share the same name. The one for which the questioned article was created is actually located in Laguna Beach, California - not Wilmington, Delaware. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

SimApp Censorship

I have to object to the deletion of SimApp. It is a valid simulation language, and has appropriate references. It is more well known in Europe as you may see from the references in German and French control books. But it has also been documented in a book that includes modeling languages for education in the US. There are many other simulation software packages that have similar descriptions in the Wikipedia, and these are important to readers. Examples are Matlab, Simulink, Maplesim, Vissim, ACSL, to name a few. So I have offered to "userfy" this posting. Please tell me what would is different about these and would make this posting pass your criteria and it can be fixed.

So my conclusion is that this amounts to censorship. I would much prefer to see some censorship of sexual perversions that are so luridly treated in Wikipedia. That is only my opinion, however. I'm pushing on this because Wikipedia should be more tilted to users' ability to find complete information. Zoomzoom1 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SimApp is a valid software; however, is it notable? Is the software mentioned by multiple, reliable sources. The articles you have listed (such as Matlab), are mentioned by a number of reliable sources. If you have issues about their notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion. I have searched for sources about SimApp and have been unable to find any. If you are able to source and expand the article, then feel free to ask Cirt (talk · contribs), who closed the deletion discussion, to move the deleted content to your userspace. Then, take it to WP:DRV and the article can be re-created. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I left a comment at the discussion section of my RfA, asking for clarification. A couple of your questions didn't quite make sense to me with the "choose from the following criteria" notes. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 02:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Wilson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hugh Wilson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Melchiord (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The above warning does not apply to me because I have only reverted twice. You, however, have reverted five times, so I will report you to WP:AN3. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Cunard. I got the same message, and I hadn't reverted over 3 times either. I reported it to Quadell, who has put in a 24 hour ban, but I don't know if this editor is prepared to listen. What a waste of all our time! I'm glad you've been onto the case and reported it as well. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Boleyn. You saved me the trouble of having to write up a long 3RR report. Nice work with cleaning up disambig pages, by the way. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Cunard, thank you for striking the 3RR template on my talk page. I was going to just delete it but thought that may look like I had read and accepted it - which I didn't. I also was going to send you a note advising that Melchiord was cutting and pasting a template with your name attached, but wanted to let some of the drama die down first. As I suspected, it resulted in a block and I can just move on and go back to editing in my rosy little corner of the WikiWorld. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for helping Boleyn and me maintain consensus by reverting this user's addition. Take care, Cunard (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL you guys are deluded. There's no consensus. You block a guy trying to update a disambiguation page so it doesn't leave off a popular performer. LOL consensus does not mean what you think it means and doesn't exist here. Furthermore, repeatedly deleting my comments from this talk page is censorship, creates antagonism, and is against the host of precedents against editing peoples comments from talk pages. This is not an article, this is my opinion. There was no consensus, and deleting this comment doesn't make it so.--Gregory Clegg (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

News Organizations/Publications

Yo. Have you ever worked on a policy before. More specifically worked on one from scratch. I've noticed a problem with establishing the notability of news organizations, news publications, and news writers/broadcasters. I'd like to start some sort of inclusion guideline for the likes and thought you might be interested in helping. OlYellerTalktome 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I rarely discuss policy. I dislike the lengthy arguments about policies/guidelines and prefer to work on articles. I think DGG (talk · contribs) has more experience with this, so I've asked him to comment here. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a difficult situation because of the nature of sourcing--they are very rarely written about, except historically. It's puzzling, but none the less true that it is almost impossible to find non-pr type sources on working journalists. There are two courses here, to not have articles below the prize level, or to accept other criteria as well as the GNG. Those interested in academics succeeding in doing so for WP:PROF, but that's because there are recognizable quantitative and qualitative criteria and because people in general were willing to understand their importance. For newspapers similarly: we have been able to establish the idea that established peer-reviewed journals are notable, because everyone interested in them more or less agrees that inclusion in major indexes is a reasonable criterion. This The same would probably hold for popular magazines and newspapers: there are recognized indexes. Organizations of any sort are a problem--they tend to not get written about as much as people and things do. DGG (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
So it sounds like new organizations/publications isn't as much of an issue. Personally, I've saved three article from deletion where the subject is either an editor or reporter and I feel that they are obviously notable given their track record (written in at least three major publications). It may not be a big issue because they were easily saved but the reason for saving usually comes from common sense. My worry is that "common sense" is a hard issue to argue. For instance, there was an article written that you may have heard about where a major journalist's article was deleted. I don't have a link at the moment but I can find one if you haven't heard about it. After the article was deleted, the journalist wrote about Wikipedia's overzealous nature about deleting articles. I still consider myself as sort of "new" when it comes to inclusion guidelines so maybe I'm wrong. Also, like Cunard, I once got into policies/guidelines and quickly left because of the lengthy arguments. Maybe getting into a discussion on WP:PEOPLE would be the best course? OlYellerTalktome 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
by all means, if you like,but do it just about reporters, not publications, which is a separate issue. I don't think it will be conclusive,because of the usual disagreement about whether the general notability guideline controls everything. My rule of thumb is that a reporter on a local paper or station is not notable, unless there are very strong indications otherwise. DGG (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Clobbered him.

Yeah, that was pretty excessive, but you were more than in the right to revert those edits. I remember that "Bam Margera" nonsense from a few months ago. He's taking a 24-hour timeout.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the edits! Cunard (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with this. My first SPI nom. JCutter (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! The sockpuppet code letters I added were inapplicable when you created the investigation but became relevant when the socking user began to use both accounts to edit war on an article. Regards, Cunard (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot

You are very welcome. You mean you would deprive this poor Bot of it's major reasons for existing! That's cruel, that's downright mean. What did poor ol' Smackbot ever do to you? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I would! That bot's very existence hurts my eyes. After you crowd up my watchlist with edits that put a big ugly banner on MY ARTICLES, Mr. Smackbot decides to remind me how unpopular MY BABIES are. I would like to put that nasty bot out of its miserable little life. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about that undo!

I'm kind of semi-comatose in patrolling the recent pages.

TheSavageNorwegian 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting your undo. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Hey this guy is editwarring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NrDg --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? On which article? Cunard (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Check his contribution history. On the disney article for camp. And check my contribs before saying untrue things about me, like I don't edit anywhere else.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
this page has edit war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_Channel_series —Preceding unsigned comment added by DunkinDonutBoy (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
NrDg has violated the 3RR violation on List of Disney Channel series, so I've given him a warning. I added the SPA tag to your vote because your account was created less than an hour ago. However, your contributions show that you are very experienced with how Wikipedia works. Are you really a new user, or have you had other accounts on Wikipedia? Cunard (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you saying nasty things about me man?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DunkinDonutBoy (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are an WP:SPA, which is why I have marked your comments with the {{spa}} template. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
??? Where's your proof? You don't know what you're talking about.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you a new user? New users normally don't go around voting in AfDs on the first day they join Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been voting on lots of pages man. You crazy. --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you've voted on several AfDs an hour after you've joined Wikipedia only substantiates my claim that you are an SPA. Voting in multiple deletion discussions to dispel the SPA tag doesn't help your case. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
To quote Cunard, the onus is on you to prove. I'm here doing my thing. Quit harrassing me man.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not harrassing you. You are the one who is continuing this discussion on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You keep editwarring that page to say untrue thing about me man.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated an objective fact. Your account was created less than an hour before you voted in the AFD. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregory Clegg and WP:DUCK. --NrDg 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are we checking those links NrDg? --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Tweeked my curiosity when I see extremely experienced new users, usual sign of sockpuppetry. I did consider a sockblock but figure my neutrality might be questioned after the 3RR report. Just bringing it to the attention of someone who might wish to look into it further. --NrDg 05:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new case for these users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregory Clegg. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Cunard, it may be 'objective fact' but the context is to belittle my contribution and is in bad spirit man.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess everbody ignores this - --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

Hey - just a quick note that you may want to recreate your user page (even if blank) because the current deletion summary left by the last admin really shouldn't be there. See you in court ;) (SPI court that is).    7   talk | Δ |   08:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard/Archive_3&oldid=289838931"