User talk:Cunard/Archive 7

edit count | edit summary usage

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

About the "homophobic" warning

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)

(talk page stalker)BTW, dude, seen this? (links to YouTube) Airplaneman ✈ 22:55, 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 Bugs ^{What'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 Bugs ^{What'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?

Cheers, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You may find User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages#For helpful. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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 Bugs ^{What'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)

What's the definition of a secret page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 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 Bugs ^{What'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 Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. By the way, have you seen anything as outrageous as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dantheu2man/The Odd Subpage/may/pages/lucky/pages/off/will/clicking/closer/soon/Wikipedians? Cunard (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, a whole nest of them. And the colors alone are jarring: red on lavender - yikes! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What'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)

Please use {{db-xfd}}

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)

Giorgi Latsabidze article deletion review

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)