User talk:Cunard/Archive 8

edit count | edit summary usage

Good articles:

List of articles
I have created/rewritten:

Anne Aghion

Wasilla High School

Mat-Su School District

Archives

March 2008 – June 2008

June 2008 – January 2009

January 2009 –; May 2009

June 2009 – October 2009

October 2009 – April 2010

April 2010 – September 2010

September 2010 – February 2011

Have a nice day

Original research??? "Bonne journée" . "bonne" = good / "journée" = day. hence "Good day". What original research???. It's just literal. Your quote "have a nice day" is a mistranslation. So both should indeed be mentioned for accuracy. FYI: "Have a nice day" translates in French as "Je vous souhaite une bonne journée" ou "Passez une bonne journée". Please make corrections. THX --Little sawyer (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Have a nice day#bonne journée. Please confine the discussion there. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never...

...congratulations on Middlesex (novel)--that is a fine piece of work. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. My latest project is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, though I've become increasingly distracted by subsidiary topics such as Harry Neal Baum and Maud Gage Baum, L. Frank Baum's son and wife, respectively. With so much scholarly analysis about the novel, this is going to be a big project, much more challenging than Middlesex. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MFD

I have reverted my closure of the RM. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have left you a message at User talk:Zzuuzz#MFD. Japanese knotweed (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice that I put it in the wrong line. Thanks for the fix. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Also, when you close MfDs as "keep" (or a result other than "delete"), the {{oldmfd}} tag should be placed on the talk page, which I did here for Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Hi SilkTork. Because you are experienced with WP:CENT, I have come to your talk page to ask you a question. Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move be added to WP:CENT? Cunard (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In principle yes - they are appropriate topics. However, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move has been raised many times and people may be fed up. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move is more unusual, but may not have legs. no objection to listing both, however it may be worth waiting a day or two to see how they develop. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Because the result of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move is clear, I have not listed it at WP:CENT. However, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move has received little participation so I have listed it there. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I read an essay on here once that suggested that the "Wikibreak" template generally meant that the editor at issue was more-or-less retired, and that the "Retired" template generally meant that the editor at issue wanted people to post "OH GOD PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US" blather on their talk page. I suppose, at this point, I've more or less retired, despite the "back in a few weeks" template I posted on my userpage in, oh, September of 2010. I do come back from time to time to yell at people in AFD. Once in a very fortunate blue moon I come back and try to actually edit something. But... long story short, I apologize for recent unfulfilled commitments to work on at least one article of yours. I feel badly because I like you, and I feel badly because Have a nice day is, to me, what Wikipedia should be all about. Sure, Wiki should nail all the major topics, but it should doubly nail clearly notable but generally unexplored topics like the genesis of this bizarre phrase. Anyway. My apologies. I occasionally check in to do the aforementioned yelling at people in AfD (I worry that my increasing intolerance is going to get me disciplined at some point), but next time I commit to helping with actual article work, please remind me that I'm probably going to get distracted and then vanish for weeks on end :). I hope all is well with you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Long time no see, Ginsengbomb. Don't feel bad about have a nice day. It passed GA with minimal hassle and is still waiting for your magic. :) That's only if you have the time and inclination to copyedit it, of course. I think the article is still pretty far from FA quality due to its rough prose, organization, US-centric-ness, and excessive concentration on tangential details. But it'll get there someday. Per the GA reviewer's suggestion, I am also looking for more information about have a nice day in South American and South African sources, as well as other cultures such as the Philippines. Right now, I am working on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (see above) and plan to bother you in six months' time to copyedit it. If you commit and then vanish, I'll discipline you with ... with ... with something. I'll think of the punishment if ever such a time comes.

Hmmm, avocations back in 1865. The misuse of words continues today. Nowadays, I tend to participate much less in AfDs, as I am more occupied with bothering admins to close RfCs. ;)

By the way, you missed a drama-filled discussion about Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! (an "unofficial mascot of Wikipedia – Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan). I and others who supported deletion were called humorless prudes because we were repulsed by the page's revolting content. For context, see Drmies' talk page and the nominated version, which I WebCited to keep a record of how some will enjoy and defend such puerile humor. Fortunately, Ironholds closed that discussion as delete but the drama continues unabated.

See you around when we bump into each other at AfD again. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Incorrect reversion

Hey Cunard, thanks for advising me, I guess I didn't understand what he was trying to do there (it was a somewhat weird edition), and reverted by mistake. No need to worry about the IPs, I love them, I hug them, I'm so infatuated by them. :) --Darwinius (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I love IPs too. ;) Cunard (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cunard, looking more carefully to what I've done, it seems that I got in the way of some kind of teaching between someone and an IP, about an article in the make. I'm so very sorry, and even more since he looked already somewhat deluded with Wikipedia in his comment, and being reverted and warned as a vandal in the end... We never comment in articles in wiki-pt, and that misled me there, but I'll be more careful next time. Cheers, --Darwinius (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 98.151.53.27 (talk · contribs) was disenchanted with how Wikipedia was treating him. Perhaps you could leave him a personal note explaining your unintentional error? He has suffered much nonsense from members of AfC. I posted this message on 98.151.53.27's talk page in November 2010, encouraging him to continue contributing despite his perception of others as "power trip[ping" for repeatedly declining a valid article submission. Since then, I have kept a watch on his talk page and intervene whenever he suffers nonsense from them. By the way, editors at English Wikipedia, like those on the Portuguese one, comment on talk pages, not the articles. In this case, the article was originally at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joel M. Reed and was later moved to its current title. That is why, when looking at the earlier revisions, 98.151.53.27's comments appear at the top of the article. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

Good morning sir. As per your kind suggestion I have asked the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to take a look at this about dispute. Please check it. Thanks a lot. Regards Spjayswal67 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good morning to you too. I hope this content dispute will be resolved after mediation. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again sir. Spjayswal67 (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My case has been closed. The reason for this is that the other parties named in the mediation did not affirm their acceptance of mediation within 7 days of the case being opened. Now please suggest me that what I should do for it? Regards: Spjayswal67 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 09:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merger Request

Cunard: Can you perform this merger please? [[1]] We have discussed it on the relevant talk page and reached consensus. It's pretty obvious as a merge. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged. Feel free to tweak and trim if necessary. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RFC: Ray William Johnson

You really shouldn't have closed that after only 10 days, and no consensus, especially with comments only 2 days ago. It discusses a different point then the general inclusion criteria RfC you started. CTJF83 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RFC: Ray William Johnson has been superseded by the current RfC. I closed the Johnson RfC because no substantive discussion had occurred for a week. All the comments after 25 February 2011, the day after the RfC started, were from involved editors who were either slinging insults or repeating their arguments. Having concurrent RfCs, one about a specific topic and one about a broader one that encompasses the specific topic, is a waste of time. Starting fresh with a discussion untainted by personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith was what I had in my mind when I closed the RfC early. Note that I wrote that the RfC's result is not binding because it could be (and is very likely to be) superseded by the new RfC. Please reverse your revert. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnson could come out from that RfC as notable enough for inclusion, which is a completely different result than the new RfC. While I won't argue this much, I ask for a 3rd opinion. If you revert my reopen, I'll drop it at that, but I feel it should remain open. CTJF83 00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If the RfC concludes that #3 is the optimal inclusion criterion, then Ray William Johnson can be restored to the list. If the RfC concludes that #4 is the optimal inclusion criteria, then Ray William Johnson will not be restored to the list. The old RfC is superseded by the new one. I've asked Fences and windows (talk · contribs) to provide a third opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked for a third opinion. I actually just commented without seeing the RfC that RWJ might merit inclusion due to the small amount of media attention he has received. So I'm not the right person to resolve this. I would say a more general RfC is better than a narrow RfC on one person - especially RWJ who seems to be highly controversial for someone I've never heard of before today. Fences&Windows 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I too have never heard of RWJ and was not involved with this article before I noticed the discussion at User talk:SoWhy#Underwood. I've asked Casliber (talk · contribs) to provide a third (or fourth) opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, I would probably actually say default to leaving both of them open, or posting to WP:AN with a neutral request for a previously uninvolved editor to close the former. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, I was uninvolved with the article prior to closing the RfC. I don't think initiating the new RfC makes me involved, as I have no strong position on which criteria should be adopted and have neither edited the article nor participated in any talk page discussions. Do you object to my closing the RfC because I am considered involved, or do you object for another reason? Cunard (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. If you were uninvolved, then no, that is completely fine. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've reclosed the RfC per your third opinion. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...He didn't say to close it, he said, "default to leaving both of them open". CTJF83 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear, that was referring to pending going to WP:AN, but only IFF the original closer was previously "involved". -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, slightly unclear...ok, leave the first RfC open or closed? CTJF83 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, are you saying the RfC should be closed 20 days early? CTJF83 02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U

If you think a closing statement is a good way to go, it might be worth inviting all participants/endorsers to examine the closing statement section and comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan (talk · contribs) has yet to post a response at the RfC. I will hold off on asking the participants to review the closing statement until Geo Swan has either posted a response or indicated that he will not post one, or until the RfC has been open for about 30 days without any indication from Geo Swan about what he will do. Geo Swan's response might affect the closing statement, so I believe we should give him the chance to respond before finalizing it. As a neutral observer, would you ask Geo Swan whether he plans to post a reply? Cunard (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Already did that on 3 March 2011 and 18 February 2011; it's his lack of responsiveness which has prompted my message here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left another message on Geo Swan's talk page, asking him whether he intends to post a reply or comment about the closing statement. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I've removed your post here for the reasons seen in the edit summary. As the RfC/U is tentatively delisted anyway (mainly for those private reasons rather than the stated 30 day time limit), this delayed summary shouldn't cause any issues. An arb has some awareness of the issues I'm referring to. Will need to discuss some of the details with both you and Fram off wiki at some point before enacting a final summary close because there will be a few amendments to it. When available, please let me know by email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops.

Thanks for correcting my typo at Who the Hell is Juliette?. I clearly need a refresher course for my touch-typing.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your WikiProject work. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)

Would an admin userfy Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) to User:Cunard/Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire)? See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it.--SPhilbrick T 22:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done As an aside, I have fond memories of this place as a kid, many years ago.--SPhilbrick T 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for userfying the article. I have never been to Santa's Village, though the reviews I've read about it are enticing. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article. Would you take a look, and copyedit/reorganize it if needed? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have done a bang-up job on this article. Thank you for rescuing it! --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is a pleasure to work on improving a topic that is dear to a number of Wikipedians. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava 2

My case has been closed. The reason for this is that the other parties named in the mediation did not affirm their acceptance of mediation within 7 days of the case being opened. Now please suggest me that what I should do for it? Regards: Spjayswal67 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) has become inactive. He last edited on 3 March, which is why he did not accept or decline the mediation offer. I have asked NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) to advise you about what to do to resolve this dispute. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice. Regards: Spjayswal67 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages

Can you add categories at Aha! Effect. Also for User:Psyc3330/Group3 did you mean to send it to Executive dysfunction and then change Executive dysfunction back to a redirect or make Executive dysfunction an actual article? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I will add categories for Aha! Effect. User:Psyc3330/Group3 greatly expands upon executive functions by discussing the dysfunctionality of executive functions. For User:Psyc3330/Group3, I propose to move it to Executive dysfunction as a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just did the last of them. Executive dysfunction will also need some categories. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for closing the MfD. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

An opinion on sources

Hi! I was impressed with your thorough analysis of the sources in this discussion, and was hoping you could help me out with another. I've been trying to see how the sources presented for the article undergoing discussion here could possibly meet the GNG, but so far I've failed to do so. My efforts to ask the keep !voters to explain have gone unanswered so far. I was hoping you could possibly take the time to look at this and give your input? If you're busy I totally understand, don't waste your time on this. And please don't take this as a canvassing attempt; I'm perfectly happy if you decide that this article in fact does have good sources or you don't want to weigh in at all. I was just hoping for another analysis of the sources. Thans so much for your time!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I've commented at the discussion with my analysis of the sources. When puffery is swaying a discussion, I tend to post longer comments than I typically do. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm having to deal with the same puffery at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)‎, so that input was much appreciated.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hell, if you could look at the sources there too it would be great, the puffery theres getting pretty aggravating (don't let me influnce you though, if you disagree with me say so). And if I'm getting annoying please do tell me to stop bothering you.-Yaksar (let's chat) 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis at the AfD was spot on. That debate has now been closed, not by vote counting but by weighing of the quality of each side's argument. Exactly how an AfD should work. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your help!

Hi Cunard I want to thank your help on correcting some information on article Alejandro Alcondez your input was very valuable and finally is on the mainspace, I have question about the images used in the article which have been deleted, I've managed to get a contact email from this subject Facebook page and explained about the license type for the images used, after more than a week since I sent the email I got a reply from a representative authorising the image use under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License images here, then a fowarded the original messages to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, now I do not know i it is ok to upload or wait. thanks again. Cgomez007 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've asked Stifle (talk · contribs), who is a member of the Volunteer Response Team, to undelete the images if they have been granted adequate permission. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stifle's reply reveals that there is a 12 day backlog in verifying the images. If 12 days have passed since you sent the email to the Volunteer Response Team and the images haven't been verified, please contact me again. Cunard

Thanks again Cunard for all your help ... Cgomez007 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.