User talk:Cunard/Archive 9

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

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

Your userpage

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

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

RE: Dewi Persik

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Quadrant

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

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

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

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

First accusations of harassment and now accusations of personal attacks. It is clear that further discussion with you will be fruitless owing to your intransigent attitude. Spartaz wrote: "accusing editors raising reasonable concerns of harassment and stalking has a chilling effect and is effectively casting unfounded aspersions".

Your unfounded aspersions have been chilling.

I wish you the best of luck in your editing endeavors. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget the canvassing (call it what you like, that doesn't change the fact). If you weren't harassing me, then why aren't you going after every single editor that makes an early closure? As Hammersoft pointed out, many of the discussions are closed early, days before the 7 day period. Your quarrel isn't with me, it's with the current closure policy. You can't change policy through harassing editors that disagree with you. If you have a problem with policy, you start a discussion on the policy talk page. You don't go around unilaterally demanding we change. And the accusations you made above are unfounded. You have presented no evidence of my alleged "bad behavior" and "unwillingness to discuss the issues" which is a personal attack. A personal attack is defined as:

“

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

”

You don't have any evidence to back up the above claims. You, on the other hand have violated our harassment policy.

“

(From WP:HA) Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.

”

Harassment [2] [3] (1) Bringing up an argument that early closures should never be done. Despite the fact that I am not the only one doing them. (2) Badgering me until I replied to your message, and threatening to overturn my relist if I didn't do it soon enough. You were really that upset about a 40 minute period?
Threats/Intimidation [4] Threatening to open a RFC/U without significant reason to, as stated by the other users involved.
Repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention [5] [6] [7] Continuing the discussion after I had explained how policy supported my actions in an attempt to change my opinion.
Personal attacks [8] [9] Accusing me of refusing to discuss the issue and having a bad behavior. Without evidence supporting your claims.

I will say that I have never seen someone get so riled up over a relist. A relist doesn't reset the AfD clock, uninvolved users can still close them before another 7 days passes. And I know, you are going to reply saying the above wasn't your intent, that you were just trying to "warn" me about a supposed flaw in my policy knowledge. After [10] where you note that your actions had an "unsuprising result", suggests you knew exactly what the outcome of your actions would be, well, until Hammersoft intervened. Had I not edit conflicted with him while blanking my talk page, I would have been gone for good. I am glad he talked some sense into me. I know how to handle this next time someone brings something like this up. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote that your five-hour long retirement and unretirement was an "unsurprising result", I referred to Toddst1 (talk · contribs)'s comment. Charitably put, the retirement does not place you in a good light.

I derived little enjoyment from researching and explaining myself at length. I was under the mistaken impression that you would listen and reply reasonably. I imagined a productive discourse like those I had with King of Hearts, Cirt, and Salvio giuliano regarding their early closures and that I had with The Bushranger regarding his relists.

Instead, I was confronted by accusations of harassment and personal attacks, and you now state that my explanatory comments are "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention". I no longer believe you intended to have a good faith, open-minded discussion with me.

A good faith user would not obstruct dialogue by casting aspersions.

Damaging, chilling, stifling aspersions.

That you are continuing this discussion with further chilling comments about harassment and personal attacks after I have disengaged speaks volumes. Cunard (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last three comments you made on my talk were based on personal opinions, not policy (See Wikipedia:AFD#References #1). Discussions ≠ policy, I think you would agree on that. Discussions with strong consensus make policy. A few editors arguing against early closures is hardly strong consensus, it isn't even included in policy. It is quite interesting how you withdrew from the discussion when a strong counterargument was brought up. It's also interesting how you only denied one of the above accusations I brought up. Going with the "your slander deeply hurts me" attitude, offers insight in your character as well. If you think I had bad intentions in the discussion, that's your prerogative. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The "strong counterargument" was one editor's opinion unilaterally added without discussion on 9 June 2011. It completely flies in the face of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion ("The discussion lasts at least seven full days"), which was written through an extensive discussion with 60 editors at Wikipedia talk:Articles_for deletion/Archive 52#Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days. The close unambiguously states the prevailing consensus that

All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion.

Your suggestion that the policy allows for "early closures in the last sentence" was noted, but set aside because I was unable to find the sentence to which you referred.

I have both addressed your groundless accusations about my actions and explained your misunderstanding about Wikipedia:Deletion policy here and on your talk page. I see no need to repeatedly debunk falsities when they are repeatedly repeated.

Please do not characterize my opinion with the word "slander", a charged term that could imply I have made a legal threat to sue for defamation. I have not.

When terms like "harassment" and "threats/intimidation" are indiscriminately used, there is a chilling effect, an intimation that I am attempting to psychologically harm you. My inclination to avoid further debate on your talk page is analogous to my reaction if someone were to make a legal threat against me. Such a charged allegation would color and overshadow the focus of any discussion, rendering constructive and collegial dialogue hopeless. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

wiktionary:aspersion#Synonyms. No point arguing about the rest anymore. I have agreed to disagree. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "slander" is synonymous to "aspersion". However, "slander" is also a legal term. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, slander can refer to "the tort of oral defamation". It is best not to use such charged wording.

I wish you the best. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Flatscan, this obfuscation by Alpha Quadrant sorely reeks of dishonesty. I thank you for attempting to engage in discussion with this inflexible user after S Marshall's and my attempts failed.

I recommend you save your time and withdraw from further discussion, as it is clear this user will persist in his mistaken, dodgy ways. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was revised by Sandstein (talk · contribs) to direct users to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure after I asked him to review the page. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Sandstein to take a look. If anyone is interested in pursuing the close timing issue further, I suggest an RfC. I'm partial to policy RfCs because they record a baseline that is more difficult to handwave away. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comment here that none of us—S Marshall, Spartaz, you, and me—were able to communicate to Alpha Quadrant that the community has opposed early closures that do not fall under Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure.

The close of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 52#Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days clearly stated that XfDs must run the "full 7 days" unless one of the early closure criteria was met.

The user's stubbornness to continue flaunting the discussion's consensus has an "I didn't hear that" tone. I don't know if an "early closures" RfC will end his repeated violations of policy but am willing to draft an "early closures" RfC with you. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel a driving need for that RfC. WP:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes was relevant, but it's been closed already. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If you ever intend to draft an "early closures", feel free to contact me about it. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cunard, I was under the impression that the early closure issue had been resolved. I apologize for any of my comments in the past discussion that you felt were bad faith. I would like for this to be resolved through civil conversation. Are there any specific issues that you have with the closures I made? If so, I would be more than willing to discuss it. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for asking me to review your AfD closures. I have taken a look at your AfD closes over the past few days.

Regarding early closures: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure states:

The "snowball clause" exists to avoid process for the sake of process, and should not be invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", or where there is genuine and reasoned disagreement.

Do you stand by the position at User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Archiving of Early AfD closures that "Early closures are justified by Ignore all rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? I have reviewed your recent closures and agree with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Play series as an appropriate application of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black hole cosmology, although it is "high likely" to be closed as keep, should not have been closed early. Although the nominator and one "delete" participant switched to "keep", there were two "delete" participants who had not commented after the rewrite. Had the AfD been allowed to run for the full seven days, they may have either switched to "keep" or reaffirmed their opinion to delete. Closing early denied them the chance to comment again.

Regarding non-admin closures of AfDs that are not uncontroversial: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkthrough had several "delete" votes and is unfit for a non-admin closure. Walkthrough was an unsourced article, and an admin might have closed the debate as "delete and convert to a disambiguation page".

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) is a controversial debate, with the discussion split between "convert to dab" and "keep as is". I note that although Sandstein (talk · contribs) endorsed your close, closures of contested debates are best left to admins per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Because the debate was contentious, and because your closure has been called a vote account, I ask you to provide a closing rationale. When AfD participants are deeply divided, closers should explain how they reached their conclusion.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy, there were several "delete" votes, and after the second relist, Stuartyeates (talk · contribs) reaffirmed his "delete" position. This is not an uncontroversial AfD.

Regarding relists: Please provide a relisting rationale when you relist a discussion that has had several participants. One example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team. Prior to your relist, the discussion could have been closed as "keep". Why was this discussion relisted? Deficiencies in the discussion (if there were any), such as a lack of policy-based comments or a lack of discussion about reliable sources, should have been mentioned in a relist rationale. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To disclose my connection, Alpha Quadrant has come to me and asked for advice on how to resolve this dispute, and so I assisted him in forming the relpy above this and i'm just here to help that along. (and yes I have read up on just about everything).

That said, I think it's unrealistic to have him comment on one that another admin endorses (Wife selling) and that I endorse myself. I mean we've already got what we need out of that part, lets move on.

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team, I think i'll leave Alpha Quadrant to comment on that one, though I do see where he could get the relist, but i'm not going to comment either way.

I will note I have given him a general idea of what non-admins should and shouldn't close, but i'll leave that up to him to follow/use at his own discretion. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC):::

I hope you will be able to impress upon Alpha Quadrant what S Marshall, Spartaz, Flatscan, and I have been unable to: Early closures are discouraged by the community if they do not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure.

I do not think it is unrealistic for Alpha Quadrant to provide a closing rationale for the Wife selling AfD. The discussion was split between "convert to dab" and "keep as is". The discussion was contentious. The close was called a vote count. These three factors indicate that a closing rationale is warranted, as a courtesy to the AfD participants. That two uninvolved admins (Sandstein and you) and an uninvolved editor (Alpha Quadrant) consider "keep as is" to be an accurate assessment of the consensus indicates that it is. However, some AfD participants do not believe so, and they are entitled to hear the reasoning for a "keep" closure. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding early closures, yes, I still hold the same opinion per WP:SK#NOT, which explicitly states that early closures are justified by Ignore all rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Regarding potentially controversial non-admin closures, per my discussion with DeltaQuad, it seems that although there isn't a policy against it. There is often strong opposition to non-admin closures of controversial discussions. I intend to take that in account when analyzing discussions, and avoid making closures on potentially controversial discussions. Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was not unanimous, it was a fairly clear keep. The nominator even explicitly stated that he was open, if sources were found. Regarding the relisting, at the time, only one of the keep arguments had really addressed the deletion rationale. The discussion can now safely be closed, as three additional users have commented addressing the issues. Relisted debates do not have to run another full seven days. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The text you paraphrase pertains to "snow closures".

WP:SK#NOT ("What is not a speedy-keep") should be considered in conjunction with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, particularly the snowball clause subsection. The Deletion process guideline directly addresses early closures and snowball closures and a deeper description of what is permitted. That the text

The "snowball clause" exists to avoid process for the sake of process, and should not be invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", or where there is genuine and reasoned disagreement.

is not in the "What is not a speedy-keep" section does not mean that it should be ignored. I hope DeltaQuad will help you review these two guidelines: They are meant to supplement each other; both should be followed.

I thank you for reconsidering making controversial closes.

I agree that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was "highly likely" a "keep", though not a snowball closure.

The relist rationale you have provided here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team is valid. I ask you to provide a relisting comment in the future when you relist AfDs a third time or ones that have had substantial participation (per WP:RELIST). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadunandana Swami for two examples of relisting comments. As I wrote to The Bushranger, this will allow participants to understand why the discussion was deficient and to better tailor their subsequent comments to addressing policies or sources. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A snow closures is a type of early closure. I agree that snow closures should not be applied if someone is arguing another opinion in the discussion. Early closures should only be applied in clear instances. Regarding relisting comments, I was under the impression that relisting was handled the same way as Requested Moves. In future discussions, I'll be sure to leave a relisting comment when there are five or more participants (counting the nom). Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wife selling, I agree with the point that he could, and should have provided a rationale on the AfD. I'm seeing things I don't think I saw last night...but an explanation would be nice. (though I can't and won't force it) That being said it does look like a more controversial keep and I already talked with Alpha Quadrant on that part.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy is not a snowball and again, and it might have been better to leave to an admin, but I would have closed it as a keep when weighing all the comments. And just to make sure were on the same page, i've talked to him about snow and speedy keep policies going hand in hand, and as far as I can tell he understands.

Tell me if i'm wrong, but it looks like things are solved out here now, is this a correct assessment? -- DQ (t) (e) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, thank you for helping Alpha Quadrant understand the closing guidelines. I do not dispute that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust Me, I'm Dr. Ozzy was correctly closed. I dispute the contention that a non-admin can close these types of AfDs. There was an overwhelming agreement at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that non-admins should not be closing AfDs that are not clear-cut cases. Alpha Quadrant, please confine your closes to AfDs in which there are no strong, well-reasoned "delete" votes.

I also ask you to provide relisting comments in discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC, where there are fewer than five participants. A solid relisting rationale, which you later provided at User talk:Mkativerata, will dissuade other uninvolved editors and admins from overturning your relists. Cunard (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now closely reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) and found that there is substantial disagreement about whether the article is a synthesis of tangentially related material. Cynwolfe (talk · contribs) wrote:

I usually think the dangers of synth are exaggerated, but some proponents of this article seem eager to indulge in vast synthesis ("wife or daughter, dowry or debt bondage, it's all bad stuff that happens to women") with the stated goal of getting a socio-political message across. If I support the politicizing of an article because I agree with the message, how can I oppose the politicizing of an article when I find the message repugnant?

The level of disagreement about whether this article violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view indicates that an editor should not be closing the discussion as "keep" without a closing rationale. To do so shows a lack of respect to the AfD participants. Alpha Quadrant, I ask that you add a closing rationale to the AfD or revert your closure so that someone who is willing to write a rationale can close the debate. Cunard (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No one was arguing for deletion on the Wife selling article. The discussion was on whether or not it should be a disambiguation page. AfD is intended to discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. Discussion on whether or not an article should be converted into a disambiguation should take place on the article's talk page. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus in the past has been that if AfD participants offer merge or redirect positions, the issue should be "settled in closure, rather than deferred to the article's talk page for more conversation after" (cf. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect).

I believe that good faith discussions about whether a title should be a disambiguation page or an article should be accorded the same treatment.

A close of "keep" is an explicit endorsement of retaining the article's content as is. Instead of "keep", the close should have been "no consensus without prejudice to further discussion on the talk page". However, because non-deletion positions at AfD can be settled in closure, I ask you to re-read the AfD to see which side ("keep as is" or "convert to dab page") had the stronger arguments. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cunard that there was enough support for reverting to a disambiguation that it should at least be acknowledged in the closing statement. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A lack of acknowledgment of the issues raised indicates that the status quo is acceptable. It is clearly not, as was stressed by the "convert to disambiguation" camp at the AfD. The NPOV and SYNTH issues have merit and should have been mentioned in the close, as a basic courtesy to those participants. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So you want me to revert my closure? Two admins have already said the closure was fine. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that you analyze the arguments in the discussion, specify which side had the stronger arguments (or that neither did), and write a closing statement justifying your decision. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Cunard, I know you would have preferred Alpha Quadrant to do this, but I wrote at least a paragraph for a closing that I sure hopes satisfies the need for a secondary comment, because that's one heck of an AFD to read, re-read, and re decide on. At this point, if you want a better comment or review, deletion review (or whatever it's called these days) is your next stop.

The fact that you keep coming back with a new relisting every day is getting annoying, and honestly, you should just list them, and maybe at a deletion noticeboard at some point for second viewpoints from non-involved editors, because this seems like an endless list that is going to come. For the editors who made the objections who were involved in the deletion discussions that you are advocating, and don't want to come to Alpha Quadrant to ask for an explanation, because he in good faith, by not knowing best practice did not put up a comment on why, and they aren't asking for a comment, I don't see the point in making one, as it just puts a burden on all of us to justify everything we say and do. If you agree with the actions by Alpha Quadrant, then lets move on.

I'm not at all discounting the fact that some if not more of what I haven't reviewed should maybe have gotten a comment or not done by a non-admin. But it's the past, we can learn from our mistakes instead of dwelling on them. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just don't see the point in dragging this out longer than it needs to be. Happy editing, -- DQ (t) (e) 06:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you keep coming back with a new relisting every day is getting annoying After Alpha Quadrant asked me to review his closures, I posted them at 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC). Please re-review this discussion and reconsider this inaccurate statement. I have not raised a new relisting every day. The ones being discussed are the ones I posted at 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC). Alpha Quadrant asked for feedback about his closes and AfD actions, and I have advised him about how to improve his closures and relists. I see nothing "annoying" about this.

For the editors who made the objections who were involved in the deletion discussions that you are advocating, and don't want to come to Alpha Quadrant to ask for an explanation, because he in good faith, by not knowing best practice did not put up a comment on why, and they aren't asking for a comment, I don't see the point in making one, as it just puts a burden on all of us to justify everything we say and do. – through Talk:Wife selling (English custom), I was aware of the Wife selling AfD before Alpha Quadrant closed it. When the AfD was closed as "keep" with no rationale, I was surprised by the closure and wanted to see the rationale behind a "keep" closure. Other editors were surprised too. Closes of controversial discussions should always have closing rationales. Omitting a closing rationale does not tell the participants why an AfD was closed as "keep" or "delete" or "no consensus". The burden is always on the closer to justify his/her closure. I agree with DGG; any disputed close with no rationale should be reverted.

If you agree with the actions by Alpha Quadrant, then lets move on. – seeing the improvements in Alpha Quadrant's closes, I am hopeful that Alpha Quadrant has learned from this discussion to provide closing and relist rationales, avoid closing controversial discussions, and cease closing discussions early that do not meet the "early closures" criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, if you want a better comment or review, deletion review (or whatever it's called these days) is your next stop. – I do not intend to nominate this discussion for deletion review; I disagreed not with the close but with the lack of a closing rationale. My purpose in asking for a closing rationale is to allow for less hindered discussion on the talk page. By closing an AfD as "keep", the closer indicates that the article is fine as is. Only through a closing statement can a closer explain that "keep" does not mean an endorsement of the article's current form and that the article needs to be finetuned to be more compliant with NPOV, OR, and SYNTH. That said, I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the discussion and preparing a closing statement. I've never seen an admin write a closing rationale for another closer.

I also thank you for explaining the AfD closing and relisting guidelines to Alpha Quadrant. You have accomplished what S Marshall, Spartaz, Flatscan, and I were unable to do. You must have much tact, diplomacy, and patience to have been able to convey to Alpha Quadrant what we failed to convey. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, thank you for adding a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination). A common argument in the "convert to disambiguation page" group was that there were perceived violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the article (Scott Mac, Nev1, Cynwolfe, Parrot of Doom, and Stuartyeates). I do not see these concerns addressed in your closure. Would you add a note about this?

Would you also note that your close is not an endorsement of the article in its current state and that further discussion should occur on the talk page to iron out any disagreements about the perceived violations of NPOV, OR, and SYNTH? While this should not be necessary, I have had experiences where editors pointed to a "keep" closure to stall further improvements to an article. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few comments. I have not had a chance to talk to Alpha Quadrant since my post above because i've been very busy and as you see have not had any contribs in 2 days, and sorry for the delay in responding to this. I'll try and follow up as soon as I can with any further comments. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for expanding your closing statement per my suggestions. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Masoud Shafiee DYK

Cunard, I find the rejection of the DYK a bit absurd based on potential close paraphrasing issues in one sentence. I believe this was adequately addressed through my changes. You could have easily changed the sentence yourself if you found it not different enough, but to reject the entire DYK on this basis is absurd, especially when others had already accepted it. I request that at minimum you re-open the DYK so we can find an adequate compromise on the sentence rather than unilaterally closing it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You brusquely attacked Nikkimaria who does the difficult, tedious, unenviable job of comparing sources and DYK-nominated articles for policy compliance with copyright violation, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing. That is unacceptable.

I rejected the nomination because the close paraphrasing issue had not been adequately addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) mistakenly improved the article on the basis of the Duplication Detector, which does not catch all types of close paraphrasing. In this case, two words were replaced by synonyms while the original wording of the source's sentence was preserved (diff). This is close paraphrasing. You were given a chance to address the close paraphrasing concern but you did not. Thus, I summarily failed it. You are free to request that Crisco 1492 or Nikkimaria review my closure. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Middlesex (novel)

After re-reading the article, I am thinking of making certain changes to it that might hopefully improve it and help resolve concerns at FAC. The changes could be major and I wonder if you would prefer I wait till after the FAC or to go ahead now? I pushed ahead with the first part to show as example. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The FAC will likely be archived in a day or two, so feel free to make structural and stylistic changes to the article anytime. Thank you for spending your valuable time working on Middlesex's deficiencies, when you could be working on topics that you have more interest in. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK Palestinian rabbis

Please explain why ALT6 is indeed not supported by the sources. The hook states: "in the 1530s, Turkish authorities acted to prevent [by deporting Berab] Palestinian rabbis [the scholars of Safed and others] from developing a scheme [ordination and restoration of the Sanhedrin] which may have resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine?" I agree there was no consensus, but the hook is supported. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Orlady wrote:

Berab was the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination, so they kicked him out (or maybe he left for his safety). Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, he is the only one identified in the article as having been deemed to be a threat.

All of those [sources] are about the activities of Jacob Berab, not about "Palestinian rabbis" in general.

while the sources you cite make clear that Berab's religious activities had some support from other rabbis, Berab was the one that the Turkish authorities suspected.

Regardless of what is true, Wikipedia content needs to be based on what published sources have already said, not contributors' interpretations.

I reviewed the sources you provided and agreed with her assessment of them. She has clearly explained why ALT6 is unsupported by the sources. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have great difficulty in understanding where you and Orlady are coming from. I hope I am not misunderstanding either of you, but to me, the hook is valid. It is true and clear that Berab was the instigator of the plan to restore the Jewish state. But he could not accomplish that alone as Orlady would have us believe! It is not possible for one rabbi to hold a singular position in place of the 70 member Sanhedrin, neither is it possible for one rabbi alone to get to that stage. Berab was not planning to become a sole theological dictator by gaining "some support". The article is clear that Berab was not the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination - there were twenty-five other rabbis who ordained him, and Berab in turn ordained others, who in turn ordained others. (This is mentioned in the article.) If it was only Berab involoved, why was a letter submitted by the "scholars" (plural) of Safed to those in Jerusalem? ibn-Habib of Jerusalem took an active part opposing the plan - a clear indication of communal involvement, as Maimonidies had prescribed. It is beyond doubt that the scheme was being developed by a significant group of pro-ordination "Palestinian rabbis" and not only by Berab alone, who was their leader. As to why the Ottomans deported only Berab is their concern only, not ours. We cannot insinuate that just because one person was targetted, only one person was deemed to be involved in the anti-government scheme and that he had no accomplices! On the contrary, the article is clear that many rabbis were active in the restoration campaign. That Orlady denies this is understood from the artcile is astounding. Unless a source is provided that Berab was the sole person actually involved directly in the scheme, rejection of this nomination was unjust and without basis. Chesdovi (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is true and clear that Berab was the instigator of the plan to restore the Jewish state. But he could not accomplish that alone as Orlady would have us believe! – Orlady has not said that Berab was the only instigator. She noted that the sources do not explicitly identify anyone else.

If it was only Berab involoved, why was a letter submitted by the "scholars" (plural) of Safed to those in Jerusalem? – this is synthesis. Unless reliable sources explicitly link the scholars to the scheme, the assertion that they were involved in the scheme should not be made in the hook.

We cannot insinuate that just because one person was targetted, only one person was deemed to be involved in the anti-government scheme and that he had no accomplices! – nor can editors insinuate that others were involved in the scheme. It is original research to make speculations or inferences based on what most likely happened. Reliable sources must explicitly verify the statements in the hook. Because none of the sources did so, Orlady and I found the hook faulty.

Unless a source is provided that Berab was the sole person actually involved directly in the scheme, rejection of this nomination was unjust and without basis. – you are free to appeal my closure to Wikipedia talk:Did you know if you disagree with Orlady's and my reasons for rejecting the hook. Cunard (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything. Orlady is. The following excerpts from the text make it clear that others besides Berab were involved in the scheme:

"Berab wished to rely on the opinion of Maimonides, that if all Palestinian rabbis agreed to ordain one of themselves.."

"In 1538, Berab was ordained by an assembly of twenty-five rabbis, meeting at Safed."

"ibn Habib considered it an insult to himself and to Jerusalem that the scholars of Safed had undertaken to resume the practice of ordination without consulting with the scholars of Jerusalem."

"He wrote to the scholars of Safed."

"and asserting that their action.."

"He [Berab] ordained four rabbis before his departure, in the hope that they could continue to exercise the function of ordination during his absence" They are explicitly identified as "Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, Moses di Trani, and possibly also Abraham Shalom and Israel de Curial." Indeed, "Karo used his status to ordain Moses Alshich, who later ordained Hayyim Vital."

"The dispute among Palestinian scholars over ordination.."

There are then the other sources that Orlady dismissed too:

"In 1538, the sages of Safed voted to re-introduce semicha."

"after the Beith Yosefs arrival in Safed, the town's rabbis gathered to find a leader..."

"In 1538 a Great Knesset (gathering) consisting of 25 leading Rabbis foregathered in Safed and agreed..."

"There is some evidence that the propaganda campaign of the Rabbis of Safed to revive the ancient form of ordination [Semikhah) reached the city of Fez."

"This community attempted to revive.."

"the decision of the Safed rabbis was invalid.."

Orlady states that these sources are not good enough for they only show that Berab had "some support from other rabbis." In fact, they also show that with the "support" of these Palestinian rabbis, the scheme could continue to be developed. But they did not only "support" it. After the "25 leading Rabbis" of Safed had physically gathered, they also voted to ordain Berab. The "support" did not end there. Thereafter, they (the "Rabbis of Safed", or the "community" or the "Safed rabbis") engaged in a "propaganda campaign".

Orlady falsely asserts that "Berab was the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination" as a reason to reject the hook. He was not the only one.

If Orlady had a problem regarding the absence of the word "state", I am not sure why after I had added refs to "Jewish state" in the article, ALT3 was still not deemed okay and Orlady was still pushing for ALT4? (And Since when can we not use PD material for a hook?)

Orlady: "he [Berab] is the only one identified in the article as having been deemed to be a threat." Not quite. The threat was "ordination of rabbis" not Berab. I said: "He had indeed convened the Safed meeting of 25 rabbis at the outset. It was a group effort, of which he was the instigator. Rabbis ordained by Berab in turn ordained others" Orlady said: "You are painting a picture here that may be valid, but is not part of the article and is not clearly supported by the two sources cited in that section of the article." Both these facts are in the article. Neither you or Orlady have addressed the involvment of the 25 rabbis neeed to initiate the scheme. Orlady ignores participation of other rabbis in the plan, claiming only Berab was the only person involved! That claim is not supported by the article.

The case Orlady is making is that it is only valid to say "Berab attempted to establish a Jewish state", while I think one can also say "Palestinian rabbis attempted to establish a Jewish state." In a similar vein, while I would agree that "Herzl attempted to establish a Jewish state", I would also think it is in order to say "the Zionist Congress attempted to establish a Jewish State". Chesdovi (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my position that the hook violates Wikipedia:No original research because the sources do not explicitly verify that "Turkish authorities acted to prevent [by deporting Berab] Palestinian rabbis [the scholars of Safed and others] from developing a scheme". Because you disagree with my close, I recommend that you appeal it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to understand what the OR and SYTH issue is here first: It is that we cannot combine various sources? Sources in the article currently tell us:

"Moreover, Berab's life was endangered. The ordination had been represented to the Turkish authorities as the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state, and, since Berab was rich, the Turkish officials would have showed him scant mercy in order to lay hands on his wealth. Berab was forced to go to Egypt for a while.."

"The Turkish authorities, suspecting Berab of harbouring hopes of re-establishing a Jewish state, deported him from Palestine."

One source says that the Turks saw Berabs ordination by 25 Palestinian rabbis as paving the way for a rival Jewish political entity and would therefore target him. The other says they saw Berab alone as a threat and deported him. Are you and Orlady saying we cannot conclude from both these sources that the Turks wished to prevent the rabbis of Safed from developing the ordination process by removing Berab from the scene? If not, why? What do the sources need to say? That Turkey deported Berab to "prevent rabbis of safed from reviving ordination?" But that's why they deported him, for that very reason? Chesdovi (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research states (bolding in original):

[Original research is] any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

You have synthesized several sources to advance the position that many rabbis were involved in the scheme and thus considered a threat. Making "conclu[sions]" based on one or more sources is a violation of the original research policy. To include the statement in the hook, you must add sources that "directly support the material as presented". In other words, secondary sources—not Wikipedia editors—should be making conclusions from the historical evidence. Cunard (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The article says that:

1. many rabbis were involved in reviving the ordination, and

2. that they were prevented from completing the plan due to Berab’s absence, which was

3. brought about by Turkish threats against him alone,

it is claimed nevertheless to be OR to suggest that the Turkish authorities feared the actual act of ordination by many rabbis and acted to stifle their progress in creating a political entity, and rather, the sources just support the notion that the Turks just deemed Berab alone as a menace? In my reading of the article, Berab was a threat, but that was only due to the status bestowed upon him by the established congress of rabbis involved in restoring the Jewish state – it was only after they had collectively ordained Berab, when he truly became the nominated leader of an active movement, that the Turks took notice. It is therefore valid to say that Berab’s removal by the Turks was aimed at preventing the movement consisting of Palestinian rabbis from developing. I am happy on this note to lodge an appeal. Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that we will not come to an agreement about whether the proposed ALT6 hook is original research. Feel free to lodge an appeal. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to me. Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying, but a q

Could you explain this edit? It looks fine and harmless, but I don't understand its procedural basis: is that a standard thing to do? Just curious. The edit summary didn't explain (Answering here is fine.) --Lexein (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lexein. The purpose of the {{Delrevafd}} template is to inform AfD participants that the discussion has been nominated for community review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This is Step #6 of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Steps to list a new deletion review, though many users fail to do it because they either don't review the instructions or forget to do so.

A co-creator of the template, Suntag (talk · contribs), notified the community at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 13#New deletion review template Template:Delrevafd. There was a request to create a template like this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 59#Closed discussions should note reviews in February 2010, though the template had been in use for months before that. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to trace these things back. Learn something new every day. I suppose an edit summary of "WP:DELREVD step 6" would be good, since it's now possible

--Lexein (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification suggestion. In the future, I'll include that in my edit summary. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

o god tb spam ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Thanks for linking everything that needs to be closed up, but now that a ton have been closed, can we wipe, force archive, or do something to the ones that are done? and maybe merge all existing requests for anything related to RfCs into one so we know what to look at? -- DQ (t) (e) 10:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you know how (or can find someone) who knows how to deal with my SfD closures, and can get someone to do so per, that would be great. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and closing several lengthy RfCs. I will take a look about merging the RfCs requests sections and finding someone to close the SfDs. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've consolidated the RfCs into one thread at the top of WP:AN. I've removed the future timestamps for the other threads, which will be archived in 48 hours. There are only four SfDs open at the moment, so there is no longer a backlog there. If there is a backlog in the future, I will ask Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), Grutness (talk · contribs), Black Falcon (talk · contribs), or King of Hearts (talk · contribs) to review the discussions. Cunard (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Powers

Hi Cunard, could you leave some more feedback at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers if possible? I've nuked the blog source and the information it supports, and as such I feel as if I may have a possible COI if passing the hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have commented there. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Cunard/Archive 9! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Ashdod - Isdud merger

Since you have assited the arbitration of the merger proposal, i would like you to help me verify whether i'm ok to go on with merger, as the administrator Ilwritch has proposed here, if no comments are made within a one week period. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with llywrch (talk · contribs) that you can go ahead with the merge because there is no opposition after several weeks. Cunard (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried the Administrator, but without response, could you finilize the discussion as an uninvolved party, so no questions would later arise? Thank you very much.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion as permitting a merge. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor

It is my understanding that the issues have been addressed, and it is the reviewers who are not responding. Check the discussion. I'd appreciate it if you could reopen it, and consider prodding the reviewers for a re-review. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The issues have not been addressed. Please re-read my closing statement. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I stand corrected. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits should've addressed both issues, see article's history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate this edit in rewording any close paraphrasing in those paragraphs. However, the example I pointed out has not been changed:

Article: "The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor meant that individuals were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of their societal peers."

Source: "The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor means that they were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others."

That I specifically mentioned this example and that it hasn't been addressed indicates that the entire article was not reviewed for close paraphrasing. While the history section has been revised, I ask that the other sections are also reviewed for close paraphrasing. Cunard (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cunard, I believe the article is cleaned from paraphrasing. In addition to my edit in the history section you mention above, my team-mate corrected additional sections, including the example you wrote above. To see if there is anything left, I googled every sentence and none returned close matches except the WP article itself (unfortunately google is the only tool available for me to check similarity of content, I'd appreciate it if you can refer me other tools). Please let me know if there is anything else you would like us to do to improve the article's current state (I am planning on adding more content into the "family honor within different cultures" section this weekend, and I guarantee that they will be free of paraphrasing/plagiarizing). Thank you for all your help and consideration. Esery (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Esery. Having reviewed the article and related discussions, I've found that the copy and paste was done not by you but by your classmate who doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation. Thank you for cleaning up the article and your classmate's mess. Your contributions to Wikipedia are very appreciated.

I have spotchecked the sources for close paraphrasing and accuracy:

"Areas that are affected by family honor include many aspects of lifestyle such as social conduct, religious practice, dress, eating habits, education, occupation, possessions and marriage. Societies in which “family honor” is considered highly important generally place a correspondingly high degree of restriction of the freedom of women"

This is cited to page 133 of Blood Revenge: Family Honor, Mediation and Outcasting. Yet, I do not see this information in the source.

"Within cultures, honor is an important and highly esteemed theme. It can be maintained through living up to one's word and promises, providing for the family, and keeping a certain social status. Honor can be affected by both men and women through ways in which a man heightens his family's honorable status, and a woman can shame her family through disapproved actions. Ensuing constant pressure to uphold her family's honor, a woman can suffer psychological and social damage."

This is cited to page 23 and page 78 of Donna Lee Bowen and Evelyn A. Early's Everyday life in the Muslim Middle East. The first page contains a song ("Traditional Songs from Boir Ahmad"). The second page begins a chapter titled "A Palestinian Newspaper in Jerusalem". Neither discusses family honor.

"For example, if a married woman committed adultery, her father had the legal right to kill her whereas her husband was required to divorce her. If the husband chose not to divorce his wife, he would jeopardize his honor and be labeled as a pimp."

The source says this is on page 102 of Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation. However, this is on page 104.

Owing to the numerous mistakes in citing, I am uncomfortable about promoting this article to DYK. My spotchecks did not reveal additional plagiarism or close paraphrasing, though I have not checked all the sources. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Thank you for your appreciation and I understand your concerns. Even though the article does not get promoted to DKY, I will try to check the sources for accuracy to improve the article. Thank you for pointing out these issues. Best wishes, Esery (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and I am sorry I was unable to promote the article to DYK. I wish you the best of luck in improving the article and nominating it for good article status. Cunard (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Glyptapanteles image sourcing

Thanks for the assistance! That's much better than what was there before. I do have to ask, though, regarding the images of our cephalopoid friend: If CC 3.0 licensing isn't acceptable, why is that one of the available drop-down selections for licenses on an image? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "free" license. Is the license these images are under some finer delineation of the CC 3.0? - Vianello (Talk) 04:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please also note my comments at File talk:Promachoteuthis dentures.jpg and File talk:Promachoteuthis sulcus.jpg. The source page links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) is not a compatible image license because it is not a free license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing: "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable."

"Free images" have licenses that permit both commercial use and modification. Because the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license restricts the use to noncommercial purposes, the images cannot be considered free. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All righty. That makes sense to me now. Thank you very much. - Vianello (Talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC reopening

Thanks for going to such lengths after a random encounter on someone else's user talk. :D –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Cunard (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Came here to say something similar. Thanks for taking the time to do the notifications. Hobit (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope the RfC notifications will help the RfC reach a consensus. Cunard (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For wonderful work on Jaya Ho. St Anselm (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I enjoyed rescuing this article from deletion. The research was difficult because there were few sources that discussed this hymn in detail.

This article was a nice find that for me established Jaya Ho's notability. Without it, I would have not attempted to rescue the article.

It has a publication date of November 9, 2011, so I am glad that this article was created and nominated for deletion in late October instead of earlier. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce

Thank you for your extensive review of the article at DYK, it is very helpful. I also like the idea of transcending the review on the article's pages. Could we do it for the two other articles that have/had DYK nominations (Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor and Template:Did you know nominations/Joint custody)? Also, if you have not seen it yet, you may find this list of interest. Finally, I'd like to invite you to the Wikipedia:Ambassador program, we very much need active and helpful editors like yourself there! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am not interested in the Ambassador Program because I prefer to interact with students if they edit the articles I edit and watch. I have transcluded the other two DYK nomination subpages to the articles' talk pages. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Would this be useful?

This article by John Mullan was printed in today's Guardian newspaper. Its subtitle "Week one: omniscience" suggest that it's the first of a series. It may contain useful information and insights. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, for reading the article and thinking of me. It has much useful insight into the protagonist's omniscience. I've expanded the article's "Style" section and look forward to Mullan's upcoming articles about the novel. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles by Mullan for later review:

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WePay updating current offerings

what is promotional? can you be specific? the current description is out of date and we need to update it. Pradgowski (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

takes the hassle out of online payments" is part of our company descriptor and is not a copyright violation https://www.wepay.com/about/wepay?ref=footer Pradgowski (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your revision:

WePay takes the hassle out of online payments. Users can start accepting payments in under a minute - no merchant account, website, or programming is required. WePay makes it easy to send bills, sell tickets, accept donations, and sell items.

violates the policies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.

The copyright violation from http://ucbstartupfair.com/attendees/32^WebCite consisted not only of a cut and paste of "takes the hassle out of online payments" but also a cut and paste of

raised $10 million in venture financing from Highland Capital Partners, August Capital, Y Combinator (company), SVAngel, Dave McClure, Mark Goines, YouTube founder Steve Chen, and PayPal co-founder Max Levchin

By "we", you indicate that the account is operated by multiple people in violation of Wikipedia's policies about having role accounts.

If you wish to make further updates to the page, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make suggestions on Talk:WePay (and include secondary reliable sources that support your changes). Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jaya Ho

On 28 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jaya Ho, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jaya Ho.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA

I responded to your inciteful and quite polite oppose with an analysis expanding on my reasonings in the chosen examples. I wish to let you know that you have given me much food for thought through the examples you shared. Thank you and regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at the RfA. I thank you likewise for your aplomb in addressing my criticisms. In the past, an individual whom I criticized engaged in unfounded accusations to silence my input. I am grateful that you are willing to reflect about my feedback and better yourself in the process. I myself am disinterested in becoming an admin but welcome any criticisms of my editing so I can better myself.

By the way, are you familiar with Nancy Kwan and her work? Cunard (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In respects to your last comment, I agree. I will be avoiding even considering the retention of topics that might be poorly sourced or worse unverfiable... and as it's "what I do", I will likely be one to add required sources if available and then leave the close to another. And toward your question above, not too familiar with her, but I have seen films in which she starred. Need some soucing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here, which are reassuring.

With regard to Nancy Kwan, I intend to expand the article and nominate it for review first at WP:GAN and later at WP:FAC. When I am finished expanding the article, I am hopeful that you can provide feedback about it. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Be honored to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Scam Newton and Scam newton

Hi Eluchil404. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Scam Newton and Scam newton 14 hours early. Were you aware that you were closing the DRV early? Cunard (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that it was an early closure. I felt that it was justified in this case, because of the clarity of the consensus and the fact that the appellant had been blocked for abusive sock puppetry. No point in keeping a discussion open if all the remaining parties are in agreement. I didn't mention any of this in my closing statement because I didn't want it to go overlong and it isn't really relevant to the clear consensus in this case. I don't favor closing DRV's early except in rare cases, but a tendentiousness request by a blocked sock generally counts. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I had not noticed that the nominator was a sock, which justifies the early closure, and agree that the sock should not have been given attention in the closing statement. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Jeez, you're fast. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your proposal when you posted it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I thank you for your work in improving Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes through this proposal and through the creation of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. I have other ideas, some of which are ticking over in my head, others are under development at the new dispute resolution project. But eh, let's see how this one goes first. Thanks again,Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OS

Oversighted, please. I'd like this improper connecting of two different individuals in a database to be severed. If deleted, it still remains in the histories. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have requested oversight. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for notifying me that my contribution history doesn't include the !vote in the RFA2 of MichaelQSchmidt. As my !vote still appears to be ok, I'm fine with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFA thanks

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, and congratulations on passing the grueling RfA. Your pledge to be diligent in your admin actions is heartening. I wish the best of luck in your adminship tasks and hope you will prove the opposes wrong in your AfD closes. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lee C. Bollinger awarding the 2003 Pulitzer Prize to Jeffrey Eugenides.jpg

Wow... great job in negotiating for this. I hope the permission is all clear. If it goes through, there could be a decent portrait for Eugenides in his article. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I sent the Pulitzer Prizes a permission request two weeks ago, and Claudia Stone Weissberg, the "Web Site Manager of The Pulitzer Prizes", replied yesterday, writing that she had received approval from Sig Gissler, the "Administrator of The Pulitzer Prizes". The first email didn't explicitly approve the image under a license, so I asked Ms. Weissberg to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which she did. The image at http://www.pulitzer.org/files/eugenideslunch.jpg is small. I asked her if she could find a larger, better quality one, and she sent me a larger image. I didn't think my request would be approved but thought it didn't hurt to ask. I was very surprised and pleased that The Pulitzer Prizes replied and gave me permission to use their image. There is a 29-day backlog for Commons requests, so it will be a while before it is confirmed. It will be a fine addition to Eugenides' article as well. As a side note, I pity the OTRS admin who will review my OTRS permissions confirmation for commons:Category:Nancy Kwan and have to tag 60+ images with the confirmation template. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, hang on there. Does Ms. Weissberg have the authority to license the image? According to the image description, it is taken by Eileen Barroso, official photographer of Columbia University.[11] That makes Barroso by default the copyright owner unless it is specifically stated in her contract that she is working-for-hire (which in that case means the copyright is to Columbia University itself). Does Barroso's email clearly state who owns the copyright and that the owner has given the permission for the licensing (only the owner can do so)? If not, this should be clarified with Barroso (a diligent OTRS processor would catch this issue and reject the ticket). Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will ask for clarification from Ms. Weissberg. The email from Ms. Weissberg did not state whether Barroso did it under work-for-hire. If she did, then the permission licensing from Ms. Weissberg, under the authority of Sig Gissler, should suffice. Am I correct? Cunard (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what grounds Barruso took the picture. If her contract does not state work-for-hire, her permission is required. If Barruso did it under work-for-hire, then generally, permission from Columbia University's copyright department is required. However, if Barruso is specifically ordered under the terms of her contract to do work for the Pulitzer Prize (a "department" of Columbia University), then Gissler might be of authority to license the image. That is why it would be best for them (Pulitzer Prize) to clarify who is the copyright owner (especially when the photographer is someone else). Jappalang (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted your comment in my request for clarification to Ms. Weissberg. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A hypothetical question: How would permission be granted if Barruso took the photograph under work-for-hire and the university had no copyright department? I took a brief look at Columbia University's website and could only find the Columbia Copyright Advisory Office, operated by the Columbia University Libraries/Information Services. I have reviewed their website, which provides information about copyright but does not indicate that they grant copyright permission. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

They would still be in a better position to advise who among them to contact (or even Barroso herself). http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/about/contact/ gives the office's modes of contact (including email). Jappalang (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Weissberg told me that she was fairly certain the copyright is held by Columbia University because Ms. Barroso is a full-time employee. Ms. Barroso confirmed that the copyright is held by Columbia University and that Sig Gissler's permission is sufficient. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Barroso's confirmation is great news. Waiting for the ticket to pass. Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sfn vs Harvn, and PD1923

Sorry, Cunard, I did not think that you would be inconvenienced by the change. {{Sfn}} is basically an encapsulation of {{harvnb}}; i.e. <ref>{{Harvnb|...|...}}</ref> is squeezed into {{Sfn|...|...}}. The advantages of Sfn as I find it is that I no longer need to bother with <ref name=...> since Sfn will automatically be parsed and sorted for repetitions. I believe it makes for easier maintenance.

As for File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, I suggest you revert your edit. Creation does not mean publication or registration of copyright, which is the criteria pre-2002 US copyright laws are based on. Publication means that copies of the work was offered to the public by the copyright owner, in the sense of sales of copies of the art, publication in the media or books, etc. Drawing the picture, printing the picture, and such is not publication per se. Registration of copyright requires evidence that the material was registered with the Copyright Office at that time. That is why when someone claims PD-1923, I would often ask for details of the publication the work appeared in or that some authority stated the image was published (not created) at that time, or for registration information. Some forms of work are almost certain to be published (posters, stereoscopic cards), but drawings and photographs (and many others) are not that certain. Jappalang (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation about {{Sfn}} and {{harvnb}}. I have never used Sfn so knew little about it.

I have reverted my edit per your explanation. If the copyright owner is deceased and the unpublished work was made before 1923, who owns the copyright? Descendants? Or the Woodstock Artists Association and Museum in the case of File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg?

Image copyright laws are extraordinarily abstruse. I am curious. How have you become so familiar with image copyright laws? Cunard (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless specifically transferred to another person/organization, copyrights will pass on to the previous owner's heirs. US copyright laws can be broken into basics, see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, which I think is one of the best resources so far that does this.

For US laws, one basically can break it down into:

Was it published? If yes, when?
Who was it created by (who owns the copyright)?

Depending on the year of publication, then one goes further into whether copyright notices or proper registration were followed, or such. Otherwise, unpublished works simply follow the 70 years post mortis auctoris (pma, or after the author's death) for known authorship, 120 years for corporate or unknown authorship(works of unknown authorship have been summed to be in the copyright of associated organizations, e.g. publishers, print companies, art schools, etc). In the case for File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, the initial assumption should be that Brown's heirs or estate hold the copyright unless they specifically transferred the copyright to the museum.

There may still be grey areas that one has to judge for him or herself on what rules could apply, but one can eventually learn the basics of the laws. I also had plenty of advice from User:Elcobbola, User:Lupo, and User:Clindberg, editors (the last two more frequent Commons) whom I respect for their opinions on copyright laws. Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the further explanation. http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is informative but has numerous subtleties and exceptions as well. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks, Pastrychick here, uploader of the above-referenced image (File: Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton brown.jpg). Copyright discussions are inevitably confusing, but I'll add my personal understanding of the image's use: I was granted permission by the WAAM (the museum who owns this particular impression of this particular lithograph -- it exists in multiple copies, like a photograph). The creator of the lithograph died in 1936; his work is technically in the public domain. However, WAAM owns the copyright to the *photograph* of the lithograph. They, and all museums, charge a fee to license images, even if the work is in the public domain: technically the fee is for the photographing/administrative work behind providing the reproduction. The line in the Declaration of Consent "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise," seems a bit problematic -- it grants free usage rights for something that is usually a source of income for a museum. The question of public domain is muddied by questions of who owns the photography. Pastrychick (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo of a public domain portrait, a two-dimensional work, might be in the public domain according to U.S. law. Jappalang, would you clarify whether this is the case? I remember National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute (Signpost coverage) from two years ago, though I don't know what the case's result was. Cunard (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Pastrychick: "The creator of the lithograph died in 1936; his work is technically in the public domain" is incorrect (see above). The first rule of determination for US copyrights is the year of publication. Only if the object is first published after 2002 or never published at all do we consider post mortis actuoris.

@both: In most cases when somebody takes a photograph of an object, two copyrights are invested into the photograph: the copyright of the object (belonging to the artist) and the copyright of the photograph (belonging to the photographer). If the object is copyrightable (so as to speak), then the artist's permission is required for the photograph to be used for any purpose not allowed under fair use. See commons:Commons:Derivative works. However, this would not apply in the US for photographs of 2D artwork as detailed below.

@Cunard: The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has decided that claiming copyright of faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works is akin to copyright fraud in the US. See commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag; the basis is the case law of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999). Basically, if the 2D work of art is in the public domain of the US (and the country of origin if a foreign work and the photograph is uploaded to Commons), a scan or photograph taken straight on is determined to be a simple reproduction, devoid of the originality required for copyright protection. In other words, the photograph/scan is considered the painting; the photographer did not do anything worthy of copyright protection. Thus, only the artist's copyright is considered. For File:Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg, we do not know its copyright status, and WAAM's claim of copyright for the "photograph" is untenable as far as the WMF is concerned. Jappalang (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. You have a comprehensive—encyclopedic, even—knowledge of the copyright case laws and rules. Regarding "Only if the object is first published after 2002 or never published at all do we consider post mortis actuoris": It's unlikely that the 1909 portrait, if published, was published after 1923. But it's possible that it was published in an obscure book, journal, or newspaper after 1923. Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to prove that the portrait was never published at all? Are there any examples of images where the "never published at all" rule was invoked?

As the purchaser/owner of the (possibly) unpublished portrait, wouldn't the copyright ownership have been passed to the WAAM? If WAAM doesn't own the copyright and cannot release the portrait under an appropriate license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0, then who does?

If the image was published between 1923 and 2002 or afterwards without the copyright holder's permission, would it be considered unpublished for public domain purposes because of the copyright infringement? Thank you for your help in clearing up this complex web of copyright law. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments, Cunard; I think I still have a lot to learn, though. Regarding the publication status, it is of course quite tedious and unexpected for someone to pore through every literature, but one should make the effort to first check with the most authoritative source on the subjects (White and Brown in this case) whether the item was published. Another step should be made to check the most relevant literature, such as works by White (who might use it as a frontispiece) and Brown on matters of White, (auto)biographies of either subject, and perhaps (but most unlikely) art journals of Brown's works. In this case, I think there have been several biographies on White and his close nature with Brown may mean the lithograph may have been published in there (thus warranting a check). Usually the "never published" rule is invoked for items just discovered or for certain paintings (most of which exist only as a single copy and never been printed with the copyright holder's permission in a journal).

As for authority on the image if WAAM does not have it, then the image likely falls into Orphan works in the United States category (and of course our articles are less than exemplary; best to seek advice on the matter elsewhere in the books). Here, the law is not yet certain what to do with them, but still we would rather err on the side of caution and let copyrights naturally expire.

Publication is only such if the distribution of copies was done with the permission of the copyright holder. If the distribution was done without the permission, my opinion is that it would be unpublished for matters of determining the copyright status. Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your further comments clear up much of my confusion. It's unfortunate that legislation for orphan works in the United States wasn't vote on by the U.S. Congress. I do not have the time to locate and review Brown's and White's publications, so the non-free fair use tag will have to suffice. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Shiloh

Hi, If no-one picks up the GA review on your nomination by Monday then I'll make a start on it. I've not undertaken a GA review before, but will try and do it as smoothly as I can! I will ask an experienced reviewer have a quick look over my thoughts once I've done it, but I hope it won't add too much time to what has already been a very long wait for you. If someone else picks it up before Monday then good luck with it! - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, SchroCat. I look forward to your review of the article if no one reviews Shiloh first. Best, Cunard (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The first review, Talk:Shiloh (novel)/GA1, was stalled because the reviewer became inactive. Should a subsequent review take place there or on a new page? Cunard (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it starts on a new page, but I'll take into account what has happened in the first review too and try not to countermand any previous instructions. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not another RFA nomination...

Hi! I've read your previous declinations (word?) of nomination requests. I understand you had concerns about CSD tagging and that you didn't want to be the final decider in deletion requests. I also understand your concerns in 2009 that you might not pass. Despite all of this, things can change since your last offer in March 2010 (almost two years ago). I would like to nominate you for adminship. I find you as an all around Admin-clerk. You've helped me out countless times with procedural errors that I've fubar'd, you've kept on top of RFCs and more often then once given a lengthly and thorough rationale for closure, and you've participated in CSD and AFD with clear and solid thinking. Even if you didn't delete articles, you've already proven yourself qualified in other areas of Wikipedia including WP:DRV and closing RFCs. Please consider.--v/r - T P 14:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you accept TParis's offer, I think you'd be a great admin. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

TP canvassed me to badger you as well, so here I am

Seriously though, run already. We need people with your level of clue.

Regards So Why 15:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Count me in on the badgering. This is already about a year overdue; please don't make us wait any longer... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you accept, I'll co-nom ;) HurricaneFan 25 — 15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the faith you have in me. I am humbled by the support but must decline the offer. As I have spent more time on Wikipedia, I have become more drawn to content work. Researching topics, reading sources, paraphrasing text, writing articles. Administrating the encyclopedia is crucial to the project's maintenance. When I compare writing content and administrating Wikipedia, I find the former to be more attune with my purpose here. When I compare my content work and my "admin-clerk" work, I find the former to bring me more satisfaction and pride. My view is summarized by Kodster (talk · contribs)'s essay Wikipedia:I don't want to be an administrator. Administrators have less time to edit articles. My admin-clerking currently assumes perhaps three-tenths of the time I spent on Wikipedia. The other seven-tenths I spend on content: reviewing DYKs for plagiarism and unreliable sources; rewriting and rescuing the occasional article at AfD; researching, reading, paraphrasing, writing, and requesting feedback and auditing of articles I wish to nominate to become good articles or featured articles. Adminship will inevitably tip the scales of administrating to be more time-consuming, seven-tenths rather than three-tenths of my time here. TParis, I respect the invaluable administrative work you do, but I know it's not right for me.

A note about why I doubted and still doubt I would pass RfA. In 2009, I wrote at User talk:Cunard/Archive 4#You are not admin: "I doubt I would pass right now because of my red-linked, ornately decorated userpage. That's why I prefer both my userpage and WP:RFA/Cunard to remain red-linked." I stand by this belief today. A frequent RfA voter has written: "Not having a user page is a huge minus. It means that the user is not a full member of the community." I am confident that the five editors commenting here do not believe I am not a full member of the community. However, I am certain that many in the community have such a view. (For the curious, I have explained through a quote from Uncle G (talk · contribs) at User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Request why I do not have a user page.) I raise this not as a reason I am not running for adminship but as an example of the perverse adminship standards; the overriding reason I am declining adminship is so I can keep focused on content work. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly respect that and I appreciate that you've considered it. Aside from that, I do want you to know that I find what you do with RFCs, and all the other work you do, very helpful and I strongly do consider you "a full member of the community" despite what anyone else would say on the matter of your user page.--v/r - T P 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis, for your kind words about my work here. With regard to the RfCs, I merely point out ones that can be closed. The editors and admins such as yourself who read and summarize the RfCs do much more work than I and deserve more praise. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Children's Chapel

Thanks Cunard for doing the work to archive the sources I used in the article Children's Chapel, St James' Church, Sydney. I've taken the liberty of moving your comments from the DYK nomination to the article's talkpage and I have addressed them, point by point, over there: Talk:Children's Chapel, St James' Church, Sydney#Comments from DYK nomination. I'd appreciate it if you could have another look, even though it's now too late for the DYK itself. Whiteghost.ink 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my suggestions. I have replied on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Middlesex

Hey, so as to let you know, I am not giving up on this article. I am trying to gather and read up on the sources, which is taking up time. I am growing a bit concerned that the article might be having too much stuff and is too reliant on non-scholarly text. Just my thoughts at the moment (might change with time and further reading). Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Please provide examples of non-scholarly sources, so I can better understand your position. Are you referring to the newspaper book reviews I've used? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. I apologize for saying this, but I am no longer able to continue work on Middlesex. I have decided to cease contributing to the WMF projects. In short, I no longer have the enthusiasm I once had; before taking this decision, I find myself constantly questioning why am I spending a substantial time (even while taking short wikibreaks) thinking of ways to improve articles and searching and validating "free" images when that time can be spent with my family or to advance my career. I again apologize; I arrived at this state of mind halfway through the work on Middlesex. I offer a synopsis of what my proposals in mollification.

Indeed, I do think relying on newspaper articles for thematic studies is not a good choice. Questions could be raised on why 30 pages of Shostak (and 22 pages of Cohen) are only used once while journalists are cited more than that. I also have an issue with presenting Thea Hillman's opinions in the article as salient points (i.e. more than a slight weightage). Hillman is a writer, not a critic or scholar. Furthermore, Hillman is also an intersex. I dare say Hillman's opinion towards the portrayal of intersex in the novel is less than objective. The novel's portrayals of intersex has been assessed by scholarly text that unforunately seem not to have been used here. Hillman's opinion could have been used but not to the degree that it is offered as a heavy counter-weight against mainstream views.

Appleton, Susan Frelich (2005). "Contesting Gender in Popular Culture and Family Law: Middlesex and Other Transgender Tales" (PDF). Indiana Law Journal. 80 (2). Indiana, United States: Indiana University Maurer School of Law: 391–440. ISSN 0019-6665. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 17, 2007. Retrieved December 2, 2011. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Appleton's is an early scholarly text; yet, it is not used at all. This (exclusion) is particularly strange to me; Appleton talks much about the transgender issues, pointing out that reviews tend to think the novel skimps on the gender identity issues and showing the novel had much to offer.
Kozyrakis, Yuliya (2010). "Remembering the Future: Ethnic Memory in Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides". Forum for Inter-American Research. 3 (1). Bielefeld, Germany: International Association of Inter-American Studies, Bielefeld University. ISSN 1867-1519. Retrieved December 2, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
A peer reviewed journal: the article looks inside the racial/cultural theme of assimilation.
D'Erasmo, Stacey (2008). "The End of Sexual Identity—Fiction's New Terrain". Boston Review. 33 (5). Massachusetts, United States. ISSN 0734-2306. Retrieved December 2, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
D'Erasmo might be an author and talks about Transformation here; however, I think only a short quip (most of it seems like meanderings and off-point ramblings to me) could be used for flavor.
Trendel, Aristi (April 4, 2011). "The Reinvention of Identity in Jeffrey Eugenides's Middlesex". European Journal of American Studies (2). European Association for American Studies. ISSN 1991-9336. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
This article might be too recent to judge its suitability for use; it does refer to Appleton's work.
Milway, Leanne (2003). "She Said, No... He Said" (PDF). Bookmarks (2). California, United States: Jon Phillips: 32–33. ISSN 1546-0657. Retrieved December 2, 2011. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.

I had certain candidates for images as well, subjected to space concerns:

File:Ellis Island immigration footage.ogg: A choice to illustrate parts that talk of the Stephinades immigration to the US
File:Condor Club North Beach1973.jpg: For parts that talk of Cal's work in San Francisco
File:DSC04480e Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Ermafrodito - sec. III a.C. - da Pergamo - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg: Hermaphrodite

That said, my personal belief is that currently the article has too much content in Themes. I had plans to go through and rewrite the section. Critical reception is also getting a bit large and acquires a quote farm-feel when the contents are mainly "he said .... she opined ... he thought". I was thinking of looking for common themes among the opinions and grouping them into a third-person presentation, as well as assessing whether an opinion was insignificant (held by only one or two). Even minor viewpoints (held by a minority compared to a common view) may have to be excluded or reduced, depending on how much have already been written. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and effort you've spent composing this final reply to me. I will carefully consider your suggestions about how to rewrite the "Themes" section to be based more on scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, rather than newspaper articles, and your apt image suggestions. I wish you success in your career and thank you for the innumerable hours of selfless service you've devoted to writing and improving articles and mentoring inexperienced editors such as myself. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for invitation

Thanks, mate. However I am no longer interested in martial arts articles since some valuable contributions of dedicated users are wasted by people with no decent expertise. I don't want to take a part in that ridiculous fashion. There're people who think they protect the site, while they are only satisfying themselves in topic they are obsessed with. I've got no time to waste for them, I'm not here to patrol and defend the article to be nominated each week by same people. They decrease my productivity.

Best Regards, Umi1903 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I notified you because you had participated in the previous AfD. Your accusation that the article was "nominated each week by same people" is without factual merit. I procedurally nominated the article for deletion and had not participated in the previous AfDs. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)