User talk:Cunard/Archive 13

A year ago ...
find sources
	... you were recipient; no. 2196 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

edit count | edit summary usage

Good articles:

List of articles
I have created/rewritten:

Anne Aghion

Wasilla High School

Mat-Su School District

Archives

March 2008 – June 2008

June 2008 – January 2009

January 2009 – May 2009

June 2009 – October 2009

October 2009 – April 2010

April 2010 – September 2010

September 2010 – February 2011

February 2011 – October 2011

October 2011 – October 2012

October 2012 – December 2015

December 2015 – February 2018

February 2018 – April 2020

Notes

AfD

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · toolserver ·
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ask Mathbot (talk · contribs) to refresh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old by accessing http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi

Copyvio

Miscellaneous

http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ – provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches
Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers
User:Fæ/help/photo and Wikipedia:Contact OTRS
http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/
User:Giraffedata/comprised of
User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation
User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles
Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck: javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();

Have requested a review of your close

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Obsession with Serpentza

Hi Cunard, are you Associated with Serpentza and his doings? Not sure why you are modifying his biography a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C000:108:19B:7FCC:4207:48A6 (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest with Winston Sterzel. I am monitoring his article after I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel (2nd nomination) because it has been subject to significant vandalism in the past including BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you Andy Cravenho?

You seem to promote Mr. Cravenho a great deal. I suspect you are he. TeddyCruz (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not Andy Cravenho. I have no conflict of interest with Andy Cravenho. I added a negative review to Invoicera so that there is more negative coverage of the software and restored the reliably sourced TechRadar review that you had removed. After restoring the Andy Cravenho review, I have re-removed it since it was written by an Entrepreneur contributor and not an Entrepreneur staff member. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

anrfc

Sorry, I didn't realize you already requested rfc closure for Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think you did anything wrong. It's fine to keep the RfC pinned until the consensus is assessed by an WP:ANRFC closer. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been a year! Thank you for the lovely message, Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)! You are so kind! Cunard (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of VITAL (machine learning software) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VITAL (machine learning software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VITAL (machine learning software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop closing RfCs

Your latest closings seem disruptive. Please undo. Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam (talk · contribs). You participated in the RfCs I procedurally closed at Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response and Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico. Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure? Cunard (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted my procedural closes for the Dershowitz and Sanders RfCs here and here. I do not consider the closes disruptive. I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close. If any editors believed an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves. I list RfCs at the noticeboard to help editors like you who do not know how to request a close at ANRFC or are not even aware of ANRFC. Thank you, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) for your explanation.

These are the two close requests that have been declined Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico. The first close request is not archived so you can comment there to ask for a close. The second close request is archived, so you will need to make a new close request at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cunard, thank you, I have tried to add Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' RfC but it seems that I have made an error. All other request for closer below mine disappeared and my comment next to the {{initiated}} template also disappeared.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam (talk · contribs). Thank you for requesting a close! Regarding this close request, you'll need to remove the line that says:

<!-- Place this line below the heading:

since it is hidden text that is causing the rest of the page to disappear. I cannot remove it myself because if I do, the ~~~~ will add my signature to the page, and an admin might think I re-requested closure of an RfC after it had been declined.

If you think Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response also needs a close, you'll probably need to make a new request since the {{Not done}} tag in the section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response will cause the section to be archived without a close happening.

Cunard (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi Cunard, as a follow-up to the AN discussion, I am going to ask that you cease posting any request at ANRFC. You are flooding the board, and this has been pointed out to you for years and you have not changed your approach in a meaningful way as the board is still always backlogged because admins do not review it. A common theme that has come up at AN is that some of the things you list people were going to list anyway: to me that demonstrates that your participation is not needed, as the actual participants are able to request closures themselves if one is needed. For cases where no one else wanted a closure, and you are the only one requesting one, that is a sign that one is not needed. At this point I consider your actions here to be actively disrupting the encyclopedia because they are overwhelming a board and causing admins and other experienced users not to take action where action might actually be needed. I'll cross-post this to AN, but wanted to make the request directly so it doesn't get lost. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni (talk · contribs). I find it very disheartening that my actions are considered disruptive as I have tried my best over the years to be responsive to the community's concerns by being more discriminate in my close requests. I have contributed these close requests to help editors like SharabSalam who are not aware of ANRFC or do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC.

I understand your strong reasoning for making this request. I would like to continue to contribute close requests at WP:ANRFC but at a significantly smaller scale to make sure I do not "floo[d] the board". My proposal is that beginning today, I will contribute between 0 and 3 close requests to WP:ANRFC every month. I would add (1) discussions I participated in, (2) discussions listed at Template:Centralized discussion, and (3) discussions I think would benefit from a close. You previously wrote that "~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined". As I would not file more than 3 close requests per month, it would take 10 months for me to contribute the 30 close requests you see from me on the board today. Does this address your concern that I am "flooding the board"? Would you support this?

Thank you for your work closing RfCs at ANRFC today. I hope you continue contributing to ANRFC as the noticeboard needs people who are willing to close difficult discussions. I hope that as a result of my scaling back my close requests at ANRFC, the admins who have not responded to requests at the board because of my many close requests will now do so.

Cunard (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, thank you for taking this on board, and I am sorry if it was so straightforward, but I didn't know any other way to say it because I felt all of the more diplomatic ways had been tried. I think your suggestion is a good one, and I really appreciate it. Yes, I think 3 a month is a very reasonable limit. You are a valued member of this community, and suggesting 3 discussions worth closing a month that appear to be major could be of great benefit to the community. Again, thank you for being so open to feedback here. To be honest, I have never seen someone on Wikipedia respond with such openness to this, and I really do appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyBallioni (talk · contribs). I try my best to respond to feedback and suggestions from the community. Your encouragement and kind words mean a lot to me. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think 0 - 3 postings a month is a great outcome for the encyclopedia. Thank you for this Cunard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep49 (talk · contribs). I hope that you will resume your good contributions at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cunard, you are an asset to this project in more ways than one. El_C 07:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words and support, El_C (talk · contribs)! It is very heartening. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above compliments. Listening to the concerns raised about the ANRFC listings with this sensible suggestion of limiting to 3 per month shows that you have the right attitude here. Cheers to you — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Fitzpatrick (pilot)

I might have a major issue here. It appears I might have confused two separate people. The Thomas Fitzpatrick who flew the plane might not have been the same one that fought in WWII the dates of birth and death might be wrong as he would only be 15 by the end of WWII. Any sources written after the article I wrote is not reliable as they are most likely based on the Wikipedia article. Is there anyway you can verify this or find sources? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Valoem (talk · contribs), I will take a look. Cunard (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I did find this source, perhaps more are need? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Valoem (talk · contribs), with high likelihood, the Thomas Fitzpatrick discussed in this obituary is the same Thomas Fitzpatrick who flew the plane and fought in World War II.

Here are two sources I found:

Silberfarb, Edward. (1956-10-01). "Pilot Detained In $5,000 Bail: Emerson Man Held On Four Charges After Landing Plane on New York Street" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30. – via Newspapers.com.
The article says "Thomas Fitzpatrick of 15 Dogwood Lane" is a "26-year-old pilot" of the plane mentioned in the article. The article notes:
Performing the unusual is not new to Fitzpatrick, however. According to his brother, Frank, he joined the U. S. Marine Corps at the age of 15, and was stationed in China at the close of World War II. Before he was discharged two years later he had learned to fly a reconnaissance plane.
After service with the Marines he joined the Army and was sent to Japan. A New York City resident at the time, he was scheduled to return home when the Korean emergency began. Within a week, he became the first person from New York City to be wounded in Korea. According to one report, he was wounded while driving an ammunition truck to rescue some American soldiers trapped by Communist fire.
He allegedly obtained his civilian pilot's license through the Teterboro School of Aeronautics, owner of the craft he allegedly stole. Donald Hulse of 165 Kaywin Road, Paramus, signed the larceny complaint. The airplane, which was dismantled by police after the landing, is a Cessna 140.
"Quiz Carlstadt Pilot In NYC Street Landing: Fitzpatrick Shows Up at Headquarters; Had Laneded Craft in Area Two Years Ago". Herald News. Associated Press. 1958-10-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Police immediately thought of a Carlstadt, N. J., man who made a similar landing two years ago within a few blocks of the same spot. Thomas Fitzpatrick, 442 Jefferson Street, appeared at a police station for questioning here this morning but there was no immediate report from officers.
...
Authorities said they wanted to question Fitzpatrick, now 28, who on September 30, 1956, "borrowed" a small plane from Hulse's school at Teterboro and landed it safely on St. Nicholas Avenue at 191st Street, Manhattan
The article notes that Fitzpatrick had previously resided in Emerson, New Jersey, but moved to Carlstadt in June after he got married. The article notes he is a mechanic working for Curtiss Wright Corporation at Caldwell, Fitzpatrick. It notes he resides with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Fitzpatrick. He has an older brother and an older sister. The article calls him an "ex-Army heavyweight boxing champion". The article further notes:
He joined an Army boxing team after recuperating from his Korean wounds. During his convalescence he lost and later regained 70 of his 220 pounds. Prior to his Army discharge in 1951 he was assigned as a military policeman patrolling the Times Square Area in New York City.

The obituary says Thomas E. Fitzpatrick died at age 79 on September 14, 2009. This means he was born in 1929 or 1930. The Record said in 1956 that Fitzpatrick is a "26-year-old pilot" which means he was born in 1929 or 1930.

The obituary says Fitzpatrick was "[b]eloved husband for 51 years to Helen (Fratinardo) Fitzpatrick". This means they got married in 1957 or 1958. The 1958 article in the Associated Press says Fitzpatrick got married around June 1958.

The obituary says Fitzpatrick "served in the US Marine Corps in the Asian Theater during WWII after his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps he joined the US Army and served during the Korean War where he received the Purple Heart". The Associated Press said he served in the U. S. Marine Corp at age 15 where he was based in China near the end of World War II. The article also notes that he then served in the Marines and became "the first perosn in New York City to be wounded in Korea".

I will continue to look for more sources about him before I comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fitzpatrick (pilot).

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

USA (brand)

Thanks for your help with Thomas Fitzpatrick. I was wondering if you could help me find sources for USA (brand) a brand of cigarette from Liggett Group unrelated to ITG Brands's USA Gold. Due to the commonness of the name I can't find sources. I was also looking from character analysis sources for Joel (The Last of Us). I can't access these sources LATimes and this NYTimes source because of lack of subscription. Are there any other sources you can find? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). Those two articles do not provide substantial coverage about Joel. I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel (The Last of Us) with sources I found.

I was unable to find substantial coverage about USA (brand) likely because it is a very common search term. I tried search combinations including "USA" with "Liggett" but was still unable to find substantial coverage about the brand. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Keep (app)

On 3 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keep (app), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Keep was the most downloaded fitness app in China between July and September 2018, with 38.8 million downloads? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keep (app). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Keep (app)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Aroma Cafe

On 5 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Aroma Cafe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that McDonald's lost over £20 million in its sale of The Aroma Cafe, the first non-American chain it had acquired to run as a separate brand? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Aroma Cafe), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Monita Rajpal

On 18 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monita Rajpal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monita Rajpal, whose first job out of college was as a receptionist, has interviewed Mikhail Gorbachev, Vicente Fox, Al Gore, Tom Ford, and I. M. Pei? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monita Rajpal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monita Rajpal), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Joanna Jordan (talent agent)

On 21 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joanna Jordan (talent agent), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Joanna Jordan left her job at the Late Show with David Letterman to start a talent agency, the show became her first client? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joanna Jordan (talent agent)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your fantastic WP:TNT initiative towards an encyclopedic re-building of our list of sex symbols. — JFG ^talk 21:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, JFG (talk · contribs), and your good improvements to the article! Cunard (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your continuous high quality and well researched contributions to AfDs RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for UpCounsel

On 21 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article UpCounsel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a LinkedIn license contract compelled UpCounsel, an online marketplace for legal services, to close but it ended up remaining in business? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/UpCounsel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, UpCounsel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI close

Hey, Cunard. Long time. Just wanted to note, in case you haven't noticed, that I have closed the ANI which bears your user name. The main point you, yourself, should take from it is that the WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS to confirm the reliability of any source (in any language) is on the editor submitting (or reverting) it. That is a maxim I'm confident you will live up to in your future edits — edits whose high quality I can personally attest to. Best regards, El_C 14:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi El C (talk · contribs). Great to see you again. It's been a while. This is a maxim that all editors should follow. I have followed it and the consensus among the ANI participants was that I did not violate that maxim. Your close and comment here can be read as implying that I am not following that maxim so need to be warned to follow it. In one of the last uninvolved comments to the thread, Eggishorn said, "So far, eight experienced AfD editors, including an administrator, have posted her[e] to challenge your assertions about what is going on in AfD's with Cunard. So far, none of them have agreed with your characterization." Would you modify your close to add a summary of the consensus about the "assertions about what is going on in AfD's with Cunard" so that future editors will not read your close as implying that I was violating the WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS policies? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Cunard, but you mis-pinged me (missing underscore). The report has just been archived, which led me back here to see if you replied. Anyway, these were indeed general notes. If a dispute continues over this, please let me know and I will intervene. But I get the sense that matters are resolved. All the best, El_C 13:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not to beat a dead horse, but the claim that your following the maxim is patently false. As can be seen by the trivial unreliable sources you provided recently in Articles_for_deletion/Bithumb and Power Ledger (2nd nomination). Someone besides me called you out for it Power Ledger (2nd nomination) to. So, you can't claim I'm just miss-characterizing things. You posted them in the last few days also. Which was after you made the claim here that you were following the maxim. It's pretty obvious you have a problem with posting crap sources. @El C: you should make it clear that your original comment was directed at him since it's pretty obvious that he is still posting un-reliable, trivial sources that he hasn't vetted properly. Otherwise, your just giving him cover to continue doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, maybe if you identify the actual sources which you deem unreliable, you would motivate me to look further into it. You do realize I am not a public servant, right? I am a volunteer. This is a volunteer project. El_C 19:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I don't see how I'm treating you like a public servant or how you accusing me doing so helps resolve this, but I apologize if I gave the impression that I was. I just thought that since you were the closing admin and left the message that you would be willing to help things. Since that's what admins do. My bad if that's not the case though.

On the sources, in Articles_for_deletion/Bithumb Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation is original research and would therefore be un-reliable. Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism is extremely trivial and doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors Guidelines to Prevent Potential Threats is a primary un-reliable source from a conference talk and is also extremely trivial coverage. With Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash he posted a link to the internet archive that doesn't even work. Which by definition isn't a reliable source. "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market" doesn't even have anything to do with the company. Except being their opinion on Bitcoin. So it's not an independent reliable source about them as he claimed it was. That's essentially all the sources he posted except for like one. It's pretty much the same with Power Ledger (2nd nomination). Their mainly just opinions pieces with speculation on if Power Ledger will go anywhere or not. Opinion pieces aren't considered reliable sources. In particular A Market Place Solution for Energy Transaction on Ethereum Blockchain seems to be another talk from a tech conference and isn't really about Power Ledger anyway. Hopefully that is adequate. Again, I'm not trying to treat you like a public servant. Everyone is a volunteer here, including me. We all have better things to spend our time on. Which is why I'm trying to resolve this once and for all. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at your first link. How can a study submitted to the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics possibly be "original research"? I don't understand. El_C 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a conference paper that's being published by the conference. Who prints the work of people who attend their conferences. The Acknowledgments says "This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant." It's not a synthesis of the results by secondary sources or something that was published in secondary academic journals. So it's totally original research. Anyway, you couldn't use it to substantiate the topics notability anymore then you could use an art galleries brochure for the notability of an artist or a pamphlet of a tech conference to say a product is notable. Even if you disregard it though, there's plenty of other un-reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not what original research is. Please familiar yourself with the documentation. El_C 01:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C (talk · contribs) for your comments here.

Adamant1, I stand by the sources I have posted in helping establish notability for the subjects. For example, the "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market" source from Reuters says, "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency" which strongly establishes notability.

I will repeat my comment from a previous AfD, "If you think that this AfD contribution is disruptive, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree."

Cunard (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not original research it's only one source out of the many that I provided. So like I said before feel free to discard it. It doesn't deal with the issue to treat the whole thing like it's not a problem just because one source out of the many I cited isn't original research. That was never my issue anyway. And Cunard, you know it's a cop out and deflection to respond to every little complaint someone by telling them to take it to ANI. That's not what ANI is for. Whereas it's exactly the point in talk page discussions like this one. So why not just admit your mistake and do better next time? It's no big deal. We can all improve how we do AfDs. This is only still an issue because of your unwillingness to stop doing it. Deflecting by saying I should take it up with ANI or the community when it's not an issue that has anything to do with either of them isn't going to resolve it. Like El_C said, it's on you to confirm the reliability of your sources. So, confirm the reliability of the sources I referenced then. Confirm how "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market" is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" like you said it was in the AfD. It's on you to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources I presented in the AfD are reliable sources. The Reuters source contributes to notability because it said Bithumb is "the world's busiest virtual currency exchange" and "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency."

With these quotes, the Reuters article strongly establishes that Bithumb is notable. I will not stop presenting sources like the Reuters article. I do not think it is mistaken or disruptive to present sources like the Reuters article. I encourage you to ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents whether the community agrees with your opinion that I am "posting crap sources". ANI is the proper venue for discussion because if I am repeatedly "posting crap sources" at AfD, you can ask the community to topic ban me from participating at AfDs.

Cunard (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, don't do that. Adamant1, you have proven to lack the competence in this matter. You are prohibited from further bothering Cunard about the reliability of their sources. And are strongly encouraged to closely review WP:RS and WP:OR. El_C 10:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this and intervening, El_C (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I'm fine not discussing Cunard's sources with him anymore. Since that's what you want. That said, I asked on WP:RSN about research papers published by conferences including International_Conference_on_Applied_Human_Factors_and_Ergonomics and the general consensus so far seems to that they aren't reliable. Also, even thought it was pretty obviously an un-reliable source I asked about Wen Wei Po on WP:RSN, which Cunard posted a link to in St._Louis_School,_Hong_Kong. The general consensus about it is that it can't be used for even basic facts. That's just the two sources I asked about. Maybe you can make the claim that I just don't understand WP:RS and WP:OR, but you can't make it about the people on WP:RSN who agree with me. Including long standing administrators. Going by the opinions on WP:RSN, it seems like I'm not the one that needs to closely review WP:RS and WP:OR, you and Cunard are. That said I'll drop it for now like you requested, but maybe think twice before you claim someone doesn't understand the guidelines next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, are you trying to be intentionally obtuse — referring to an RSN discussion without a link? I looked for it and couldn't find it. Yet you link RSN and various other general pages multiple times, for no apparent reason. What is up with that? El_C 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: My bad. I thought I had linked to the discussions. It's not like you couldn't just search the page for "Adamant1" or the name of the sources. That said, it's RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po and Things_published_in_conference_proceedings --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I searched for International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, which was mentioned once, in an unrelated discussion. No, I don't share your interpretation of the consensus in that discussion about conference papers. That has to be a much wider discussion, at any rate, for such an important subject. But that's neither here nor there as far as original research is concerned. El_C 20:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is your dwelling to much on the original research thing when it's secondary to if something is a reliable source or not. You can be completely right that it's not original research, but it's still not a reliable source. Which is the whole point in this. While I agree there should probably be a wider discussion about conference papers at some point, there doesn't need to be one for the sake of this discussion. Otherwise, your just moving the goalpost. If the opinions on RSN about the sources not being reliable aren't good enough for you then I don't know what would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't share your interpretation of the consensus in that discussion about conference papers. I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm disagreeing that there is consensus. Anyway, your audit of Cunard's sources was found lacking. There's not much point in relitigating. El_C 23:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the user David Gerard about Cunard in Power_Ledger_(2nd_nomination) "The filibustering walls of text got to be such a problem on previous AFDs that community remedies were considered, until he undertook not to do it again (and then did it again here)." Given that, it's pretty clear this has been an ongoing problem that doesn't have anything to do with me. I really feel like your missing the forest for the trees by making this about me instead of what Cunard is doing. I guess that's your prerogative though. Like I said I won't discuss Cunard's use of sources with him anymore since that's what you requested. Even if it's clearly not going to resolve things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I realize that there is tension between the two sides on the blockchain deletion front, which may be reflected with the manner in which they consider one another's contributions to these discussion. The claims being made about "community remedies" do not link to that discussion. I am less inclined to accept an involved editor's interpretation about that. I'd much rather review the pertinent evidence for myself, as I have done here. El_C 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion being referenced is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (3rd nomination) from January 2019. I made an extensive comment at the AfD with long quotes. An uninvolved admin (RoySmith) wrote:

I absolutely appreciate the effort that goes into this sort of research, but please understand that being so verbose makes it more difficult to comprehend. The human brain is wired to understand things in chunks. If you can't see an entire comment at once, it's harder to understand it. I'm working on an absurdly large 5K monitor, and some of the comments in this AfD are still too long to get onto a single screen without scrolling. It's going to be even worse for people on smaller screens, laptops, tablets, or even phones. Let me suggest a compromise; if you're going to provide these long quotes, at least wrap them in Template:Collapse blocks. Then, anybody who wants to read the whole thing can unhide the quote, but it's not eating up gobs of screen real-estate all the time. And, before you object to the idea that anybody would want to edit on a phone, consider that for a good chunk of the world, mobile devices are the only way most people access the internet.

I found RoySmith's comment to be a good suggestion and implemented the collapsing. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger (2nd nomination) in July 2020, I did not collapse my AfD research because I did not consider my comment to be overly long. An AfD participant collapsed my comment as he thought it was too long and later made the comment Adamant1 is quoting above. I then implemented the style of comment I have adopted previously: first present a list of sources and second in a Template:Collapse block present the sources with quotes and analysis. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Since it's almost a given that people are going to unroll the collapsed sources to check them doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of collapsing them in the first place? It seems like a better solution would be to just provide a few good sources and skip all the other low quality ones. Notability isn't based on the existence of a ton of sources anyway. You only need a few good ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not provide low quality sources in my AfD contributions. I link to sources that I believe help contribute to notability. I provide the reliable sources I find in my searches for sources so that they are available to other editors who may be interested in improving the articles.

For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adastra Minerals I provided 19 sources which 67.243.20.177 (talk · contribs) used to substantially expand the article from having no references to having 29 references.

A second example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Tiedtke (2nd nomination) where I provided 15 sources. A group of editors used these sources to substantially expand the article from having 1 reference to having 35 references and nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiedtke.

Cunard (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you do provide a lot of sources that WP:NCORP would consider trivial topics. Maybe people use them to expand articles, but what can go in an article as a reference and what can be used to determine notability in an AfD are two completely different things. Maybe you don't think the sources are low quality and maybe they are fine for citing in articles, but putting that aside would you at least agree with me that more generally not all sources have the same quality and some are better then others? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote in a recent AfD, I try to provide nearly all of the useful reliable sources I have found in the hopes that if I don't have the time to work on the article, another editor will be able to use those sources to expand the article. Regarding WP:THREE, I generally list the strongest sources I have found at the beginning of my list of sources. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So just list the goods on the top of your list since their the only ones that matter to notability and post the other ones in the articles talk page. As the saying goes "AfDs aren't cleanup." They aren't to expand articles either. As WP:AFDFORMAT says "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." That's it. Even if we go with the premise that all your sources are top quality there's still zero reason to provide more then a few of them and it clearly causes problems that you do. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with the contention that "there's still zero reason to provide more then a few of them and it clearly causes problems that you do". I link to all sources that can contribute to notability because different editors have different standards for what makes a subject notable. When I link to 10 sources in an AfD, I might think three of the sources are the strongest in establishing notability while another editor might disagree and think those three sources are insufficient. That editor might think three other sources I provided are the strongest in establishing notability. I provide all of the relevant reliable sources I have found for AfD participants to review to make the strongest case for notability that I can. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: See also Light2021's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramati Technologies (2nd nomination) and the follow up comments. Cunard, your making a hard argument if you think things like that aren't problems and are simply you making the best argument for notability that you can. I knew from writing a lot of academic papers that more isn't always better. Especially when it comes to sourcing. It's never a losing proposition to be precise, to trust in the process, and to learn from your mistakes. I don't think your trusting in the process or your sources if your overly concerned that people won't think they help establish notability. I also think it's fundamentally flawed to think people have different ideas of what a good source is. Plus, it doesn't really matter anyway. People vote how they vote. In the meantime though, consider that perception is nine tenths of reality. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have asked an admin familiar with the background to review Light2021's canvassing in the AfD and other recent actions. I am disappointed by the acrimony against me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramati Technologies (2nd nomination) by an admin and by Light2021.

"I also think it's fundamentally flawed to think people have different ideas of what a good source is." – it is clear from this discussion that we have different ideas of what a good source is.

Cunard (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it slightly ironic that the acrimony against me by a few people in the ANI discussion (who I never interacted with) was perfectly fine for you to say I had a bad attitude and that the ANI should be dropped because of it. Yet when there's multiple discussions in RSN that determine your sources aren't reliable, and multiple people in AfDs (who actually deal with you regularly) say the same thing, neither one is valid and acrimony is suddenly a problem now. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

[M]ultiple discussions in RSN that determine your sources aren't reliable.^{[citation needed]} El_C 02:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I already cited them. The one on conference papers, that you discounted because it wasn't part of a "wider discussion" (whatever that means), and the one on Wen Wei Po. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

First, it meant that there was no clear consensus that these are unreliable that I concluded from that discussion on conference papers. Then, there was also the problem of it also being a rather limited discussion. Once again, you are distorting what I said. More importantly, where is Cunard mentioned in those RSN discussions? Anyway, so two discussions, whose relevance is unclear to me, become multiple RSN discussions. I don't like what I'm seeing here, Adamant1. El_C 02:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I thought maybe by "wider discussion" you meant there was another, more authoritative, board I should have discussed it at or something. While I agree that the participation is a little low, at this point its 7 people who all agree. Which isn't exactly a small amount. It's more participation then most AfDs get and it also sounds like most of them have first hand experience. I'm pretty sure one of them said somewhere that they have published papers to. So, I would consider their opinions at least slightly more authoritative then the few people in the ANI discussion, but no where else (or even in RSN) that I know if is the opinions of 7 people who agree with each other not considered a consensus.

I'm not sure what the relevance of Cunard being mentioned in the RSN's is. It's about the reliability of the sources being posted, not the person who is posting them. So, he doesn't need to specifically be named in the discussions for the sources to he's posting to be unreliable. Which should be pretty obvious. Also, last time I checked multiple means "“more than one" and two discussions is "“more than one” discussion. If you don't even know the meaning of the word multiple then I don't like what I'm seeing here either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, two, the bare minimum of "multiple." Whatever you say, Adamant1. Maybe it's time to withdraw from this...? What are you trying to accomplish at this point? El_C 03:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment A few messages up you said "maybe if you identify the actual sources which you deem unreliable," Sources sounded like two would have done it. Otherwise, you should have been more specific. It's not like I have all day to post questions on RSN to reach whatever arbitrary number of sources you think would be enough to prove that Cunard is posting bad ones. As much as your not a public servant, I'm not your errand boy either.

As far as what I'm trying to get out of this, there's really a few things.

1. I'm trying to understand better where Cunard is coming from so there won't be unnecessary animosity in AfDs we are both involved in anymore. Plus, the guideline is that people should discussion issues anyway. I feel like I've accomplished that now that he explained himself beyond saying "take it ANI if you have a problem with me." No thinks to your running defense for him BTW.
2. I was done with this yesterday but then someone pinged me about it today and the thing in Pramati Technologies (2nd nomination) happened. So I was brought back into it. Since it wasn't actually settled. Now that it's still a thing though through no fault of my own, I'd like to Cunard to either say he will do a better job reviewing his sources in the future or get a warning that he should. It's totally fine if you disagree with the premise. The problem is that your disagreement about it doesn't actually resolve things. As can be seen in the continued animosity in AfDs about it. Sometimes concession have to be made to calm things down, because just telling the side you disagree with to piss off doesn't always do it. Personally, I could care less about it at this point. Except like I said someone pinged me and I rather post here until it's dealt with more reasonably, then deal with the general level of vitriol that's been going on in AfDS the last few weeks. That said, I still don't really care that much about it except, again, someone pinged me. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be involved in it anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be involved in it anymore — that is, in fact, the expectation. The point was proving there were systemic issues with Cunard's sources. Involved editors claiming this have failed to convince my uninvolved self of this, either due to lack of evidence or due to the evidence itself being faulty. Anyway, my evaluation remains that you have failed to demonstrate your assertion, on multiple occasions, before multiple editors. A pattern of Cunard adding unreliable sources has not been established. That is where things stand at the present. El_C 10:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally everyone involved in this except for you has said his sources are lacking sometimes and that he could improve how he does things. Including DGG. Claiming otherwise, or that the general sentiment mirrors your opinion, is just gas lighting. Have fun with that. Like I said already, I was done with this a while ago, because it's been pretty obvious from the start that you were approach this that way. As far as I'm concerned there's really nothing more to say about it. Especially to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I found DGG's comment to have been of note. I don't think the hatting is a problem necessarily, but the general sentiment mirrors my own, in so far as finding Cunard's sources being generally reliable. El_C 22:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"SF Crowsnest" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SF Crowsnest. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#SF Crowsnest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Günter Bechly

There is an ongoing AfD where they claim these sources phys Economic Times and New Scientist does not prove notability. Can you find additional sources? Wikipedia was criticized for his deletion in this source. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). I commented at the AfD with sources I found. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How many of the conditions does Bechly pass WP:NACADEMIC, in your opinion, also it looks like Bechly himself has enter the discussion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I will defer to DGG (talk · contribs) on an WP:NACADEMIC evaluation of Günter Bechly as that is DGG's area of expertise. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

sex symbols

if you decide to take to del rev, please notify me. I regret having not seen the afd, but I think the close accepted IDONTLIKEIT as a stronger reason than the ones you provided. It's been several years since I regularly had the time to keep track of afd, as i have been concentrating on the afc side of things. Perhaps I need to rebalance. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG (talk · contribs). Thank you for reviewing Draft:List of sex symbols. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination), the closing admin wrote:

The result was delete. Numerically, we're at 11 keep to 19 delete in my count, which is close to a 2:1 majority for deletion.
In terms of arguments, Cunard has made a strong (if overlong) case to show that this is indeed a classification of people reflected and discussed in reliable sources. Any strong argument for deletion would therefore need to be something other than non-notability.
The "delete" side does make such an argument: in their view, there are no clear inclusion criteria because almost every celebrity has been called a sex symbol by somebody at some point. Cunard rewrote the list during the AfD to attempt to address this argument, but many people subsequently wrote that they do not think that this resolves the problem of fans re-adding their favorite celebrity based on low-quality sources.
While we are fond of saying that AfD is not cleanup, I am ultimately convinced that the "delete" side's argument that the lack of consensus about inclusion criteria prevents us from writing a high-quality list with this title is a strong one. Together with the "delete" side's numerical majority, I am satisfied that we have rough consensus for deletion until there is a solid consensus among interested editors for establishing inclusion criteria. To establish such consensus, the article can be draftified or userfied, and if such consensus can be established, the article can be restored. Sandstein 08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it will be difficult to get a "delete" close with editors supporting deletion at a 2:1 ratio overturned at deletion review without making changes to the article's inclusion criteria. I proposed a more restrictive inclusion criteria at Draft talk:List of sex symbols#More restrictive inclusion criteria:

An entry on the list of sex symbols must have received discussion about why or how the person is considered a sex symbol from (1) a book published by a reliable scholarly publisher or (2) an article in a reliable peer-reviewed journal.
An entry on the list of sex symbols must be sourced to at least two high quality reliable sources saying the person is a sex symbol. Sources excluded from establishing a person's membership on the list are anecdotal mentions, jokes, puff pieces, and third-rate sources.

A very small number of the 1,064 list entries that I had removed were sourced to a reliable book or a peer-reviewed journal.

This will ensure that the only entries included in the list will be those that have received scholarly analysis about why they are sex symbols.

At Draft talk:List of sex symbols#Proposed list inclusion criteria and discussion requirement for adding a new entry, I also proposed a discussion requirement for adding a new entry and protecting the article.

What do you think about this more restrictive inclusion criteria? Should it be less restrictive or more restrictive? What do you think about the discussion requirement and protection? What is the best way to revise the draft to address the concerns raised in the AfD "of fans re-adding their favorite celebrity based on low-quality sources" so that {{db-repost}} does not apply? I would appreciate your advice and opinion on these questions. Thank you.

Cunard (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

reply in progress, will take a few days. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There are so many different things to consider here: 1. The general idea of using only academic sources is sound, but there are problems in two directions: not all academic sources are equal and in the field of popular culture there are quite a number of low-level academic journals. In the humanities a publishable paper is one which makes a new interpretation and therefore it cannot be assumed that anything said in a paper is an accepted point of view. Direction and in the other direction there are many quite reliable sources in modern cultural studies that are not strictly speaking academic journals such as Variety or in some cases rolling stone and many I do not know. .

2. My own interest in this general area really concerns only two subtopics: classic film, and people in history. Fortunately these are areas where there are in fact very good sources: good academically oriented biographies in particular and also a substantial body of academic criticism. I'm pretty much lost if it comes to popular music or anything in the 21st-century or anything to do with manga or comics or video games. Looking at your list of removes water calls it strikes me that there were some cases where there is absolutely extremely good evidence available: for example Mae West. I can also think of a great many historical personages that could easily be added to the list, for example Cleopatra. For the 21st century, I would expect that there would be much greater difficult; it takes a considerable amount of time until definitive biographies get written.

3. The definition of sex symbol as used in the Wikipedia article is a very very broad definition: basically anyone beautiful is a sex symbol. Using a definition like that a remarkable number of people would qualify, even using strict criteria about sources. But look at the Wikipedia article on symbol which would give as the true meaning of the term a person whose name immediately brings to awareness the idea of sex -- whose very name can be said in some sense to stand for the concept of sex. Take for example Garbo, whom many people including myself find extremely sexy--but when I think of her I immediately have the visual image of a few scenes from her films, & most of those images are not about sex. But consider Marilyn Dietrich: again the name immediately brings to my association several specific images from her films , and they all very much do directly concern sex.

4. Some of this is the basic differences between us as shown in so many discussion. I am mainly concerned with whether somebody is actually notable because of their deeds or characteristics; you are mainly concerned with whether available sources meet certain standards. Fortunately in most cases there's a considerable overlap but by no means always. In this connection the problem I have with using sources at all to justify inclusion is that the entire source must be considered in its context--we have been too apt to accept references as being relevant because certain keywords happen to be included in them. In other words , no number of sources however excellent in other respects that merely mention in passing that somebody is a sex symbol would demonstrate to me that this is any sense a defining characteristic. There is no substitute for extensive knowledge and informed judgment.

5. But I assure you that I will support any effort to rationalize placement in this and other lists and anything that leads to consistency in the inclusion of articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jens Franzen

Can you list some additional sources for Jens Franzen. I'll add it to the article as soon as possible. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). Here are sources I found:

Tudge, Colin (2009). The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor. New York: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-07645-6. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The book notes:
Hurum first contacted Professor Wighart von Koenigswald in Bonn and asked him for advice. In 1997 he had been the second examiner on Hurum's PhD thesis on early mammals, and he had worked on different aspects of the Messel locale for many years. He suggested Hurum contact Jens Franzen, affectionately known as "Mr. Messel." With a full gray beard and Coke-bottle glasses with slightly tinted lenses, Franzen has the demeanor of a kind grandfather. He had led the protests against converting the Messel Pit into a landfill, and his work had helped stave off the government's action. Franzen had spent much of his life studying the Messel Pit and its treasure trove of fossil findings, and Hurum knew that his institutional knowledge would be invaluable.
Franzen had worked for more than thirty years at the research institute in the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt, and he had overseen the Messel Pit's sanctioned excavations from 1975 to 1984. His understanding of the true scientific value of the Messel Pit had begun in 1973 when a private collector showed him the head of a fossilized bird complete with preserved feathers. For the next twenty-seven years, he had fought for the preservation of the pit and studied its history.
Though Franzen had recently retired, when Hurum contacted him, he was thrilled with the opportunity to participate. The day he received Ida's picture and the invitation from Hurum was his seventieth birthday, and he e-mailed Hurum to say, "This is the best birthday present I have ever had!"
It was as if his life's work had come together in one specimen. During those years when he was trying to save the Messel Pit, he had unknowingly been fighting for a fossil that could be the earliest, most complete primate ever found.
Switek, Brian (2011) [2010]. Written in Stone: The Hidden Secrets of Fossils. London: Icon Books. ISBN 978-178578-201-5. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The book notes:
But Hurum was not a primate expert. Most of his scientific work had focused on dinosaurs and extinct marine reptiles. To make up for this lack of expertise he put together what he would later call an international "dream team" of fossil primate specialists; Jens Franzen, Philip Gingerich, Jörg Habersetzer, Wighart von Koenigswald, and B. Holly Smith. Each scientist brought different strengths to the team, but the inclusion of Franzen was especially important. Franzen had described the other half of Ida's skeleton during the 1990s, and once it was realized that the two slabs were halves of the same fossil they were reunited.
The book notes:
Paleontologist Philip Gingerich compared Darwinius to the Rosetta Stone, and lead author Jens Franzen stated that the effect of their research would "be like an asteroid hitting the Earth."
Wayman, Erin (August 2009). ""Missing Link" or Major Hype?". Earth. 54 (8): 3. ISSN 1943-345X – via EBSCO.
The abstract notes:
The article reports on the discovery of the fossil named Darwinius masillae by a team led by Jens Franzen of the Senckenberg Research Institute on May 19, 2009. The fossil was recovered from the Messel Pit in Germany and was named Ida by Franzen and colleagues. It is stated that the team believes that Darwinius is at the root of the evolution of anthropoids. The researchers suggested in the journal "PLoS ONE" that the fossil is more closely related to haplorhines.

Cunard (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Cunard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

David Fravor

Can you help me find sources involving battles which this commander was involved in? I am looking for reliable source on his military career, though I am not certain it necessary. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Joanna Jordan article

Just fyi that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joanna_Jordan_(talent_agent) by a newly-registered editor. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Pomato (company)

On 10 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pomato (company), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that comedy group Pomato's creations include a skit about a boyfriend who did not understand the difference between a sports bra and a bra, and an advertisement for the Hong Kong Police Force? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pomato (company). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pomato (company)), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Manner (company)

Hello! Your submission of Manner (company) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For very thorough research and outstanding conduct at Articles for Deletion. Dormskirk (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dormskirk (talk · contribs)! And thank you for your excellent work at substantially expanding and improving articles like Impax Asset Management Group for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impax Asset Management Group.

At the AfD, you wrote, "This is not the first time that I have come here to try and improve an article which I thought was worthy of improvement but whenever I have done so in the past my efforts, which were always in good faith, have been either condemned or otherwise criticised." I am very disappointed to hear that some editors fail to value your excellent work. They should encourage you to keep doing the great work you've been doing instead of condemning or criticising your work. I have encountered this frequently in my past work at AfD too, so I really relate to your experience and really appreciate your kind words here. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Manner (company)

On 1 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manner (company), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Manner, a Macau entertainment company, opened a store that sells almond biscuits with condom-looking wrapping, and gives customers free beef jerky if they show a parking ticket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manner (company). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Manner (company)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Cunard,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement now and in the past, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! I really appreciate it! Thank you for your excellent work on Wikipedia and Happy New Year! Cunard (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As the pandemic worsens, be sure to stay safe as much as possible. Happy New Year. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! I really like the apt photos (File:Stop the Spread of Germs (CDC).png and File:Meteora 1 evlahos.jpg) you have at the top of your talk page. Please stay as safe as you can too during this pandemic! Cunard (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sunny Lam

On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunny Lam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sunny Lam, a Hong Kong singer-songwriter, performed a love song with Siri? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunny Lam. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sunny Lam), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mat and Savanna Shaw

On 25 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mat and Savanna Shaw, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mat and Savanna Shaw's cover of "The Prayer" went viral at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, after which they released their debut album that was ranked 54th on the Billboard 200? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mat and Savanna Shaw. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mat and Savanna Shaw), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tai Yau Bank

I noticed that you have expanded the article about Sabrina Ho to save it from AfD. Would you be interested to take a quick look at the article on Tai Tai Bank too? It's already AfD'ed tho. 14.0.236.217 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 14.0.236.217. I searched for sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Yau Bank Limited and was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, journals, and books, about it to help it pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Are you able to find any reliable sources about the bank? Cunard (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Say, [1][2] [3] [4]? 14.0.236.217 (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage

Beckerling, Louis (2000-12-01). "Consultant's review finds room for improvement in reporting credit risk and concentration". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
Tai Yau Bank is mentioned in only two sentences so this is not significant coverage in reliable sources. The article notes: "The lowest-cost bank among the 25 surveyed was Tai Yau Bank (19.5 per cent). Leading banks by asset quality - measured by the ratio of non-performing loans to gross loans - were Jardine Fleming Bank, Tat Sang Bank and Tai Yau Bank, all of whom had no bad loans on their books."
"Tai Yau earnings drop". South China Morning Post. 1993-05-18. Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
This is a 76-word article about the bank's earnings drop. Aside from information related to the earnings drop and information that the bank is "privately-owned institution of the family of Mr Ko Fook-chuen", the article provides no coverage about the bank that could be used to write a Wikipedia article. It would fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage.
楊麗娜; 常雪梅 (2016-01-26). "曹錕賄選" [Cao Kun bribed election]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
The article briefly mentions Tai Yau Bank in two sentences, which falls under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. The article notes: "至此，選票真的成了件商品，議員和賄選人實打實地做起了買賣：各種扯皮、討價還價，不必細表。時間轉眼到了10月1日，距大選還有4天。此時，甘石橋俱樂部已經發出支票573張，每張面值為5000元。支票簽名有秋記（吳毓麟字秋舫）、孝記（王承斌字孝伯）、蘭記（王毓芝字蘭亭）、潔記（邊守靖字潔卿）四種。付款銀行分大有銀行、鹽業銀行、麥加利銀行三家。支票一律未填日期，須在總統選出三日之后，由開票人補填日期並加蓋私章才能付款。據《北京報》報道，有議員拿著支票到大有、鹽業等銀行鑒定真偽。“持有此票之議員，莫不欣欣有喜色。" From Google Translate: "At this point, the ballots have really become a commodity, and the parliamentarians and the bribers have actually started the business: all kinds of wrangling and bargaining, no need to make detailed lists. In a blink of an eye, October 1st, four days before the general election. At this time, the Ganshiqiao Club has issued 573 checks, each with a face value of 5,000 yuan. There are three major payment banks: Tai Yau Bank, Salt Bank and Macquarie Bank. Checks are not dated, and must be paid three days after the presidential election, and the issuer must fill in the date and affix a private seal. According to the Beijing News report, some congressmen took a check to a bank such as Tai Yau and Yanye to verify the authenticity. 'Members holding this vote are all happy.'"
Chan, Osmond Shing-hon (2019). "Hong Kong Tycoon Ho Kom-tong" (PDF). Hong Kong Museum Journal. 2. Leisure and Cultural Services Department. ISSN 2522-6045. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-06. Retrieved 2021-02-06.
The article mentions Tai Yau Bank in one sentence. The article notes, "In addition to the sugar trade, Ho Kom-tong was also involved in the textile and banking industries as well as the opium trade. In 1906, he and his brother Ho Fook jointly invested in a spinning and weaving company called Sang Cheong Fat.²⁷ In 1914, the three Ho brothers turned their attention to the banking industry: together with a group of friends that included Lau Chu-pak, Lo Cheung-shiu and Chan Kai-ming, they invested HK$600,000 to set up the Tai Yau Bank, whish was headquartered at 181 Queen’s Road Central and was Hong Kong’s second wholly funded Chinese bank after the Bank of Canton Limited."

Cunard

talk

Btw you may also want to take a look at the entry about Billy Jing En Fung too. It was prod'ed. 14.0.236.217 (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not able to find that an article at Billy Jing En Fung existed in the past. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Crowd Cow

On 30 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crowd Cow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after quarterback Joe Montana invested in Crowd Cow, PETA sent him a letter filled with football puns imploring him not to invest in a company that facilitates the slaughtering of animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd Cow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Crowd Cow), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your work at AfD. Even though I may not always agree with you, I appreciate your effort to keep notable topics around and your work is valuable and worthy of recognition. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words, Eddie891 (talk · contribs)! I really appreciate it. Thank you for being receptive to changing your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and Warfare. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Thanks for your great contributions :) Pilean (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, Pilean (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for AJ Rafael

On 19 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article AJ Rafael, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that AJ Rafael started Crazy Talented Asians, a live variety show, after being influenced by the film Crazy Rich Asians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/AJ Rafael. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, AJ Rafael), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Matt Brash

On 23 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Matt Brash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that veterinarian Matt Brash treated some of the owls that appeared in the first Harry Potter film and concluded that they had leukocytozoonosis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Brash. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Matt Brash), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for FHProductionHK

On 5 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article FHProductionHK, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the FHProductionHK, a YouTube channel with videos that have reached two million views, features someone who always wears a bear mask to hide his appearance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/FHProductionHK. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, FHProductionHK), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nominations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I just edited two of your Did you know nominations: {{Did you know nominations/Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber)}} and {{Did you know nominations/Games Research Inc}}. I fixed the same issues in both templates:

Unclosed <p> tags closed with </p>
Misnested <small>...</small> wraps multiple blocks; for this please use <div style="font-size:smaller">...</div> to avoid Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint errors.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anomalocaris (talk · contribs), the preloaded nomination page generated from the "Create nomination" button in Template talk:Did you know uses <small>...</small> tags, which is why my Did you know nominations used those tags. I recommend changing it to use <div style="font-size:smaller">...</div> to avoid this issue but do not know how to do so. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That is in Template:T:TDYK/preload. I wouldn't edit it without discussing it first. One issue is that <small>...</small> is inline, and <div style="font-size:smaller">...</div> isn't inline. Here is a comparison:

This is a <small>small</small> word in the middle of a sentence. : This is a small word in the middle of a sentence.

This is a <div style="font-size:smaller">small</div> word in the middle of a sentence. : This is a

small

word in the middle of a sentence.

So you see, they are not exactly the same, which is why it would need to be discussed first, or at least why I won't do it myself. Maybe someone who uses these templates a lot would say, "No problem, we always have line breaks around the 'small' part anyway." But I'm mot that person. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It will be difficult for me to remember the <div style="font-size:smaller">...</div> syntax so I hope the template can be changed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing the small tags in Template:T:TDYK/preload. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber)

Hello! Your submission of Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You got me, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Games Research Inc outcome?

Don't know if you saw my comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Games Research Inc: would you be able to write what happened to the company? --GRuban (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban (talk · contribs). Thank you for reviewing the DYK nomination. I was only able to verify that "Games Research was acquired by Avalon Hill". I did searches on Newspapers.com, Google Books, the Internet Archive, and other databases, and could not find any further information about when Games Research was acquired by Avalon Hill or what happened to Games Research. Cunard (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber)

On 8 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bob's Your Uncle, a Hong Kong YouTuber, began cooking while he was an international student after he found the food from Chinese restaurants in London unappetising? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bob's Your Uncle (YouTuber)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Games Research Inc

On 10 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Games Research Inc, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Games Research Inc licensed Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger's favorite game, in 1960 after the board game's creator unsuccessfully tried to get multiple publishers to accept it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Games Research Inc. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Games Research Inc), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Terence Lam

On 1 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Terence Lam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Terence Lam, who initially did not plan to become a singer, received ViuTV Chill Club's best male singer award and Commercial Radio Hong Kong's best new artist award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Terence Lam. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Terence Lam), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been another year! Thank you, Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:ReaderofthePack#San_Andreas_(novel)

Maybe you can dig some sources here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this article. ReaderofthePack has found many sources for San Andreas (novel), so it looks like notability is established. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I erroneously misjudged you as an editor have a COI, I was wrong and I’m sorry about that. Celestina007 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising for making this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Tan. I appreciate it and accept your apology. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Very cool

Now I know what you do with your spare time. Congrats on bringing that lovely beast to mainspace. Looking forward to reading it more fully. BusterD (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, BusterD (talk · contribs)! I appreciate your kind note! Let me know if you have any feedback about Buddha-like mindset. :) Cunard (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See also: Slacker. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the "See also" link and fixing the layout, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Instead of writing this lengthy article, I should have just redirected Buddha-like mindset to slacker and called it a day. Then I'd be a slacker and have a Buddha-like mindset myself. 😉 Cunard (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Very Taoist of you! BusterD (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! Wu wei is a great Taoist teaching to follow. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sacred Microdistillery

I could restore the earlier versions, but I'm rather reluctant because of the promotional content. To be honest, I'd prefer if the article was recreated from scratch. The history is a bit mysterious because the article was created by User:Accounting4Taste, who is no longer with us, in January 2021, with the summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", and it took me a while to figure out that it was created as "Sacred microdistillery" and before that as "Sacred Gin". There were two deletion discussions: here and here and then it was redirected. Do you feel that these old versions are of any value? It seems like there is a history of deliberate promotion. Deb (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deb (talk · contribs). The previous discussion is here. I would prefer not to spend time recreating the page from scratch because I previously spent some time working on the article. I would prefer all of the article's revisions be restored so I can choose what information to retain. The earlier revisions need to be restored to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia since I did not write all of the content in the single revision of the draft. The later revisions should be restored as I would prefer to be working on the latest version of the article (which has no reference errors) as opposed to a 11-year-old version of the article where the references have errors. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I can only find one revision of the article that involved you. Unfortunately the latest version has so much promotional content that I'm not prepared to restore it. I can restore the earlier versions back to the start of the present incarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 08:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Deb (talk · contribs), I would like to work on the 2021 version of the article that has the properly formatted references. I do not want to work on an 11-year-old version of the article. Please restore all the revisions. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Deb (talk · contribs), I will be requesting restoration of all revisions of the draft at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you refuse to restore all revisions of the draft. Please restore all revisions of the draft. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Deb (talk · contribs), I added four book sources to the draft, which addresses the A7 part of your statement when you restored the 2010 version: "restored version, not G11 but possibly A7 - for Cunard". I moved the draft back to mainspace at Sacred Spirits since there is no speedy deletion reason to keep this version of the article from mainspace since A7 now clearly does not apply.

Please restore all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits. The earlier versions are needed to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The later versions are needed because I oppose deleting 11 years of an article's history and I think Wikipedia:Deletion review would agree since the only concern is promotionalism (which from my review of the 2021 version of the draft could be fixed with some editing and deletions) and not copyright violations.

Please also restore Talk:Sacred Microdistillery and move it to Talk:Sacred Spirits.

Cunard (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, do that. There are other admins who are willing to restore promotional content. Deb (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)