User talk:Cunard/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

About the "homophobic" warning

Listen, don't take whatever I write in Parentheses (This is an example) as truth, but everybody has a cow about it, then I'll stop. P.S. I'm not homophobic nor have I ever treated homosexuals with nothing but the respect I show everbody who has treated me the same respect I show them.- Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that this comment—particularly the part: A while ago, I read in People Magazine (Yes, I read People Magazine, that does not make me gay)—is not meant to offend. In the context in which you used it, you seem to be implying that something being "gay" is negative—I would consider this a form of homophobia; would you clarify what you mean when you used the word "gay"? I have seen a number of instances in Wikipedia, such as here, where editors intentionally use that word to harm and mock others.

Think about what you say. If a gay or lesbian contributor comes across your statement, what would they think about you and the substance of what you are saying? You say that what you write in parentheses shouldn't be taken as "truth", but contributors who have not met you before do not know that. Gay or lesbian editors may think you are attacking them and people who are gay. I ask that you not use such language in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)BTW, dude, seen this? (links to YouTube) Airplaneman ✈ 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I've still got your page on my watch list, and couldn't help but notice this bit of dialogue. It's both funny and sad that the same stuff goes on that did when I was a kid - namely, that participating in certain activities, or not participating, somehow marks you as being something less than manly. I'm assuming that's what Some Dude's little joke was supposed to mean. In the 1950s and 60s, they would have said the same thing except they would have used a different term (such as "homo") for guys who were into "girly" things - of which reading People is assumed by Some Dude to be a typical assumption. In fact, it goes back farther than that. There's a joke in a W.C. Fields movie from the early 1930s in which somehow he's describing some guy who has two sons: "One of them's a tennis player; the other's a manly sort of fellow." There used to be joke "tests" around on subjects like "How to tell if you're [queer/fag/homo/gay/etc.]", with questions about whether you like sports or whether you like decorating, and on and on through endless stereotypes. Even in this supposedly enlightened and liberated era, some things don't seem to change. In my day, the junior high schoolers would say, "That's so queer!" Now they say, "That's so gay!" and they mean it exactly the same way as their forebearers did. (And lest you wonder, I do sometimes buy People, if they've got a hot babe in a skimpy swimsuit on the cover - which they've been known to do from time to time. And that kind of undermines the concept that only women buy People, I would say.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I have no problem with somebody who is gay or straight, democratic or republican, etc. I've just thought that since my sister reads People magazine in the bathroom and I read it when I forget my own magazine (or I'm just REALLY BORED), I just thought People would be considered kindy sterotypical gay-ish. I suppose it could have been worse since I was raised by parents who forgot the 50's ended way to long ago. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that until today I had never heard of reading People as somehow being effeminate. Ladies Home Journal maybe, but not People. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. People does not seem effeminate to me, though Bitch certainly does. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Though people are always talking about progress, in some ways, the world does not change. The same old joke is passed on from one generation to the next, albeit in different forms. Quite sad; will this ever become cliché enough that people stop using it? I hope so. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen, before this becomes a real conversation, can I re-edit my statement on the "Octomom" page, mainly because it states that I read it in People, but can't find it online, so that if he who find it could upload it to Wikipedia. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you listened to the excellent YouTube video that Airplaneman provided; it provides more context about Gay#Generalized pejorative use.

Yes, you may restore your comment on the Talk:Nadya Suleman as long as you do not use "gay" in the pejorative or violate WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP. Writing "I heard that the Octomom is planing to give birth to another child" (mine emphasized) is not appropriate for obvious reasons. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit here. Though I do have to give you credit for your have a nice day reference, your aggressive, sarcastic attitude at User talk:SummerPhD is unwarranted. I have read SummerPhD (talk · contribs)'s comments and do not see how she deserves that. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why secret pages should NOT be deleted

I'm probably going to write a policy page on this at some point, but for now my rationale is this:

If it takes 5 minutes for me to create a secret page, and 1 minute for someone else to sign it, how does that detract from many hours spent improving Wikipedia?

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

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

It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that if an editor has come here solely or primarily to nurture a secret page for use in gaming or as a blog or a free personal web page, then they are misusing wikipedia, and having a "secret" or "hidden" page is just the tipoff. If they are so silly as to label it "hidden" or "secret", that draws attention to it. If they give it an innocuous name (such as "sandbox") probably it would be off the radar. It comes down to case-by-case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all secret pages should be treated equally. I do not believe that tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" editors the right to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE by hosting secret pages on Wikipedia's servers. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

From User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages: "Many Wikipedians will create a secret or hidden page in their userspace. They usually offer a reward of some kind for finding it, often a barnstar (such as File:Secret page barnstar.svg). The hidden page is usually accessible by following a link (or possibly many links) somewhere on the user's main userpage or talk page." Cunard (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I get it. It's the "reward" aspect that makes it a problem, because wikipedia is not supposed to be about easter egg hunts. Is that what it is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That and the fact that Wikipedia is not a game server but a serious encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. But you said all secret pages should be treated the same way. That's why I raised the question of what constitutes a secret page. I think I understand the issue a bit better now. If a secret page is being used in the ways you describe (easter egg hunts, gaming, personal web page, etc.) then it's fair game for zapping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Good grief, a whole nest of them. And the colors alone are jarring: red on lavender - yikes! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the RfC we were promised? Is it going to be a piecemeal chipping away at them, without linking to the previous, failed, mass MfD now? DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages were nominated and deleted before and after the mass MfD. I considered starting an RfC for Proposed deletion (Miscellany) and after reading your comment here (That such an RfC would be viewed as PROD has the advantage for him of removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions, and his apparent inability to understand how human beings get along.), I have concluded not to start one. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea when you link a diff not to then misrepresent what was said - I said "There may well be individual pages which should go, but as the instructions at MfD say that you should talk to the page creator before nominating pages in userspace for MfD, and also that you must template when actually nominating at MfD, and there's never been a consensus for mass deletion of these before, I think he was a bit out of line with the MfD nomination and refusal to inform. PROD has the advantage for him of removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions, and his apparent inability to understand how human beings get along. Still, it appears some editors feel his blatant disregard for policy and procedure make him an ideal candidate for adminship (and if he gets to be an admin, he won't need to bother with MfD or PROD, he can just speedy and be done with it)." Still don't understand why you haven't gone for an RfC, which might get you the consensus for mass deletion that you want. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, next time you say you'll do one thing, I'll know not to believe you. I am truly sorry that I asked for help for you to convert your failed MfD into an RfC, as it is now clear that you were never interested in looking for consensus, but rather in forcing your own interpretation. You had a profoundly unethical approach to informing editors in the failed MfD (saying you would only bother to inform them once you had the deletion sewn up), and then you lie about what I had said (rather clumsily, as you linked to a diff shewing that the quotation was wrong), and your talk of RfC appears only to have been a smokescreen. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not gone for an RfC precisely because it would have no chance of passing if my intentions were mischaracterized as "removing any central discussion of his misinterpretation of previous discussions". I will participate in a RfC about Miscellany (Prod) if someone else were to start it, but I myself will not initiate one. A proposal where the initiator's intentions were misrepresented would easily fail.

You charge that I lie about what you have said. No, I have not. The diff shows that I have not misquoted you. Point out a lie, and I will retract it. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. You say "It's a good idea when you link a diff not to then misrepresent what was said" and in your edit summary had said "you misquoted me" which is apparently contradictory. Furthermore this could be seen as an egregious personal attack. I think Cunard has deferred enough to you, as you clearly state you disapprove of a miscellany prod, and he has offered not to create an RfC that could potentially lead to it. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary schools

Hi Cunard, could you please point me to where it is suggested that primary schools are not de facto notable. I know it's there somewhere but I just can't locate it. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education states that verifiable high schools are generally kept and that primary schools that "don't source a clear claim to notability" are usually merged to either its school district in North America or to the lowest level locality. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget...

...to notify users of pages in their userspace that you nominate for deletion, using the {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~ template. Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I generally notify users of MfDs in their userspace but forgot to do so yesterday. Thank you for the reminder. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! I notified those that you had forgotten. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please use {{db-xfd}}

When you tag articles for speedy deletion because of a closed MfD, please don't use the db template with a custom reason, because it puts the page in the unspecified reason category. {{db-xfd|votepage=name of MfD subpage without slash}} was designed for this purpose, and it puts the page in the G6 category. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware that db-xfd can be used in these cases. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Secret Pages

I understand your viewpoint but you can't retrodate rules, it just isn't done, since the dates on the pages in question is clearly before the guideline date then the pages stand, also 5 minutes to create a page vs. many hours spent improving wikipedia. Delete them if you MUST but be warned you WILL lose me and many others in the process. Thanks Djminisite - Talk | Sign 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not leave Wikipedia because of the deletion of this page. If you do decide to retire from Wikipedia, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Giorgi Latsabidze article deletion review

Thank you for the very helpful suggestions in your review of this article. Back from a trip now, and with a better understanding of Wikipedia referencing requirements, I intend to work on modifying the article in my workspace as necessary to appropriately rely on secondary sources, and believe that this can be done for at least some of the subject's notable accomplishments. I will gratefully accept your offer to look at it again after some of this work is done. Music43lover (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I look forward to reviewing your userspace draft when you have completed your work on it. Cunard (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have started to gather the material to implement the changes that you have suggested. A question: many of the reliable secondary source references that can be cited are in foreign languages, including German, Russian, and Georgian, the last of which is a very little-used language. Latsabidze spent most of the first 19 years of his life in Georgia, and the rest mostly in Germany and France until about 4 years ago when he came here to attend USC and study with Gordon Stewart. (When he came here, he spoke fluent Georgian, Russian, German and French, but very little English.) Is it acceptable to cite such foreign references that are relatively inaccessable to American readers? That concern largely guided my non-use of these sources before, forcing me to rely more on the primary sources cited and on other supporting "notes". I have original (paper) copies of numerous newpaper articles about Latsabidze in these languages that can be cited, none of which are available online. There are other reliable sources in these languages, such as the German news documentary on Latsabidze in Salzberg and news interviews of Latsabidze on Georgian TV. There are relatively few secondary sources on Latsabidze in English, and I will try to maximize my use of those where they can be considered "reliable", but what about the others? Music43lover (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, non-English sources may be used in Latsabidze's article when there are no English sources of equal quality. Feel free to use as many non-English reliable sources as you have; they do not have to be online. Ambarish Srivastava is an example of an article that passed deletion review though nearly all of the sources are in Hindi. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Template Issues.

Sorry, It was taken care of because of a request on WP:VPT, I was sure I removed this request, or noted on it. Sorry for the inconvience. --Wolfnix • Talk • 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't

Could you keep an eye on the civility issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't, or ask another disinterested admin to. It's a book by Rich Zubaty. Zubaty's interventions are escalating both in length and in the degree of personal attacks on those participating in the discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I thought you were an admin yourself. I remembered that you had asked some other admins to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty, but assumed that was because you had previously participated in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, he seems to have calmed down for now. Voceditenore (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Who built the house you live in and the roads you drive on? Opera? No men. Men just like me. You live in a world built by us and think it's your job to critique it and approve it. No wonder the muslims are on the march in Europe. You have no business deleting my page because you know nothing about men."

I am speechless. Such arrogant rubbish need not be dignified by a reply. I recommend that you pay 72.234.207.192 (talk · contribs) / Lew Loot (talk · contribs) no heed. The user seems to be afflicted with a case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT and a lack of common sense. Because all uninvolved editors have concluded that the subject is non-notable, and because the debate is a clear delete, I recommend that you avoid further commenting at the AfD, as it will only be a waste of your time. I am impressed by the patience and grace you exhibited in responses during the onslaught of personal attacks and ludicrousness.

I've contacted Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) to keep an eye on the AfD if the personal attacks resume. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've said my last piece there, but will keep an eye on it too, if nothing else to see who he compares himself to next. So far it's been Tolstoy, Mark Twain and... er... Voltaire. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. A more accurate comparison would be to a schoolboy who deems a girl inferior because she has cooties. What a grownup, mature way of thinking!

Cunard (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And now there's a ban discussion at WP:AN#Ban Rich Zubaty. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Secret page request

According to CSD, criteria that is listed on WP:NOT is not enough criteria to delete a page... A p3rson ‽ 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even if it is in my usersapce, the criteria provided shouldn't apply, per WP:NOT, because what is on WP:NOT is not enough to request deletion of a page. A p3rson ‽ 00:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Secret Page Tagging

Could you please explain as to why you think you are in any position to demand editors delete their own user pages? The link you have provided to the discussion is worthless as it does not indicate any change in policy it merely affirms what is already stated. Whilst secret pages are sometimes frowned upon if there is excess usage of it or it detracts from the project, they are not in essence banned or written into policy as outright disallowed. I would request you stop demanding editors to CSD tag their user pages or you may find yourself being warned for such actions. Regards ZooPro 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo

Hi SandyGeorgia. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo? I want to know if two articles by Hyde Flippo at About.com pass FA 1(c). (I plan to use those sources in Have a nice day.) No one has commented at RSN after one day. Because you provided valuable insight at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, I hope you can provide advice for these sources as well. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Update to archive: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my delay! Based on the answers you got at RS/N, it looks like you're in good shape there. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I know you're very busy with the tasks of a FAC delegate. I'll use Hyde Flippo's source in the article since it seems to be an acceptable source. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant that you're in good shape to proceed with the source, although reviewers at FAC might have different feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It'll be interesting to see what the reviewers think about the source. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Acer Clear.fi

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acer Clear.fi. Could you put those citations properly in the Acer Clear.fi article and improve the article including a specific assertion of why it is notable? Otherwise it will be subject to Afd nomination again. --Bejnar (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I have sourced and expanded the article. Cunard (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To do

Acer Clear.fi – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acer Clear.fi – done
~~Shoe Goo – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoe Goo~~ – done by Carrite (talk · contribs)
Yahoo! Kids – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! Kids(3rd Nomination)

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

http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ – provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches
User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines
User:Fæ/help/photo and Wikipedia:Contact OTRS
http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/

Copyvio

DYK for Michel Maxwell Philip

On 18 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michel Maxwell Philip, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Empower Orphans

Cunard - I am not sure why you reverted back all the updates for Empower Orphans. I had updated the 'Projects' area and summarized the information and made it up to date. The info currently on wiki is a year old.

Anvcomp (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)anvcomp

I reverted your addition because it was a copyright violation of http://www.empowerorphans.org/civicrm/contribute/pcp/info?reset=1&id=31. If you wish to re-add the content, please reword it and make sure it complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cunard - The details in http://www.empowerorphans.org/civicrm/contribute/pcp/info?reset=1&id=31 have been changed. Hopefully now it is acceptable. Thanks Anvcomp (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)anvcomp

The material is still a copyright violation even though the text on the website has been changed. Since you can change the website and own the copyright to the material, please consider following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. At present, the material is still a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cunard

The following email has been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

We own the copyright to the text mentioned in Wikipedia for "Empower Orphans" and permit its use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Can you please remove the Possible Copyright Infringement note on our article.

Details requested by Wikimedia: Original Publication (website) - http://www.empowerorphans.org/civicrm/contribute/pcp/info?reset=1&id=31 Owner of copyrighted material - Empower Orphans (Neha Gupta) Copyright being released - Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) Link to uploaded material - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empower_Orphans

Anvcomp (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you at Talk:Empower Orphans. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would you please create your user page? If you can't think of anything to put on it, could you at least redirect it to your talk page (this page)? That way, the link to your user page is no longer red, and you won't be mistaken for a newbie. ~Nerdy Science Dude 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to ask this, because redlinked users on Mfd's screams "Sock of banned user" to most users. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that red-linked users on MfDs "screams "Sock of banned user" to most users". Your belief that a user with a red-linked userpage is a sock is a form of prejudice. There is a fair number of editors who do not have a userpage, and I am one of them. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to NerdyScienceDude. Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s statement at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G sums up why I have chosen not to have a userpage:

“

Questions for the candidate

I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need addressing.

0. Why do you not have a user page?

A. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that you do.

I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.

I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.

DropDeadGorgias puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of not creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people not creating web pages on Wikipedia every day, all of whom are "disrupting" it. The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly.

Xe also talks of "establish[ing] some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm not doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym — just like DropDeadGorgias is — and a lack of a user page is precisely the opposite of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an account in my actual name.

But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as DropDeadGorgias and Jonathunder both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history. (Note that Jonathunder, whilst asking here how other users can determine who I am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the only identity that truly matters when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both Pavel Vozenilek and jag123 for judging me upon it.

Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is autobiography, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Wikipedia restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content. I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... cough ... a little while now, I know not to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)

People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely tell them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.) The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on Microsoft Pascal or a sentence in chav, and as such is entirely egoless. The "face that I present" to other Wikipedia editors within these projects is through discussions and edit histories. To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere. (If you still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of the users that are currently banned. I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several banned users whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)

You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards (which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future.

Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a technical requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator. As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use User talk:Uncle G rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.

Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this as a hobby. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist. (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.)

Uncle G (talk · contribs) 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

”

Cunard (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, JzG (talk · contribs) has no userpage, and I don't think that he would be mistaken for a newbie. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I doubt users would suspect he'd be a sockpuppet of a banned user either. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

UncleG talk page stalker here. I use WP:Popups to identify users, hover over a user name and it shows you their number of edits, date of account creation and editor rights. Ironically, the User name redirect that NerdyScienceDude's sig uses renders that unusable, but I'm not about to ask him to change something he's perfectly welcome to do. Swings and roundabouts of collaboration, I guess. Bigger digger (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rewriting Yahoo! Kids with reliable sources to save it from deletion. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure rewriting that article. It was in want of a little bit of love and care for too many years. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review notice

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_25#Wikipedia:Sandbox.2FWord_Association.2FUltra_Game. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hit Em Up

Hey Cunard, thanks for looking over it before. I think I've done all I can... but I've tried to be thorough. I am here to take you up on your offer, please copyedit/review when you get a chance. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you've done on it. Hit Em Up is a very informative and eye-opening article. I've done a copyedit on the article, and have a few comments:

"The video for "Hit 'Em Up" has been called infamous as well." – is "infamous" a direct quote from the reviewer? If it is, it should be placed in quotes?
"It surpassed the song and video for "New York, New York", by DPG in popularity." – I don't see the relevance of this sentence. (Probably because I don't know much about "New York, New York".) Is the sentence relevant because DPG's "New York, New York" had been one of the most popular songs in the genre? Perhaps you can elaborate on this.
"It has also been noted for erroneously informing the amount of money the jewelry was worth that Shakur had taken from him during the shooting incident." – this sentence is a little unclear. I don't think "informing" is the right word here.
""Hit 'Em Up" has been called many things; controversial,²⁸ infamous,¹³ as well as disturbing,⁴³ and brutal.¹⁰" – are these direct quotes from the reviewers? If so, these adjectives should be in quotation marks.

Cunard (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, regarding your comments:

the author said "infamous video and song", I'll put it in quotes.
The sentence does not necessarily need to be there, "New York, New York" is somewhat pro East coast, east coast rappers and since 2Pac's song is pro West Coast, and sort of overtook the top spot, I guess thats what was significant, at least according to the author.
changed to "It has also been noted for erroneously stating the amount of money the jewelry was worth that Shakur had taken from him during the shooting incident."
Put in quotes.

Let me know what you think. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your changes look good to me. On the second point, if the author explained why this comparison is significant, it could be included in the article. If he didn't explain why, though, I recommend that you remove the sentence since the readers will be left wondering why that sentence is included there. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

talk back

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

<-- new one :)

BlueMorpho Wiki Page

Hi,

This page was created by the marketing department of BlueMorpho. I know the guy who created this page; his name is Malcolm. I have exchanged emails with him and Hamilton (the owner) and asked them to edit this page. This is purely an ad for their center created by them posted by them. I have been to this Center three times and I am friendly with the people at the center. I love Wikipedia and would like to see its integraty stay intact. Thank you, Daemon777

Here is one email that was sent to them:

Hi Malcolm,

Erm, yeah, [sic] drew my attention to this, so I've had a read and I bounced it off some other Blue Morpho Alumni and the reaction was universally negative, ok thats only 4 people but it's also 100%. I was a little surprised to read you have been talking to representatives of wikipedia as wikipedia has no editorial board and does not review pages, they are particularly proud of that fact. Could you let me know the user ids of whoever claimed to represent wikipedia please so I can discuss this with them

To quote the contact us page (their emphasis, not mine)

"Wikipedia has no editorial board. Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff."

I've listed the objections I have below, I don't really want to get into an email discussion though, I'd prefer it carried on on the wikipedia discussion page.

Notability Subjects on wikipedia should be 'notable' a really good rule of thumb about notability is that if you had to write it yourself it probably wasn't notable otherwise it gives rise to a conflict of interest, there are plenty of guidelines on wikipedia about conflicts of interest, I include below a quote from the guidelines that an article should be..

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4] Significant media coverage can be an indicator of notability; I understand that being so close to Blue Morpho you may think it is really famous, but outside of the 'community' it's actually not, even inside the community; it's not like it's world famous.

Verifiable. That Blue Morpho page falls very far short, comments like "Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center is the largest Ayahuasca shamanism and Universal shamanism center in the Amazon jungle." largest in what respect? land mass? turnover? staff numbers? visitors? where are the references to support that claim? this is why people are discouraged from writing about themselves, people close to the subject will find it extremely difficult to maintain neutrality. The rest of the page is just advertising blurb again with no supporting information and some more promotion of related items at the end. I can't point at a section of the page and say 'this is wrong, this should be changed' because the whole page just looks like marketing and bears little resemblance to an encyclopaedia article.

Independant I think it's obvious that an article written to promote an organisation by staff of that organisation is not independant.

I actually agree with [sic] it's my opinion the page is not notable and does not contain any significant information, maybe one day it will become so famous as to justify a page but wikipedia is not the tool to get there. It has no merit on it's own and should be deleted, I see it's already been recommended for deletion a couple of times. In fact, it is clear that the page exists only because it is linked to from the ayahuasca page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemon777 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional concerns can be rectified through editing the article. I have searched for sources about the Blue Morpho Ayahuasca Center and have found several references about it. This article from the Houston Chronicle (titled "Taking an ayahuasca trip") provides significant coverage about the Blue Morpho Ayahuasca Center. This article from the Washington Post and this article from Time each have several short paragraphs about the center. It receives a mention in The New York Times and another mention in the Chicago Tribune. The first three sources I provided should be enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. That the center received coverage, albeit in less detail, in The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune further establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Yahoo! Kids

On 2 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yahoo! Kids, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (3rd nomination)

Umm... In fact I participated in the 3rd discussion. (And might still say a few words there.) I was notified through WikiProject Deletion sorting, like all others who monitor the Croatian or other WPDS subpages. Thanks for letting me know anyway. GregorB (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you were the only user from the 2nd AfD who either has not participated or has not been notified about the 3rd AfD. The user I should I have notified is Marcusmax (talk · contribs), whom I will notify. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I would have never known otherwise. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Raindance (rave)

Thanks for the thumbs up !

(Whohe! (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

No worries. Good work on expanding and improving the article. Cunard (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chantessy

{{adminhelp}} Would an admin revert the move of User talk:Lehla to User talk:Laura Fletcher/user? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Favonian. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} It looks like there are more page moves by this sockpuppeteer that need to be sorted: User talk:Chanlyn and User talk:Laura Fletcher/user3. Would an admin also delete this disruptive creation: Template:UsernamespaceChantessy? Cunard (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About my MFDs of old userspace drafts

You may be interested in the comments that I have posted at User talk:SmokeyJoe#About my MFDs of old userspace drafts. --RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice and for your work in cleaning the userspace of promotional drafts and unsourced BLPs. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal questions

Hi Cunard. Not meaning to be personal, but I am wondering.... Did you previously edit under a different account and did we interact back then? Did you have any involvement in Esperanza? I observed, but did not get involved. Why is your talk page move-protected? Not that it is a problem, but it's unusual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Those questions aren't personal at all, so feel free to ask for clarification. I heard of Esperanza through senior editors alluding to it in various discussions and skimmed through the discussion and the associated deletion reviews after I tagged it with the Delrevafd templates. I used to edit under dynamic IPs and don't remember interacting with you (as an IP I mainly tagged pages for speedy deletion—an area you're not involved in).

My talk page is move-protected to prevent page-move vandalism. I've dealt with this user before and my talk page undoubtedly would have been targeted had it not been protected at the time. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just felt some deja vu. It's probably because your saying things to me similar to what others have previously said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Most of the recent {{mfd}} from Iqinn are similar situations.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. In cases such as this one, I prefer a history merge over deletion to keep the history of the article's development intact. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Myriads of MFDs ...

Cunard, instead of one-by-one dealing with things at MFD per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP issues, for example, specifically with regard to numerous discussions lately involving userspace-drafts by Geo Swan (talk · contribs), might it be more logical to have one centralized discussion, perhaps in the form of WP:RFC/U? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfC/U would probably be a more efficient way of dealing with Geo Swan's userspace drafts, though I'm not sure that it can mandate the deletion of those pages. A recent mass nomination, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review, failed to reach a consensus to delete those pages, so the current recourse is to nominate individually. I've asked the two editors who have been involved with cleaning up Geo Swan's userspace to provide their thoughts about a possible RfC/U. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the two of you are discussing whether an {{rfc}} should be initiated -- over user conduct, well, just to be clear, do you believe there is a problem with my conduct?

It is my understanding that before an {{rfc}} is filed over user confuct the parties initiating that {{rfc}} should make a good faith attempt to explain their concern first, to make sure they understand the nature of the concern.

Can I remind you that this focus on the userspace pages under User:Geo Swan is very recent? Up until these recent expression of concerns I had no idea there was a problem. I have had some people recently claim I was putting on a clueless act, and merely pretending that I don't understand the nature of their concerns. I try to approach each question, challenge or concern voiced about my contributions with an open mind as to whether my challengers have a good point, or entirely correct. But I want to be fair to myself too.

That good faith attempt to explain concerns with the userspace pages under User:Geo Swan -- it hasn't really happened.

In the discussions around these subpages some other contributors have interpreted WP:WEBHOST in the some way I that seems logical to me. Perhaps I am being naive. Perhaps I am too close to the issue to see it clearly. But it has seemed to me, and I think it has seemed to some other contributors, that pages that were only being used for project related purposes are never lapsing from WEBHOST.

There are problematic individuals who want to use the wikipedia for purposes that do not comply with our policies. Some of them want to have articles on topics for which there are no good WP:RS. Well, they can't do that, until they find those good references. Maybe there are problematic individuals who want to communicate with pals who aren't wikipedia contributors, who want to publish fanzines in userspace for the pals on there mailing list. When I read WP:WEBHOST that is honestly what I think it is meant to address. I have never done this. The only people I thought would be reading the userspace pages I created were other good faith contributors, interested in the same topics I am interested in.

Let me repeat, to the extent some of the material under User:Geo Swan really does not comply with policy, I am fully prepared to fix it myself. Can I say I really think I am entitled to have someone prepared to extend to me the assumption of good faith make the effort to explain to me these concerns?

Let me repeat, these concerns have only recently been addressed to me. On November 10 I went back, and counted on how many pages I had placed {{db-author}}. Some of them were pages that had an {{mfd}}, but most of them, well over one hundred, were at my initiative, a good faith response to these recent concerns. I think it is understandable that these good faith efforts have been stalled given the remarkable flood of {{mfd}} and {{afd}} filed by Fram and Iqinn. No one can be expected to effectively respond to dozens of {{xfd}} at the same time.

I saw the mention of WP:BLP above. I would appreciate a collegial effort to discuss this concern. Any pages that under User:Geo Swan that really does not comply with BLP, I am fully prepared to fix it myself.

I have also seen the recent mentions of WP:FAKEARTICLE, an aspect of wikipolicy I don't remember being familiar with, until very recently. Frankly, I need help understanding the boundaries of what it does and doesn't permit. It seems to me that different individuals are offering very different interpretations of what is and isn't a "fake article". As above, to the extent some of the material under User:Geo Swan really does not comply with WP:FAKEARTICLE, I am fully prepared to fix it myself. Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: - Cunard, I believe the numerous MFD pages could be seen as attempts at addressing the WP:NOTWEBHOST issue - though I could be mistaken. Have you and at least a few others tried to address the matter, at the user talk page for Geo Swan (talk · contribs)? Perhaps convince Geo Swan (talk · contribs) to self-tag all those pages for deletion, and work on them offsite from Wikipedia, in a txt file, until ready to attempt to save them live in main article space as an encyclopedic purpose? -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I personally have not asked Geo Swan to self-tag those pages for deletion, others have. Gigs (talk · contribs) wrote on October 18, 2010, "Remember there is always the option of taking it offline to give you more time to search for sources." In all, Gigs (talk · contribs), Tikiwont (talk · contribs), Fram (talk · contribs), Iqinn (talk · contribs), TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs), Nsk92 (talk · contribs), and myself have noted in MfDs that Geo Swan needs to clean his userspace. Fram's timeline below provides a very in-depth look at how multiple editors have considered Geo Swan's userspace drafts to be problematic. Cunard (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(To Geo Swan): WP:FAKEARTICLE states:

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these). When a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article consider moving it into mainspace or using its content appropriately in other relevant articles.

The concern with many of your userspace drafts is that they have passed the "[s]hort term hosting of potentially valid articles" WP:FAKEARTICLE allows. Some of your userspace drafts have not been edited since 2005, 2007, or 2008.

Several userspace drafts have been speedy deleted under {{db-g10}}. The reason is provided in the deletion log: "WP:CSD#G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP" (mine emphasized). Negative unsourced BLPs drafts, such as pages that contain unsourced allegations about living people (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges), should be deleted.

I thank you for your good faith responses at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Betsy Haws and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/attempts to delete GWOT articles I have started. Cunard (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the history is something like this. For years, there have been on and off AfDs of mainly mainspace pages from Geo Swan. In or about April, IQinn started a more dedicated effort at scrutinizing his creations, with a larger number of AfD's. He (or she) also started tagging pages in the userspace as drafts. On 28 september, I mfD'ed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Northern Alliance translator), but didn't check at that time the rest of his userspace.

On October 10, 2010, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review was filed by User:TeleComNasSprVen. In that MfD User:Tikiwont stated "My suggestion would be either to look for a more private work space or to prune it yourself, singling out reusable neutral material and possible article candidates on one hand and mark other stuff for deletion yourself". I stated "Keep all, tag individual pages", which I have since started doing, to his dismay (and for which he contemplates a RfC/U against me). I also stated "All userspace pages by Geo Swan need checking (though many will remain as unproblematic), and it would indeed be best if Geo Swan started this process himself." My comment was supported by User:Gigs, User:Nsk92 and User:IQinn. Three days later, after a comment by DGG, the only unconditional suport he received, I replied "He is aware of the problems people have with such articles, he is aware that many of his articles are redirected, deleted, userfied, ..., but he doesn't seem to change anything in his behaviour. Perhaps, apart from many MfDs and AfDs, an RfCU will become necessary as well? "

So, by or about October 10, he should have been aware that a number of people believed that there was a serious problem with many pages in his userspace. During and directly after that MfD, Geo Swan asked for the deletion of a fair number of pages, with a sudden drop of this effort after 18 October. These were apparently mainly the pages he had in User:Geo Swan/gitmo/backups, so things that weren't deleted or otherwise harder to retrieve for him on Wikipedia, plus a few pages that were mentioned by name in the above MfD. At first glance, no pages that had been userfied or that never made it into the main namespace were deleted by Geo Swan, but further research may show that this assumption is incorrect of course.

On October 11 I speedy deleted User:Geo Swan/Riyadh Abd Al-Aziz Almujahid. His reply to that deletion was the first in a long list of posts about good faith and civility14 October I started 5 MfDs on pages in his userspace. He then politely requested me to stop this to give him a chance to deal with it[1]. I did. I then noticed the above pattern, where he started with a number of deletions, and then stopped his work on his userspace and continued with his regular editing.

On november 2, I tried to restart the process by giving him the link to a number of problematic pages[2]. He deleted two of the pages, but didn't agree with the deletion of the rest. Of those, another 5 have since been deleted after an MfD, and one through speedy by me. His response to some of these pages didn't give me the impression that leaving this user to clean up his own userspace would have the desired result of following our userspace policies, so I then restarted going through his userspace and MfD'ing pages myself.

Due to the massive amount of userspace pages he has, I nominated up to five articles a day, five days a week. The vast majority of these are deleted since, or are headed for deletion, with only a few which will probably be kept. The author still doesn't seem to understand that he has many, many pages that violate our policies, despite the overwhelming evidence of these MfDs (and also a large number of AfDs that end in delete as well). Geo Swan has had over 4,000 of his 60,000plus edits deleted so far, which is a very high percentage. Coupled with the number of pages (articles and user space) that still need to be checked, this shows a worrying lack of clue as to what is acceptable, both in main space and in userspace. He is a good faith contributor, not a vandal or hoax creator or whatever, who has added loads of notable articles and info to Wikipedia, but he has gone too far in the detaillistic chronicling of everything Guantanamo-related, and lost in too many cases the focus on policies like BLP, NPOV, OR, and the userspace policies. Fram (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram, for the comprehensive timeline of events. I agree that Geo Swan is a productive, hard-working contributor, who, first and foremost, needs to review and tag for deletion BLP drafts that contain unsourced negative content, and secondarily, review and tag for deletion pages that violate the userspace guidelines. I hope that an RfC/U will be unnecessary. Cunard (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The analysis by Fram (talk · contribs) is indeed quite comprehensive. It shows significant pattern. It does seem enough attempts at resolving the conflict have been tried. Geo Swan (talk · contribs) could self-tag those user-subpages for speedy deletion. Otherwise, it does indeed seem like WP:RFC/U could be the next appropriate step. Thoughts, Cunard and Fram? -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not, for the moment, initiate or probably even certify an RfC/U about Geo Swan, since he had mentioned at two other userpages that he is thinking about a RfC/U about me, and I don't want to give the impression of starting or certifying an RfCU in retaliation. However, if other people do start and certify such an RfC, I would give my opinion and would support statements which I can broadly agree with, as one of the persons with a lot of experience in dealing with Geo Swan and his edits recently. Fram (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be best for you not to initiate an RfC about Geo Swan. To Cirt, I don't believe an RfC/U is needed right now, as Geo Swan has started cleaning up his userspace (and is documenting his work at User:Geo Swan/db-author requests). Cunard (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in article titles

An AfD in which you recently took part has spun off a discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines which may interest you. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have commented there. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAKEARTICLE

Heads up that WP:FAKEARTICLE redirect is up for RFD. I suspect WP:STALEDRAFT and/or WP:UP#COPIES are better suited to the MFDs you are doing. Good luck with those. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will use WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:UP#COPIES more in future MfDs. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

WOW, thank you so much for helping me with so much time, Cunard. I hope to contribute more articles soon, and your editing will really give me a great guideline--even with all of the great resources for editing here, your changes have really been the most instructive tutorial for me. Thanks again! Katieshy (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Katieshy

You're welcome! I am glad that the unpleasant experience of having your first article tagged for speedy deletion has not discouraged you (as it has sometimes done to others). From what I've seen, you are a cool-headed editor who will not lose her temper when her edits have been challenged. Wikipedia needs more contributors like you. I look forward to your contributing to more articles in the future. As I wrote on the talk page of the article, if you ever need any help, my talk page is always open. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikibin

You tagged The Warrior Heir for deletion as a copyvio of http://www.wikibin.org/articles/the-heir-chronicles-2.html. While it was a copyvio, that website wasn't the one whose copyright was infringed upon: everything on Wikibin comes from deleted Wikipedia articles (in this case, The Heir Chronicles), which in this case was CC-by-sa licensed by dint of being created here on Wikipedia, so those whose copyright was infringed are the original authors of the Wikipedia article. Whenever you find something copied from Wikibin, you can tag the article for deletion with {{db-repost}} (with the title of the Wikibin page as the WP article that's been reposted), for that will likely make the deleting admin's job easier and quicker. As well, that way, the deleting admin won't be likely to say "Not a copyvio, just taken from a Wikipedia mirror". Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While this is good advice that I will keep in mind in the future, I did not tag The Warrior Heir for deletion. I only commented on the talk page, informing the creator that {{db-copyvio}} was still applicable because wikibin.org only has GNU license, while Wikipedia requires GFDL & CC-By or CC-By-SA. Perhaps you could copy this message to the user who tagged The Warrior Heir for deletion? Cunard (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. See this edit. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick note

I'd appreciate it if you could use my current username to refer to me. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I've been accustomed to referring to you by your former username. I have revised my comment at the CfD and will use your current username henceforth. On an unrelated note pertaining to your DRV closures, could you link to discussions you have relisted (e.g. two of the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 18)? I remember that you did so in the past but have recently stopped linking to relisted discussions. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and done. T. Canens (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Thank you for keeping me in the loop! :-) Katieshy (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Katieshy

You're welcome. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Theo Botha -- rescued yet?

Thanks for relisting this one. I've done a lot of work on it. This guy might not be known outside South Africa, but he sure got a lot of press in South Africa, in English. Your input on AfD discussion would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Botha. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Cunard, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have commented there. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)r

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/mysteries/Guantanamo detainees who were abused during their Tribunal or hearing

Why are these sorts of MFDs still going on? I thought that the user was going to tag them all for self-speedy-deletion? Any updates on this??? -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fram (talk · contribs), the initiator of these MfDs, is better equipped than I to answer your question. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the behavior of the user in question is not resolved, should further dispute resolution be pursued other than tedious one-by-one MFDs? -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Geo Swan is continuing his good faith efforts to clean up his userspace and has even edited one of his userspace drafts (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/not ready yet/Mohammad Rafiq (Taliban leader)) to conform with the notability guidelines. Because some of the userspace drafts may contain notable topics, I recommend that Geo Swan be given a few more months to clean up his userspace. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze

Giorgi Latsabidze contains material based on User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze, rendering it a copy-and-paste move. Would an admin remediate this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please list this at WP:SPLICE. Fixing cut and paste moves is a specialty area and is what that page is for. I would do it, but it is a more complex than normal history merge because there were edit made to the userspace page after the cut and paste occurred.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the advice. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Latsabidze

Dear Cunard, Thanks for your edits on my article. I see you made some minor edits on it, I appreciate it. I also see that you have left a notice for User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze I hope he will reply your message soon. However, I would like to let you know that I left for him a message when i was recreating the article first on his workspace and than moved it on mine. I am sure he is all right with that. I also see you have put some tag on the article's discussion page. Is that something I should worry about? After various edits by different users Latsabidz'e article got better and I think notability is established now. I think it would be good if User43lover would remove Latsabidze's article from his workplace since I have worked on it fundamentally along with other wikipedia users (including your edits). I hope there is no danger for the article to be nominated for a deletion any more. If you have any suggestions please let me know. Sausa11 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks!

The template I placed on the talk page provides a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 17, which concluded that the article should be kept deleted but further work on it could lead to a restoration. It is merely a note about the article's history and has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or deleted. The pruning you have done to the userspace draft has enabled it to return to the mainspace. Good work! Based on the sufficient coverage in reliable sources, I believe that notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people) has been established and that the article is safe from deletion. I will request a history merge of User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze and Giorgi Latsabidze to satisfy the GFDL licensing concerns. Cunard (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I Appreciate your reply and thanks for the explanation! The progress is made on Latsabidze's article, now it's safe. Feel free to edit the article as time goes on and more information becomes available. All the best Sausa11 (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Rejected requests December 2010. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Anthony Appleyard. I have little experience with Wikipedia:Parallel histories. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Man Cave, LLC for deletion

The article Man Cave, LLC is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Cave, LLC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will be watching the discussion. Cunard (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bang for the buck

Ragrding the origin of the term Bang for the buck: while your source, Random House, is a secondary and therefor "better" source, it is clearly incorrect, and it is not hard to find the 1954 mention of the term in a reliable source: [3]. While stating that this 1954 source would be the first mention of the term would be WP:OR, repeating that 1968 is the first confirmed mention is rather silly when it is obviously in error. Note that the term was repeatedly used in reliable sources throughout the later 1950s, with e.g. these four extra sources[4]. The policy was already described as obsolete in 1956![5] Apparently other uses of the term date back to 1944[6] and appear regularly in the 1940s[7].Fram (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive research you have done. I have revised the article so that it does not contain the inaccuracies you have found. It is unfortunate that supposedly reliable sources like Random House frequently publish inaccurate material and unlike Wikipedia, are unable to correct their errors. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bang for the buck

On 16 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bang for the buck, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the phrase "more bang for the buck" was used to describe the United States' New Look policy of depending on nuclear weapons, rather than a large regular army, to keep the Soviet Union in check? 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

Good evening sir, above article Ambarish Srivastava was nominated for deletion review on 2010 February 14. The result of the discussion was moved to main space. You have participated in that discussion. It was thoroughly checked and edited by you also. I am grateful to you for your kind support at that time. At present Mr. 'SpacemanSpiff' who nominated this article for AFD previously, has deleted its major part under 'poetry' section which was cited properly. As well as he also deleted it's whole 'Architectural works' section on Yesterday 19:01, 16 December 2010 and 19:03, 16 December 2010. I contacted Mr. 'SpacemanSpiff' on his talk page where he answered to me "You can not use photographs of buildings as references for works by the person, we need reliable source references. Likewise, user submitted content sites are not valid references for poetic contributions and linking to every poem on such sites runs afoul of our external links policy. Suggest you read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV". If that content was not was as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV then why he could not deleted it previously when this page was moved to main space, while Mr. 'Fayenatic london' has made some quarries about it on 18:46, 20 August 2010, 18:49, 20 August 2010,18:53, 20 August 2010, 18:58, 20 August 2010, 19:05, 20 August 2010 & 19:12, 20 August 2010. He was satisfied with my answers about those sections. I request you to check it. Is it justified? if not please help it. Thanks a lot. Spjayswal67 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, especially for a BLP (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). SpacemanSpiff's removals are justifiable under the policy WP:BLPPRIMARY. Instead of using primary sources and user-submitted content, perhaps you could use third-party reliable sources that document Ambarish Srivastava's work? Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Because you initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment on the AfD, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. The article, however, has not significantly changed since the original AfD discussion, so I feel an appropriate course of action would be to speedy it. What made you feel that it could be moved back into mainspace at this point? SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the article underwent a nontrivial expansion, the arguments for deletion may have been voided. Judging by the discussion, though, it appears they have not. I would not be opposed to an admin speedy deleting the article. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year.
Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Click to play!

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Adding noinclude tags

Why do you add <noinclude> tags to such as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology in this edit? __meco (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The <noinclude> tags ensure that the AfD log pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 18 are not included in Category:Pages at deletion review. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Neal Baum

On 31 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Neal Baum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Harry Neal Baum ghostwrote the 1917 novel Mary Louise Solves a Mystery when his ailing father, L. Frank Baum, could not fulfill his obligations to his publishers? 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

Good evening! Respected Sir, my article was moved User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava to Ambarish Srivastava: restored to main space as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_14 by your great support. I am thankful to you for that. It was nominated for deletion that time by Mr. SpacemanSpiff. You had also participated in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_14 and you had also rearranged it. Now Mr. SpacemanSpiff continuously hearts this article, he had deleted a major part such as ‘professional membership’, ‘poetry’ and ‘architectural works’section of it. If these sections were not considerable why he had not deleted these immediately after its restoration. It appears that he have some irritation due to restoration of this article. To check it you can view its history. It is my humble request to you that please suggest me that what can i do to resist it. Please help again to protect this article.Spjayswal67 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I have previously been involved with this article, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion so that an uninvolved editor can review the dispute and provide a third opinion. I have opened the discussion at Talk:Ambarish Srivastava#Third opinion and hope that this dispute can be resolved. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Thanks a lot to open the discussion at Talk:Ambarish Srivastava#Third opinion. Where Mr. spacemanspiff has kept his side. He also said in his answer to DGG there at this discussion on his talk page 'This is getting rather annoying" because previously I had added the name of Ambarish srivastava at the "List of Hindi language poet", There he had removed it immediately and became annoyed when i added the 'published book' section to support notability in my article, he had deleted a major part of poetry section as well as 'architectural works' section. Then I asked him to add name of Ambarish srivastava in "List of Hindi language poet" again and I have added the name. He didn't remove it but he deleted whole poetry section, 'Published books' section and 'professional membership' section to heart this article. While All professional memberships were provided by reputated professional Institutions which are provided to competent professionals most of them are life memberships yet they are paid, as I know there is no any free membership which professional institutes provide. As he said for the poetry section I can also show many solid proofs like magazines related to print media in which a lot of poems of Ambarish Srivastava were published. Why he is doing it in installments? If these sections were not considerable why he had not deleted these immediately after restoration of this article. It appears that he have some irritation due to restoration of this article as well as putting name as famous poet. It also appears that he is doing it with this article being annoyed. Should I keep my side there? Spjayswal67 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When you comment, remember to assume good faith. I do not believe that he is deleting the sections because he is annoyed with its existence. Both you and SpacemanSpiff are doing what you think is the best for the encyclopedia. I wish you the best of luck in resolving the dispute. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Thanks a lot . I am grateful for your kind support. Can I edit my article as per Third opinion now?Spjayswal67 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do not edit war, or you may be blocked by an admin. If SpacemanSpiff reverts any of your changes, do not revert him but do engage in discussion with him on the talk page. If you and he do not come to an agreement, you could ask the third opinion editor to look more closely at the article and provide more feedback. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Thanks again.Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Cunard (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Respected Sir, As per guidelines of Third option I had edited above article but spacemanSpiff reverted it. I also requested to User:Vassyana to look it. Please see the matter of reversion of my latest edit onTalk:Ambarish Srivastava#Third opinion. Regards:Spjayswal67 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Vassyana appears to be inactive at the moment. It may take a few days for him to reply to your request. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the process is working. You boldly add some content, SpacemanSpiff reverts it, and you discuss. It make take several cycles, with you two making concessions about what to include in the article, but I believe you'll come to a compromise. If you do not come to an agreement after further discussion, you may want to ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to take a look at this (provided that SpacemanSpiff agrees since all parties of a dispute must agree to mediation). Cunard (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Davao Christian High School

{{adminhelp}}

Would an admin revision delete this edit which added copyrighted content from http://dchs.edu.ph/index.php/about_dchs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Other edits on the page contain copyright violations. Would an admin revision delete those too? Cunard (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is a misused word - hidden from public view if more the case. An admin can revdel items if necessary, but then any other admin can still view them if they want to.

I think these pages might help you WP:REVDEL, WP:CV, and WP:SUPPRESS. Note that WP:CV says that for normal copyright problems, just remove the copyvio (anyone can normally do this) and then The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #1 states: "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."

Because redacting the copyright-infringing content would not remove attribution to non-infringing contributors, the revision deletion criteria are applicable. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just making sure you know exactly what you want. Selected entries redacted. Note that there are thousands, if not tens of thousand, of pages with deleted copyvios that are not redacted. You could be very busy... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for redacting those revisions. I noticed the addition of copyrighted information on Davao Christian High School because I have the page watchlisted. I do not search for pages with copyrighted content in their page histories but bring them to the attention of admins if I come upon them. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

接触平面 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 接触平面. Since you had some involvement with the 接触平面 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Cunard (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Logo question

Would this image fall under Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos? I found the image here. I believe it is copyright-free because it only contains shapes and words but don't know if it is trademarked. How would I find out if it is trademarked? Cunard (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it is a US published logo (US company), US laws apply and the Commons templates you are looking for would be both commons:Template:PD-shape and commons:Template:PD-text. I do not see a significant graphical creativity here (it might be different if the circle had complex shading or was framing some other intricate art). As for searching if it was registered as a trademark, you can try http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/search/. Jappalang (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the image and confirming that it is copyright-free. I did not find it registered as a trademark, so I have uploaded it to File:WePay Logo.png for use in WePay. Cunard (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is;[8] it seems the exact phrase "wepay" has to be as the search term. I have updated the image page with the details. Cheers. Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the image page. How did you find that it was registered as a trademark? My search (typing "WePay" into the search bar) did not return anything. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From the link above,

Click on "Search Marks" under Trademarks Process window on the left
Select "Basic Word Mark Search (New User)" in the new window
Enter "Wepay" for "Search Term:" and select "The Exact Search Phrase" for "Result Must Contain:"

It seems the resulting link is not persistent, so I entered the instructions on the image page for future reference. Jappalang (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how you perform the search. I've also added a durable link to the uspto.gov using WebCite. Thank you very much for your help with this image. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide#Student Leadership

talkback Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide#Student Leadership. Cunard (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you got involved in the middle of this. I'm more than happy to discuss the matter with you, and I suspect you may be right. But I would like to actually discuss it with YOU without that ... person ... confusing the issue. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI - some of my advice is being used in the school tp. Kudpung (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Cunard,

I'm a total beginner at creating pages, and believe I would not be able to create a decent one. There's a local popular band I would like to create a Page for, and if I was to give you information, is there any way you can get the page created for them??

Thanks very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.138.211 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, I'm a total beginner at creating pages, and believe I would not be able to create a decent one. There's a local popular band I would like to create a Page for, and if I was to give you information, is there any way you can get the page created for them?? Thanks very much Rob HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobL16 (talk • contribs)

What is the band's name, and has it received any coverage in third-party reliable sources? By the way, how did you find my talk page? Cunard (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
Message added 04:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for WePay

On 23 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article WePay, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inspiration for WePay originated when co-founder Rich Aberman had difficulty fundraising for his brother's bachelor party? 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jo Tong Sop

I saw you removed the nomination because no hook was approved. After your suggestion about changing the negative hook proposed I contacted the original reviewer of the nomination about it to see what he thinks but he never responded. This is most likely why nobody responded to your suggestion. Spongie555 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hook because both of the hooks proposed were deemed inappropriate hooks. The first hook was too bland per the comments by Rwxrwxrwx (talk · contribs) and PM800 (talk · contribs). The second hook, about a possible "6-hour public shaming", is inappropriate because it focuses on a negative aspect of Jo Tong Sop's life. I removed the entry because there were no developments over the past few days and the hook had been there since 2 January. If you can find another hook before 2 February, I will restore the nomination to T:TDYK. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: ...that Jo Tong Sop was a member of the North Korean team that that won the 1986 King's Cup against Aarhus Gymnastikforening?

Its not negative and not that bland as they beat on of the best teams of Denmark of the time.Spongie555 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a good hook. I have restored the article to T:TDYK and will leave it to another reviewer to look at it. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did contact the original reviwer to say the new developments in the nomination. Spongie555 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should just review the nomination. Spongie555 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

HeiaHeia Speedy Delete removal

You removed my speedy delete for the article HeiaHeia, with the reason "G4 does not apply – this topic has not been deleted before at AfD". While you are correct in saying that, I assumed that you could use G4 if it has been deleted before with a speedy delete, and no information has been added. (This is not about the notability claim, I see that now and I apologize.) Bluefist^talk 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. WP:CSD#G4 only applies to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. ... This criterion also excludes content... deleted via ... speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." If an article has not been deleted at AfD, G4 does not apply although A7, G11, or G12 might. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, what?

wha? The user's comment was already moved to the correct place. This has occurred many times before and I've never seen a decline on it. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought the comment was moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sift Heads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sift Heads; if that had occurred, I would have recommended preserving the page history as a record that Tyler775 (talk · contribs) had defended it. That he posted the same content to both the talk page and the main page of the AfD means that it is not necessary to preserve the talk page history. I have reversed my removal of the speedy tag. Thank you for discussing this with me instead of undoing my removal. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page. To be honest, I consider this action as wasting of time :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It is not harmful to leave the page as is, but then again, most housekeeping tasks are a waste of time. ;) Cunard (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Doeringer

On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Doeringer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Eric Doeringer has sometimes sold up to US$1,500 worth of "bootlegs", small copies of paintings by eminent modern artists, in one day? 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Student society Liivika

Ok, I have nothing against the current name, only that it seemed a little odd in the beginning.. Student Society of Riga was an old name and had to be changed though.H2ppyme (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for revising the article title to reflect the new name instead of the old one. Should Student society Liivika be renamed to Student Society Liivika? I don't understand why the second "s" is not capitalized. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In Estonian, there is one word "Üliõpilasselts", however the abbreviation is "ÜS", so I quess, two capitalized words is applicable. Will do it myself.H2ppyme (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for moving the page. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U

I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. It seems that Geo Swan has not added user pages to User:Geo Swan/db-author requests for over a month. The continued BLP violations in both userspace and mainspace despite multiple discussions indicate that this RfC will be necessary. When you make it live, I will certify it since #Myriads of MFDs ... has not borne fruit. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, if you still agree with it you are welcome to certify it, otherwise you may present an outside view or otherwise participate. Fram (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have certified the RfC. Thank you for doing the thankless task of initiating this RfC. Although Geo Swan is a good faith editor, he does not understand the BLP policy. I hope the RfC will help Geo Swan better understand WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Da Poet

Would you delete and salt Mike Da Poet? You participated in a DRV in July 2010, where you suggested that Mikie Da Poet be listed at WP:DEEPER (which it now is) because of the considerable disruption of the DRV process (see the DRV links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet). Deletion has now been circumvented at the title Mike Da Poet. There also appears to be sockpuppetry going on per my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/6stargeneral. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Sigh. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This promoter is very persistent. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice day

Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Talk:Have a nice day/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P. S. Burton (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)