User talk:Cunard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Good articles:

List of articles
I have created/rewritten:



Find sources: "Search" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: "Search" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · toolserver ·
Find sources: Gnews · Gnewspapers · Gbooks · Gscholar · NYT · Wikipedia Reference Search




When you do your book citations on AfD, are you actually manually typing everything from google books or is there a faster way, because google books does not allow me to copy sections. Valoem talk contrib 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Valoem. When I do book citations at AfDs and DRVs like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) I manually type everything from Google Books. I am not aware of a faster way. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow that is a lot of work, are you able to use high beam to find any sources defining the term before Donnelly's 2001 study? Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) with sources that discuss Donnelly's 2001 study about "involuntary celibacy" to show there is a "cohesive topic". Cunard (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Try clicking the text selection tool
. Then you can copy-paste text without having to re-type it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, RoySmith (talk · contribs)! I appreciate the screenshot, which helped me find the text selection tool on public domain books like this. This is a neat feature that will save me a lot of typing in the future when I copy text from public domain books. But the text selection tool doesn't appear for me for non-public domain books like this one, so I think it only works on public domain books. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OneNote has some tools for clipping and saving screenshots which can save a lot of retyping. Andrew D. (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), for the recommendation! OneNote would be useful in clipping sources I want to save for personal use. But for AfDs and DRVs, I think typing still will be needed. I generally want to have the sources' text on the AfD or DRV so editors can see the quotes on one page without having to click on multiple links. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Old thread, I know, but there are sources for book citations: WorldCat - when you get to a page for an individual book, there is a citation button at the top right, and a choice of citation styles (MLA, Chicago, etc.). For wiki-formatted citations, the Open Library has a link for a wiki-formatted citation on the books it has. It is missing the most recent books (last 3-5 years, I'm guessing) but has everything that Google scanned plus 1902-2014 from the Library of Congress. Not everything, and if you're already on G-Books it's another search, but handy at times. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you a Happy New Year! This message celebrates the season, promotes good cheer, and hopefully makes your day a little brighter. So please spread cheer by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be a good friend, someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, or just some random person. Face-smile.svg
(click for sound
Thank you! Happy New Year, MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Cunard:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 06:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
Thank you! Happy New Year, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cunard![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thank you! Happy New Year, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cunard and a very Happy New Year too ..... I'm sounding like a broken record Face-grin.svg.–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Knowledge Ventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fund (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember editing with you before[edit]

But I very much appreciate the work you did attempting rescue of Involuntary Celibacy and your ping today on Sandella. If I can ever be of assistance, please call on me. I would not consider such a call canvassing, because I've specifically asked you to do so. Been here ten years and I'm still always meeting someone new (to me). Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi BusterD. Thank you for your very kind words, and I'm glad to have met you. I was very impressed by your detailed history of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination). I'll definitely contact you again if I need help with evaluating or finding sources. Thank you for your gracious offer of help. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Love You Baba[edit]

Ok, I'll admit I was wrong there. I think your expansion may be sufficient enough to consider listing the article for DYK. I think the DYK hook is pretty obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ricky81682 (talk · contribs), for withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love You Baba. I've listed the article at DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Love You Baba. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

XM-736 8-inch projectile[edit]

Is this a real thing, I am not able to confirm it from my research, possible WP:HOAX. Valoem talk contrib 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a hoax. Here are the two sources in the article:
  1. Adams, Robert W. "CHEMICAL WARFARE IN FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS", Command and Staff College, United States Navy, via, April 6, 1984, accessed January 3, 2009.
  2. D'Amico,William P. , Jr. "Comments on the Flight Stability of the XM736 8-Inch Binary Projectile", (Abstract/Citation), Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1982, accessed January 3, 2009.
The second source has a PDF link to the article. These sources might be considered primary sources, so I do not know if there is enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

AN section you may be interested in[edit]

I think this may be of interest to you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANRFC_again AlbinoFerret 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and for your hard work and dedication in closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC. I've commented there. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Masa Fukuda[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Masa Fukuda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi there. I noticed this nomination has been stale. BlueMoonset had issues that it wasn't at a five-fold expansion. Have you made any contributions to fulfill this since then? If you have, we can request a new review. If not, I'll give a second opinion on the matter to see whether it straight-up fails. Jolly Ω Janner 04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Love You Baba[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Merrill Edge[edit]

I was wondering if you might be interested in writing an article on Merrill Edge, I have some trouble finding number of employees, but this investment firm is definitely notable distinct from Merrill Lynch. Valoem talk contrib 20:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've written an article about Merrill Edge, which has 2,500 advisers working in bank branches and call centers. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Awesome job! I've added an infobox, but I was missing some information like area served. Valoem talk contrib 20:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
From this article in Bloomberg Businessweek:

To lure customers to Merrill Edge, Bank of America recently started testing videoconferencing kiosks at bank branches in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., areas. Merrill associates in Arizona, Florida, and New Jersey dispense financial advice on the kiosks' monitors. Branches advertise Merrill Edge on their windows and ATMs, which doesn't sit well with brokers who don't like seeing the Merrill brand diluted. In a December 2009 internal memo aimed at dispelling fears over the integration of the banking and brokerage operations, Krawcheck had to declare: "No, we're not converting our wealth management branches into ATMs."

I think it's accurate to say that the area served is the United States. Cunard (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you do it?! How do you write such high quality articles so fast!? :) Valoem talk contrib 21:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if they're high quality or not, but I just write them. ;) Cunard (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch and Bank of America Merrill Lynch are the same company now right? Valoem talk contrib 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are part of the same company. They are different divisions of Bank of America. Merrill Lynch is the wealth management division of Bank of America, while Bank of America Merrill Lynch is the corporate and investment banking division of Bank of America. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC. The wrong question[edit]

Hi Cunard,

Thank you for Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#RfC:_Should_MfD_relists_be_allowed_or_disallowed.3F. I think you have asked the wrong question. Would you please consider revising the question? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a second question to the RfC. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Masa Fukuda[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Meridian School (Utah)[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Aging AfC article[edit]

Hi Cunard,

Would you be so kind as to take a look at an AfC draft that has aged 21 days? This is a paid work, I was hired after the original editor gave up in frustration and got himself banned. The article is about a long lived international martial arts organization and there is a essay on guidance for notability on such articles here:[1]

I'm hoping to get a neutral review before the AfC queue gets backlogged again and "the group" goes through everything heavy-handedly.

Thanks for your consideration. 009o9 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article. I added a lead, added information and sources, and removed information about the group's charter. Because World Head of Family Sokeship Council has full creation protection, I have posted a message on the talk page asking for an admin to do the move for me. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all the work you did on it, the discussion is getting spread out all over the place. I went ahead and listed it at WP:DRV as suggested. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016_February 17 Be sure to ping me on the AfD's that interest you, I haven't been following them much lately. 009o9 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you bringing the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 17. I've commented there. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Winmark Corporation[edit]

I thought you might be interested in writing an article on this notable company. Winmark Forbes, I was planning to write one on John Morgan the company CEO. Also do you know how to search for sources in Korea? I was wondering if you could find additional sources on 1980 Uiju earthquake. Valoem talk contrib 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Winmark Corporation. I'm not sure how to search for sources in Korean for 1980 Uiju earthquake. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fire needle acupuncture[edit]

I was wondering if this is notable, I've found sources such as Japanese Acupuncture: A Clinical Guide, A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine and a clinical study here Clinical observation on cervical headache treated with acupuncture and fire needling technique. I was a bit concerned because editor SummerPHD removed the "Clinical observation on cervical headache treated with acupuncture and fire needling technique" source mid AfD, is this removal correct do these source establish notability? Valoem talk contrib 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire needle acupuncture. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! Valoem talk contrib 16:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello Cunard, you have been apart of these discussions before for Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please see here on the current one that is taking place. Personal attacks are seen and not looking at the actual article. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_3#Draft:Alex_Gilbert. Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Merrill Edge[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Merrill Edge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Merrill Edge[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


It's bad enough listing archived debates with nothing of merit to assess, but listing stuff already on the other admin noticeboard?> Srsly? Please don't do this. The backlogs will never get fixed if they are bloated out with unnecessary shit. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I list admin noticeboard discussions at WP:ANRFC when they are ready for closure so the discussions are not forgotten.

For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet was archived 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) without a close. My close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 21#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet resulted 12 days later in an admin's closing the discussion and unblocking the editor 21:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

Another example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks, was archived 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) without a close. My close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 20#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks resulted 45 days later in an admin's closing the discussion 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

Cunard (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For regular maintenance of WP:ANRFC. I imagine it's a thankless job; we who do the actual closing get the thanks (and the complaints, but let's not talk about that). Let me make it a little less thankless. Thank you! GRuban (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, GRuban (talk · contribs)! And thank you for your hard work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC. Your openness to feedback here and your willingness to provide extensive rationales in response to editors' queries here are impressive and greatly appreciated and make you an exemplary RfC closer. I hope you keep up the excellent work at WP:ANRFC as long as you enjoy doing it! Cunard (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique[edit]

Hey again, it seems a lot of my article have been up for deletion, I was wondering if there are additional notable sources which can be added, not sure if this GNG, but it appears that even those in favor of deletion stated there are four reliable sources. I have no issues if you believe this should be delete, but your opinion which it comes to true GNG, I know this encyclopedia has a tendency to be bias against fringe topics. Thanks Valoem talk contrib 18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want a mop?[edit]

Hi Cunard,

If I were to nominate you for adminship, would you be willing to accept the nomination? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, RoySmith. I am honored by your offer but must decline. Because admins spend time closing discussions and other mopping tasks, they must necessarily spend less time writing articles and participating in AfDs and DRVs. As I noted at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Adminship?, I prefer to remain a non-admin for the reasons discussed in Kodster's essay Wikipedia:I don't want to be an administrator. I prefer to write articles and find sources for the AfDs and DRVs I participate in. My purpose for editing Wikipedia is grounded in these activities. Although admin's mopping tasks are important, they would take time away from the activities I prefer spending my limited Wikipedia time on. I'll leave the janitorial tasks like closing deeply divided DRVs like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30#Good Shepherd English School to admins like you. ;) Thank you again.

Cunard (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But as an administrator you can see deleted articles, which is an advantage in DRVs and content development sometimes, isn't it? Could you take the mop but never do the admin work...but maybe then it would be too hard to say No. :( --doncram 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would be too hard to say no after spending the community's time on reviewing the RfA. But the inability to see deleted articles is not too burdensome for me because I use WP:REFUND whenever I want to retrieve a deleted article to work on like Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 210#GreatAuPair and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 215#DLT Solutions. :) Cunard (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand where you're coming from, and respect your decision. If you ever change your mind, you know where to find me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cunard. You have new messages at Tow's talk page.
Message added 05:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 TOW  05:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

AfC review?[edit]

Another paid work Draft:Wendy Newman, subject is completely notable, but I'm getting the run around in AfC (wholesale declines when the backlog triggers an alert I'd guess). I edited to the reviewer's tastes, that reviewer has ignored my comments. I also took a review (and advice) from another paid editor, but she does not edit in the article space. The subject came to me first, so I don't think there's any problem with the name being salted (thanks again for your help lot on the last one).[2] If you don't feel comfortable putting it through, or see flaws in my writing, perhaps a comment for me or the next AfC reviewer? Thanks Again! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look at Draft:Wendy Newman later this week. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made changes to the article and moved it to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the edits and the review, I uncovered the categories and made sure it isn't an orphan. I hope it wasn't an imposition on your time. Thanks Again! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sarah Charles Lewis[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 6 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Charles Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sarah Charles Lewis played Winnie Foster in the musical Tuck Everlasting's 2015 world premiere and is reprising the role on Broadway in 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Charles Lewis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sarah Charles Lewis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ANRFC mass additions[edit]

Hi Cunard. Would you mind trying to exercise a bit more discretion when listing RfCs at WP:ANRFC? If a discussion has a clear outcome, there's no reason for formal closure. Something like this or this doesn't require closure unless a WP:POINTy editor comes along and demands it. When you last listed RfCs at ANRFC on the 8th, you listed at least 48 discussions (not counting any that have already been archived), which makes it very difficult to find discussions that actually require closure. ~ RobTalk 11:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no reason for closes for "consensus is clear" RfCs. It is helpful to record the consensus of those formal discussions like is done for "consensus is clear" DRVs and XfDs. While I list RfCs at WP:ANRFC I sometimes close those I am comfortable with closing. "Consensus is clear" RfCs are very easy to close, which I have done for the two you mentioned. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I encourage your participation at the AN thread about the long-term sustainability of ANRFC. ~ RobTalk 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert[edit]

Hello Cunard,

It has been awhile with the Alex Gilbert draft. New sources have come to light and there is on going discussion with them being reliable or not. The article itself now has 29 sources. Can you please have a look at all of the sources (some of them are in Russian), and please tell me what is wrong with this? Yes there is independent sources there but some are in Russian. Yes some talk about a single event but the coverage of the sources range from 3 years or so. Can you please please have a look and let me know on any advice or if you can review it. Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Also I am happy to indicate the new sources and the ones that are independent. Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You and I previously discussed Alex Gilbert at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Alex Gilbert in December 2015. At the time, Ymblanter (talk · contribs) thought that the sources pointed to Alex Gilbert's being a WP:ONEEVENT. This month, Ymblanter wrote, "He is borderline notable. Since there is no specific notability criteria, what applies here is WP:GNG. If it gets to WP:AfD I would probably vote keep, but I am not sure it would survive. Let us see first of your help desk request gets any response." You asked Ymblanter, "Are you able to unsalt the article? Or review it yourself?" Ymblanter replied, "No, I had rather bad experiences recently, and I currently prefer other people to do it."

Hobit (talk · contribs) wrote, "Try to move it as fully-formed as possible into mainspace with the new sources and see how it goes. It should be immune to a WP:CSD#G4 with the new (and solid) sources, and any AfD, IMO, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let me know when you've done so and let me know if it does go to AfD."

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter), JMWt (talk · contribs) wrote:

Looking at the draft, I'm not so sure that the subject isn't notable and therefore maybe the conclusions of the most AfC are wrong (which to me suggests a wikipedia process problem which I have no idea how to resolve. How does one judge the conclusions of a an AfC vs a AfD process?). The normal practice of WP:GNG requires us to find WP:RS from independent secondary sources to give notability. This HuffPo report was written by a staff reporter and is fairly extensive. Also this SBS report, this Northern Advocate report, this Mirror report and so on. This all seems to me to enough give notability.

However, multiple DRVs have declined to restore the draft: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24#Alex Gilbert, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Draft:Alex Gilbert, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 22#Draft:Alex Gilbert, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 3#Draft:Alex Gilbert.

Writ Keeper (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter) as "The result was speedily deleted as an unattributed intra-wiki copy by a non-author, and thus a copyright violation, without prejudice towards the original draft itself." Writ Keeper, do you have any advice for DmitryPopovRU about how to proceed?

Cunard (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard. Firstly Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter) was made by a different account which copied the draft Draft:Alex Gilbert I was working on. All I want to know is, can Draft:Alex Gilbert go into the mainspace? Not as a TV Presenter. He is not a TV Presenter. He is an adoption advocate. The sources are all about adoption. One more thing can someone put this into the mainspace? Then we can see what will happen. That will decide the articles fate, instead of sitting around as a Draft with comments being thrown all over the place over its notability. The article does have independent sources, it does have coverage and they are reliable. The article Alex Gilbert is currently salted over a deletion discussion that was for a seperate issue. See [3] as a School Boy Rapper and [4] as this issue 'Non-notable cinematographer. Almost none of the references are independent and the story of meeting his parents is covered by WP:BLP1E. Cinematographers can be notable'. Once again this was 2nd nomination was back in July 2014, many more sources have arose since then with more coverage which goes over the WP:BLP1E issue. His I'm Adopted organisation was created in 2015. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I continue to believe this easily meets our inclusion guidelines. The right way forward, IMO, is to get it unprotected (which it clearly should be) and move the draft to mainspace. It's not an A7 target and I think it would be kept at AfD. The problem is that due to it's history and the fairly small number of people at DRV, I don't think it would make it at DRV. Hobit (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hobit. Are we able to hopefully and finally get this draft to the main space? This has been going on for a long time. I would like to see an AfD, really because I believe it would keep too. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly have neither any objection nor special insight--as Dmitry pointed out, the AfD that I closed was about some copying that someone else did; that specific AfD shouldn't have any influence over whatever Dmitry decides to do now. Writ Keeper  19:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Writ Keeper, are we then able to get this Draft to the Mainspace in this case? The Article Alex Gilbert is salted so it is unable to do so. Then I will request for it to be reviewed one last time. Is that a good idea? If it goes to AfD, it goes to AfD. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "review" you mean deletion review, then no, I wouldn't recommend that. Deletion review is about whether the original close of the AfD was correct, not a venue to discuss whether a new version of the article is now good enough; it's basically a review of procedure, not substance. It's not necessary if you've already got a draft that you've been writing yourself, so instead I'd just say go for it.
If by "review" you mean Articles for Creation review, well, that's kind of up to you. It's not *mandatory*, so it's really only if you feel it'd be helpful. But if that's what you want to do, then you should get it done while it's still in the Draft space; AfC is all about checking stuff before it gets into mainspace, so once stuff is already in mainspace, AfC loses its purpose.
In any event, I see that Hobit, at least, is confident that the subject is notable enough, so that's a good sign. I'd take a look at it myself, but short of any very obvious problems like BLP or something, I'd be happy to defer to their opinion and move the draft into mainspace for you, if that's what you want. (Assuming that Hobit and/or Cunard have looked at the actual current draft--have either of you? No big deal if not, of course, it just changes how much I'd need to look into the draft myself.) Writ Keeper  20:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

For it to be moved into the mainspace that would be much appreciated as you can see the comments and opinions above on the draft. Thank You Writ Keeper. Please do watch the page too after it has been moved. Oh and with the reviewed section I mentioned before, I did mean DRV but that is just wasting my time once again. I don't want to go down that track again. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. I'd like to give Cunard and Hobit a chance to weigh in if they'd like, but I don't see any glaring issues with the article, so I'll probably just give them a day or two and then move it regardless. Feel free to ping me again if nothing's happened in a couple days. Writ Keeper  20:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

For sure no problems! Thank You Writ Keeper! Will wait for their response! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I just read the current draft. It is clearly above the WP:N bar. The concerns about BLP1E are fair (though I think the sustained coverage overcomes it) and I think the article could probably stand to have a bit more detail (say a sentence or two) on _why_ there is sustained coverage rather than just mentioning that coverage (so what was discussed etc.). Hobit (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! I believe this article does pass the WP:N bar too. It is the history that doesn't help. Maybe we can move this to the mainspace now? If anything needs to be added or fixed on the draft then please do! :) --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Guys please also make sure that you watch the Alex Gilbert article too as I believe there are editors on there that disagree. Like I said if it goes to AfD it goes to AfD. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: @DmitryPopovRU: done. Writ Keeper  21:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! Writ Keeper! I can't say this enough, please watch the article. Last time someone did move it, it was deleted ASAP as it had to go through a DRV. Silly Silly. It needs to go through AfD if someone disagrees with it. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. I have it on my watchlist. Yes, it does need to go through a new AfD if someone were to try to get it deleted. Writ Keeper  21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Writ Keeper (talk · contribs), for moving the page to mainspace, and Hobit (talk · contribs) for reviewing the page. DmitryPopovRU (talk · contribs), I've also watchlisted Alex Gilbert. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Everyone please feel free to clean up or rewrite anything on the article. Thanks Cunard (talk · contribs) , Hobit (talk · contribs) and Writ Keeper (talk · contribs). --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Might be nitpicky, but can you do something about your keep vote formatting? On a quick perusal, it looks like NA1000 voted twice. Can you just separate the actual vote and NA's userlinks so it doesn't look sketchy? MSJapan (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (from Dschslava)[edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for closing that horribly convoluted RfC. 'Twas a mess. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Link to the RfC close. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


I am not sure how to proceed here, this is redirect to the Tulpa concept which from my research is not the most common association. From what I've seen it refers to a combination of presuppositions, imagery, and vocabulary in Christian theology. There also appears to be a magic connotation. How would you proceed, with disamg or article? Valoem talk contrib 19:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tulpa#Thoughtform says, "A thoughtform is the equivalent concept to a tulpa but within the Western occult tradition." Since they are equivalent concepts, I recommend keeping Thoughtform as a subsection of Tulpa until there's enough reliably sourced information for a spinout to a separate article. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "closing" of what? thomas w's quasi rfc on assault rifle page[edit]

I'm not quite sure what's going on here or what the rules are. I started a discussion on the assault rifle talk page about the article basically being factually wrong on almost all accounts, being a coat rack article, and simply just being basically a dumping ground for german wunderwaffen dross. The term assault phase rifle was coined in 1916. Developments of higher velocity, lower caliber cartridges had been going on since the turn of the century, the german development of their "machine carbines" was predated by programs from pretty much every other country. And even the STG-44 itself was the development of roughly a decade of refinement in germany. While yes, the sturmgewehr name did stick, that's just the fruit of the nazi propaganda machine. If the article were to choose to focus on simply the term it would be a short article talking about the 1916 coining of the term assault phase rifle, then maybe talk about the german development of sturmtruppen tactics at the end of ww1, which led to the development of the phrase rifle for sturmtruppen, sturmgewehr in ~1944. If the focus of the article was on the german machinekarbine program it would probably focus on the vollmer m35 rifle of the mid '30s followed by the walther development of their prototype machinekarbine going into the start of the formal machinekarbine program to develop the machinekarbine 42, or mkb42. The entrants would include the walther mkb42(w), and the haenel mkb42(h). The mkb42(4) would evolve into the mp44 which would be renamed the stg 44.

So the StG-44 wasn't the first german rifle that had the features required to be classified as an "assault rifle". It wasn't the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. The 7.92 cartridge it used was not revolutionary in any way, and, in fact, was a refinement of a swiss cartridge. The first assault rifle wasn't german. The assault rifle wasn't first used in world war 2. The first assault rifle wasn't developed by germany. The StG-44 was primarily a semi-automatic rifle, not automatic. Automatic mode was only for emergency use, and to be used in short bursts. Nothing about it was original or groundbreaking. The article also seems to have become the dumping ground for some raw propaganda cum pop-history about the ak-47.

What seems to have happened is that thomas.w hijacked the discussion I started by turning it into an rfc focusing on one particular false point. Only one person commented on that rfc, saying that nobody was providing sources in thomas.w's quasi rfc. I responded that I'd already provided 11 sources including an nra journal, a published book, and popular mechanics. That's it. That was the entirety of the outside input. Now you seem to have come along and "closed" it on the grounds of this false rfc point, claiming that there was somehow a consensus. Now, I have no problem with you closing thomas.w's false quasi rfc, although obviously I don't see how you can claim there was a consensus. But I don't see how you can claim to close the larger discussion, particularly by A: Claiming some sort of consensus, which I don't see, and B: reducing the overall question to one specific deceptive point, deceptive in that it can be said that you could technically say that while nothing about the stg-44 was innovative in any way, shape, or form, and that there had been rifles before the stg-44 that had been called assault phase rifles, that the stg-44 was the first rifle to be called the "sturmgewehr" which, depending on which topic is being covered, is either right, if the topic is, "what rifle was the first rifle to be called the sturmgewehr", or wrong, if the topic is, "what rifle was the first rifle to have the characteristics that we now recognize as being the characteristics of the category of rifle that we call "assault rifle".

Also I don't know the technicalities of how this tag works. I assume I just revert it.TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have undone my close and listed it at WP:ANRFC. I was assessing the consensus of the RfC, which was a subsection of the larger discussion, which I did not assess. I think there was a clear consensus among the participants that the response to the RfC question "Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such?" is yes. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close to allow another editor to review and close it. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)