# User talk:Cunard

Good articles:

## Notes

### AfD

· page history · Books Ngram Viewer
· toolserver ·
Find sources: Gnews · Gnewspapers · Gbooks · Gscholar · NYT · Wikipedia Reference Search

## Question

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)

## 2016

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.
(click for sound
Thank you! Happy New Year, MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

## Happy New Year

 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. 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!

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 .–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for January 3

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

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

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

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 Globalsecurity.org, 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

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

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

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

## Merrill Edge

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)

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

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

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

## DYK for Meridian School (Utah)

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

## Aging AfC article

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Head_of_Family_Sokeship_Council 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

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

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)
I have created Winmark. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

## Fire needle acupuncture

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)

## Discussion

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

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

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

## Meta

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!

 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

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?

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)

## Talkback

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?

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

 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

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)

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

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."

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)

## Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LawnStarter_(2nd_nomination)

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)

 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)

## Thoughtform

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

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)

You can close it now...TeeTylerToe has been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continuous uncooperative and unproductive editing, edit warring, tendentious edits, POV-pushing, talk page filibustering and lack of insight when clearly proven wrong by other reliable sources.--RAF910 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I will leave the close to another editor at WP:ANRFC because I self-reverted my close. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zelkind

Hi Cunrad, I've been following your work lately in order to better learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I have to say I really like your work and I wanted to ask you if you could review Daniel Zelkind page. I would like to learn how to improve the article. At the moment it is nominated for deletion, but I do believe it meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zelkind. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, Sorry for the hassle but I noticed your comment on deleted Daniel Zekind page. There is an ongoing debate regarding Zeek(company) page. I wanted to ask you for your opinion on the matter. I do have COI with Zeek, but I believe the article can meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP if improvements are made. The company has won many awards over the years and has gotten sufficient coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddard 'Ned' Stark (talkcontribs) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeek. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

## A bowl of strawberries for you!

 Thanks for your tireless word at AFD. Your comments are always well researched and thoughtfully articulated. I appreciate your good work. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Safehaven86 (talk · contribs)! I appreciate your hard work in finding sources at AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeopleStrong and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Kays. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

## Zeek Wikipedia article

Hi Cunrad, Thank you for your in-depth input regarding Zeek article. Did you see any additional information I could add in order to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is well-sourced and at a decent size already. To improve the article, I recommend making sure it complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by using neutral language only and by reflecting all reliably sourced viewpoints of the company—positive or negative. Cunard (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

## ‎David Merlini

I didn't see your request to draftify it rather than temporary undeleting until after I'd done the latter. If you want to cut-and-paste it to draftspace and work on it there, I'll do the legwork to merge the histories after the drv closes and it's restored, as it looks like it's headed toward; or you can just paste your draft back over it, if you prefer. —Cryptic 07:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note here and willingness to merge the histories after it's restored. I have created a draft at Draft:David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

## A cup of coffee for you!

 Thanks for putting in the research when you contribute to AfD discussions. This is appreciated, and lends to objective discussions regarding topic notability. 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Thank you for your excellent, exhaustive searches for sources at AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proactive communications! Cunard (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Source searching takes time, but it's a hobby of sorts. 03:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that source searching takes significant time and effort, which is probably why too few editors do so at AfDs. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Check out WP:ADVANCED, a page I created relatively recently. Wikipedia:Overreliance upon Google is another essay I recently composed. There's also User:Tomwsulcer/sandbox tools, which provides some cool shortcuts for searching. 03:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't aware of WP:ADVANCED, Wikipedia:Overreliance upon Google, and User:Tomwsulcer/sandbox tools. Those are very useful links with good tips about searching for sources in general and searching for sources in particular geographical locations. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing. There's also a template I like to use sometimes, {{search for}}. Check out the example at right. 04:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
{{search for}} is very useful. I have a copy of it at #Notes. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

## A bowl of strawberries for you!

 If your AFD comments are too short, they are "thin." If they are too long, you have a COI, I guess? *rolls eyes* Safehaven86 (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Safehaven86 (talk · contribs). His ignorant attempt to besmirch my reputation is disappointing. It is unsurprising that he had to resort to accusing me of a WP:COI at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (3rd nomination) because he could not refute the argument that E3 Media has received the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

## Kampyle (software)

Hi Cunard: I have begun reworking the Kampyle (software) article a bit. Since you have expressed an interest in the article via contributing to the AfD discussion and via some copy editing, an invitation to help out with the process. 01:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Add Appboy to the list. 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• And also Zeek... 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Inre Appboy and Zeek, check out the talk pages too. 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Information about the company's founders and funders were removed from the Zeek article as "intricate detail". This makes no sense. Who founded a company is important information. Who funded the company (and thus are owners of it) is also important information. It is disappointing that after editors failed to delete the articles, editors are deleting sourced encyclopedic information from the articles. I have reverted the removals. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The article was stripped down by a user who opined for deletion at the deletion discussion to the point of qualifying the article for WP:A7 deletion. 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), all the information was removed again here. I don't see what's wrong with restoring the "Further reading" section and removing the maintenance tags since the AfD was closed as "no consensus" and no one has explained how the article is incomplete. Cunard (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Inre Appboy, a discussion is occurring here: Talk:Appboy#Content restored / removed. 22:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Add Payoneer to the list. 07:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• As a sidenote, check out WP:CHURN if you haven't seen it already. 01:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you. WP:CHURN is a very accurate essay. I agree that "Not all sources that provide information about companies and organizations are automatically churnalism as a default." Too few editors understand that. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), the removal of sourced, encyclopedic information at Talk:Appboy#Content restored / removed made me reluctant to join you in working on the articles above. After having my edits reverted for being "promotional" or "intricate detail" at Talk:LearningRx#Changes today, I am certain that this will happen if I contribute to the articles you listed above. I wish you the best of luck in working on those articles and am sorry I cannot help. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
All right, thanks for letting me know. Yeah, there's not much point in actually improving articles if the process will just be a vicious circle in which one's edits are all removed. So it goes sometimes. 07:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

## Sourcing issues

I am having issues search for sources regarding Deathmatch Classic. The is a first person shooter mod for Valve's game, Half Life one of the most influential games of all time. The game Deathmatch Classic is included with Half Life which means over 10 million people have purchased the game. Now there is a debate that the mod, a primary release from Valve, is not notable. Some editors are looking for a review of the game which exists but is hard to find due to the fact that the term "deathmatch classic" often refers to a type of combat mode in first person shooters. Because of this the term "deathmatch classic" is generic and becomes difficult to find sources specifically referring to "Deathmatch Classic" the mod. What method would you use here? Valoem talk contrib 08:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• (Talk page watcher) Hi @Valoem: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has a list of recommended sources for video games. You could search on some of the sites that are listed there as reliable sources to see if they report about the topic. Also check out WP:ADVANCED, an essay I recently composed, for advanced source searching information. 07:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

## Cross purposes

It's obvious we have different ideas on how to deal with articles on companies with borderline notability . Personally, I could adopt your apparent position that we should cover them, if it were possible to do so in accordance with out principles. The key problem for me is that they greatly encourage paid editing,which is almost never NPOV. As we both know, it's an open question whether articles from paid editors where there is underlying notability should be fixed, in order to add information to the encyclopedia , or removed, in order to discourage paid editing. I take an intermediary position, that it is permissible to rescue them when the importance of the article is very high, and its removal would leave an obvious gap. But I am concerned at your practice of trying to find references to try to keep the extreme borderline ones.

As you know, I consider the GNG worthless for notability in this area. Its use depends upon the interpretation of the key words in the guideline, and it is usually possible to construct a rational argument on either side about whether a reference is substantial./independent/not a press release/etc. The net result of this is a randomness is what we accept or do not accept,depending more on who happens to be active in a particular discussion and the idiosyncrasies of the closing, as upon the article or the subject. Among other things, this makes it difficult to give advice to newcomers about whether they should write a particular article, and it makes it equally difficult to give accurate advice to those asking at OTRS, "Try: you might be lucky" is not what we should be saying.

What I really want is to do two things: one is to eliminate paid editing and advertising from WP to the extent possible, the other is to establish unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content. I consider such standards asWP:PROF or WP:MUSIC to be examples of such guidelines, even if I consider some of these too wide or too narrow. It's better to have e a way of settling the issue. I am not likely to soon accomplish either goal, but I certainly intend to keep trying.

What I'd like to do in practice is to establish some sort of working compromise, whether or not it is explicit. I'm quite willing to try to improve rather than remove the more important third of so of the promotional paid articles (and other articles imitating them), if you will not try to stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third. I accept we will never agree about the middle.

I mentioned content: you are just as skilled in writing articles as in defending them, but I for the first time examined in detail one of your articles, the one on Winmark. I agree its notable by any standard. I however noticed a considerable amount of exact duplication between the lede and the article and a considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material. I consider the first to be poor style, the lede should summarize, not repeat selected paragraphs. I consider the second inappropriate for an encyclopedia. "Creation stories" may be popular, but they rest almost always on the unsupported memory of the founder, or whatever he may imaginatively say in an interview. I think similarly for statements of motivation. I therefore made a fairly bold edit of the summary and the first part of the article. I expect you will revert all or part of it, but before you do, consider whether any of my changes have at least partial merit. In any case I am not going to challenge it for now. (I also made some minor changes to GreatAuPair -- they represent what I think essential for tone.)

As always I am open to discussion anywhere here, or offwiki DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

if you will not try to stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third. – I disagree that I "stretch the limits of what might possibly count as a reference for the bottom third". Every AfD in which I invest a significant amount of time searching and listing references is what I consider in the top third. Otherwise, I would not waste my time commenting in the AfD.

As you know, I consider the GNG worthless for notability in this area. – I consider the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to be sufficient for companies. You consider the GNG worthless because you believe even newspapers of record publish promotional articles about businesses:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination): "Tho the Jerusalem Post is a paper of international importance, even it can still cover local companies in a promotional manner."
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company): In response to an editor listing sources from "Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ", you wrote: "I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says."
I cannot agree that very reputable newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, and The Jerusalem Post post bylined press releases. There is no evidence for this.

What I really want is to do two things: one is to eliminate paid editing and advertising from WP to the extent possible, the other is to establish unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content. – the policy at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure permits paid editing as long as paid editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". If you would like to eliminate paid editing, you must achieve consensus to change the policy. Attempting to piecemeal delete articles you suspect to be created or edited by a paid editor will not achieve your goal. It is impossible to eliminate paid editing while Foundation policy permits it. With regard to "unambiguous guidelines for article retention and content", we have the GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

I however noticed a considerable amount of exact duplication between the lede and the article and a considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material. – from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I do not think it is a problem that the lead and the article body contain duplicate material as long as I write article leads to comply with this guideline to concisely summarize the article.

Discussion about the circumstances of a company's founding is standard in company articles like Microsoft#1972–1984: Founding and company beginnings, Amazon.com#History, and Yahoo!#History. I disagree that such information should be excluded from company articles. If a reliable source considers the information about a company's founding provided by the founders to be credible and worthy of discussion, then I believe it should be discussed in the company article. Much of the early life information in the featured articles Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Mitt Romney contain "considerable use of anecdote and human-interest material". Such material can only be verified by primary sources such as the subjects themselves or their family members or friends. The information is included despite that because reliable sources considered the material to be credible and worthy of discussion.

In sum, I base my comments at AfD and article writing on what reliable sources say.

Cunard (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I found the comments at User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 64#ANI seems a waste of time these days to be very interesting and relevant to this discussion. Pinging Michig (talk · contribs), Safehaven86 (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) who participated there in case they are interested in reading or commenting about the discussion here. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

## On AfD

You are making long commentary, Copy-Paste of original article. where Citations or link can be enough. It is making discussions unnecessary lengthy and it can mislead others as unnecessary lengthy read to even participate or vote Keep and cite GNC and move on. Discussions should be short and precise not copy - paste from news articles. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. AfD is a discussion. It is necessary to list the sources and the quotes I believe establish notability so it is clear to the AfD participants and closing admin why I am supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it would be easier to read --and to comment on--if you could do it more compactly. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

## DYK for Winmark

 On 28 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Winmark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a report around 2013 on American used goods outlets put Goodwill first with a 21% market share, Winmark second with nearly 6%, and The Salvation Army third with nearly 4%? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Winmark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Winmark), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Winmark comes across as a good contender to become a WP:GA. 07:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for the suggestion. I'll consider it. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey, just sayin' 07:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Winmark for WP:GA. Thank you for the suggestion, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

## Jacob Barnett

Hi Cunard, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(3rd_nomination) you mention material that could be used to expand the article, material that would clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject. The problem is that anyone who adds it will be up against the edit warrior team of SB/DE/Agricola who will be watching and will be there in strength, ensure that such material is quickly removed and that the article continues to read like one about a non-notable person (at least to the casual observer who does not have the time to check out the references). The only longer article that the team has been willing to accept is one which is insulting to the subject's mother. I don't want to add this to the discussion because I am afraid that it will be considered inflammatory and provoke yet another attempt to sanction me. Viewfinder (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder. We previously discussed Jacob Barnett at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2. I think the new source, a 2016 book, meets WP:SCHOLAR, so I hope any material based on it will be unobjectionable. I recommend opening a talk page discussion to discuss any additions you want to make.

In the talk page discussion, propose what paraphrased sentences or paragraphs you want to add to the article and make sure to support your sentences by listing quotations from the book. If consensus is reached in the talk page discussion about what material to add and how to word the material, then you can add the material to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure I will obtain a copy of the new book you mention but it will take a few days. Assuming that there is no U-turn and, if the current AfD is concluded by then, it is concluded the same way as AfD2 and the DRV that followed, I will then expand the biography and post a draft to the talk page, where I can by sure that SB, DE and Agricola will come together to shout it down but maybe it will also attract enough positive feedback. But you write I will abstain from editing Jacob Barnett because the article has become a controversial subject. Some editors believe most of the reliable sources about Barnett are unreliable, indicating that anything added to the article probably will be reverted for coming from an unreliable source. That is not the editing environment I like. Neither do I. Beneath User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2 is a link to the first of three topic ban nominations, by an editor who described proponents of the article as "obsessed fan boys". That was deeply hurtful and offensive. Other editors don't like that environment either, which is why the article remains little more than a stub in which the subject comes across as non-notable to observers who do not have the time to check out the links and references. Viewfinder (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in achieving consensus to expand the biography based on the new book source. So far no one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination) has raised concerns about the book's reliability, so that is a good sign. Maybe you can get a preview of the book like I did through typing "Jacob Barnett" in the "Search inside" section of the Google Books preview. I agree that the topic ban nominations and the "obsessed fan boys" comment was "deeply hurtful and offensive". Based on the past AfD and current AfD, I have the same position at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#A barnstar for you! 2 in being reluctant to participate in this controversial subject.

Cunard (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. I tried to take up your suggestion and was even at one point beginning to think that I was succeeding. What more can I say? Viewfinder (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has been stable for two years since the close of the second AfD as "keep". It is disappointing to see half of the well-sourced article deleted after the third AfD was closed as "keep". I have commented in the talk page discussion and pinged the AfD participants. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I tried again and even tried boldly adding the material to the article. But for as long as I have been watching it, the article has been owned and slanted by an editor who writes that the neutral point of view is that Barnett was a child whose mother claimed that he was very talented, made numerous false and misleading statements to the media, and took him on talk shows, etc., where these misleading statements were further encouraged. That is certainly not what I am seeing in any sources, but whenever I try to point that out on the talk page, the owner's cohorts close ranks and nobody else appears to be around. What more can I do? Viewfinder (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that editors of the Jacob Barnett article have a tendency of including very negative information about Barnett and his mother because they personally believe they are right and the reliable sources are largely wrong. Very few reliable sources support their negative narrative. The only reliable source they presented to support their narrative is http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/, which is dubiously reliable. To give that source prominence in the article over the numerous other reliable sources that have a different narrative would be undue weight.

I recommend working with S Marshall to improve the article's wording and focus and expand the article. S Marshall has made several insightful comments in the talk page discussion, particularly this and this, and he is very skilled in analyzing content discussions (see User:S Marshall/RfC close log). Cunard (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I have noticed and welcome SM's recent contributions. I do not usually get involved in biographies, but somehow I became involved in this one because I identify with its subject (which I have declared) and felt very strongly about some of the offensive language, particularly what was being directed against his mother. But whether or not it is an appropriate source, I have to say that I agree with the skeptic's analysis of some of the media coverage. Viewfinder (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with the Skeptic's analysis of some of the media coverage. That source's view should be accorded only its due weight in the article and no more since the other sources largely take a different view. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
These guys have adopted a new tactic. Every time I write anything on the talk page that they do not like, they vandalise article material by replacing it with their own POV take on the subject presented as hard fact. Viewfinder (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing neutral about the article as it currently stands. It has been stuffed, stuffed and stuffed again with the personal take of its owner. Viewfinder (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Improve the article's wording? Nobody has a cat in hell's chance. Its owner and his three cohorts have deleted everything I have ever tried to contribute. It has now reached the point where I can't even contribute to the talk page without being responded to with threats. Is this the future of Wikipedia? Viewfinder (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
S Marshall (talk · contribs) and WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 (talk · contribs) have made good edits to the article and insightful comments on the talk page about how some of the negative material about Jacob Barnett is undue weight like this and this. I recommend working with these two experienced editors to propose changes to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I had an interesting talk page discussion at User_talk:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94#Jacob_Barnett, but there did not appear to be support for my proposed changes. Viewfinder (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You can also ask for independent opinions at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. For example, the article contains this text:

In a 2011 Glenn Beck Program segment, Beck asked Barnett to solve a calculus problem, but did not check the results. Barnett was asked to establish convergence of the divergent series ${\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\sin(2n)}/({1+\cos ^{4}\!n})}$ to which he incorrectly applied the integral test, and the error went unrecognized in the program.

The only citation is to the Glenn Beck Program. It is undue weight and original research to mention this error when no reliable sources discuss it. The inclusion is only to push the view that Barnett's abilities are greatly exaggerated. That his abilities have been exaggerated as explained by Phil Plait does not justify the addition of original research to support that position. Only if the Glenn Beck Program errors were discussed by reliable sources can this be mentioned in the article.

I also find it surprising to see The Daily Mail cited in the article by the same editors who say a Penguin Random House–published book written by an academic is unreliable.

S Marshall is working on establishing the reliability of the book source before proposing specific edits to the article, so I recommend working with him on that.

Cunard (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The current article is ridiculous. It is heavily slanted and effectively accuses Barnett, his mother and vast sections of the media of lying. There is nothing like that in any appropriate source. Whether or not its accusations are justified is not for us to judge, and Wikipedia should not be being used to push the take of outraged physicists in this way. They should publish their take on their own websites for us to link. I have made that point on the talk page, but apart from a few minor changes, nobody has come out in support of my position, and if continue to pursue it alone I will likely get into trouble. I can only conclude that for some reason, Wikipedia is allowing it to stand despite its OR, NPOV and BLP policies. Viewfinder (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the current article is heavily slanted against Jacob Barnett and violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Independent editors in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability discussed disputed text in Jacob Barnett about an unavailable YouTube video. I strongly agree with what WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) wrote:

No. The policy begins "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check" the information according to sources. That's "can, as in, is able to do so during the present time", not "could have, at some point in the past, but now we just expect you to trust the person who added this".

I'm not sure that discussing the instant case is useful. Either you can cite that claim to an independent source (ideally an independent secondary source that discusses why anyone cares what some kid posted on the internet), or the material simply isn't important enough to write about at all. "Child posted something on the internet! The URL doesn't work now, but trust us: we're sure that it was this BLP and the link used to work!" is not exactly the kind of encyclopedic material that Wikipedia strives for.

It is notable that uninvolved editors at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability overwhelmingly agreed that mentioning the YouTube video's being unavailable is original research since no sources explicitly say this. It is very likely that uninvolved editors also will find much of the current Jacob Barnett article to be filled with original research and personal opinions designed to cast Barnett as a charlatan.

I recommend posting at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and/or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to seek independent editors to do a review of the article.

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Discretionary sanctions says that per the arbitration remedy WP:NEWBLPBAN, "The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator." This remedy may be useful if any editors repeatedly violate WP:BLP on the Jacob Barnett article.

Cunard (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has done this. Predictably when I joined the discussion I was subjected to a nasty personal attack from an editor who generates so much heat that not many people are able to stay in the kitchen for long. Personal attacks seem to be a necessary part of that editor's strategy. Viewfinder (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) has made very helpful changes to improve the tone of the article article and insightful comments on the talk page. I agree that that comment is uncalled for and a good example of why I am not participating in editing the article or discussing the article on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time for me to join you on the sidelines. Several noticeboard discussions have achieved very little, although I commend editors who are doing their best. As someone who, like the subject of the article, is affected by Asperger's syndrome, it is really troubling me. The problem is that a tightly knit group of three editors remain in full control of what has become possibly the worst article on Wikipedia ever. They appear to want to keep it that way with intent to renominate it at AfD. If it had not been for exaggerations by some of the media, the subject would have likely become notable on the back of good coverage like this and there would have been no controversy. But Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to use to discredit the media. If we can't expand the article with biographical material, why can't we as least delete the exaggerations - which come from unreliable sources - and revert to the short article that was stable for two years until it was renominated and subsequnly butchered? Viewfinder (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the short article that was stable for two years is far superior to the current article filled with original research and editor's personal opinions about the sources and the subject. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

## The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Cunard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Season's Greetings

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Thank you, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)! Happy holidays! Cunard (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive

I made a lot of editing on the subpage listing logs of past reviews. Actually, that was after the failed proposal WP:Discussion review. If the failed proposal is not the way, how do I fix AN? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does WP:AN need to be fixed? I think it is fine to have closure reviews on WP:AN, which has high visibility. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I have added recent closure reviews in the list on your behalf. I might or might not have time to update the list. If you don't have free time to update the list, where else can I recruit other volunteers to make updates? --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for listing the closure reviews. I can update the list but I forget or do not update it that frequently. Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a good place to recruit other volunteers. It might also be good to update Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures to ask editors to list closure reviews at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Winmark

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Winmark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Winmark

The article Winmark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Winmark for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the good article review, Sagecandor (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

## Talk:List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media#Requested move 18 December 2016

Besides the title of the page, the page itself is also subject to recent RM discussion. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

## Saraiki requested move

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

## Merry Christmas

 Merry Christmas Cunard!! Hi Cunard, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Cunard (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

## Happy New Year, Cunard!

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

Thank you, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! Happy New Year! Cunard (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVC Capital

Hi @Cunard, Sorry for changing the comment on the above. It look like a comment for delete, but didn't want to bias it, so put comment for delete. I like the way you come in adding the source to help. It seems to be a unique way of reinforcing the Afd argument for keep. Happy New Year!. scope_creep (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Happy New Year! Cunard (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

## Outstanding contributions recognition

 Outstanding Contributions Award Cunard, I've regularly noticed your contributions at Afd. You are one of the few users who have a very high rate of Keep !votes at Afds. And your Keep assertions are almost always supported with exquisite commentary and narrative grounded most often in factual and reliable sources. I know that there would be many editors who might not appreciate such long discussion orientation; however, in my opinion, it displays your commitment to searching for the sources rather than dismissively !vote delete (which is so much easier and practised by many editors at Afd). In my opinion, your contributions at Afd are exemplary. As the legend on this award goes: With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor. Keep up the great work! :) Lourdes 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your very kind words, Lourdes (talk · contribs)! I have a high rate of "keep" votes because I spent most of my time finding sources for articles I believe have a good chance of being notable. For such articles, I usually am able to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subjects. I write detailed "keep" rationales so that AfD participants and the closing admin understand why I am supporting retention instead of guessing at my rationale. Thank you again for the "Outstanding contributions recognition" award! Cunard (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

## List a request for closure?

Hi, Cunard. Will you go ahead and list this at WP:Request for closure? You list such matters better than I do there, and I have to leave Wikipedia at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've listed the discussion at WP:ANRFC. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

## Proposed collaboration on a close

I have noticed you do an excellent job of curating WP:ANRFC. I have seen Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Kurt_Evans_be_listed_as_.22Failed_to_Qualify.22.3F listed for long time and was working on a close. After investigating, I see that it will have to be a difficult one, especially since the candidate is involved directly in the debate. This is probably why it has lingered. I think it needs an endorsed or multi-editor close, so the editor in question does not perceive it as one opinion, and I would like you to assist me. If I write up a proposed close and email it to you, would you then endorse it once posted? If this works for you, let me know and we can work out some process. I will probably also contact one or two other experienced closers with the same request. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Eggishorn. Thank you for your kind words and your hard work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC. I've reviewed the RfC and reached the same conclusion that the "Failed to qualify" wording did not gain consensus as described in your proposed close at User:Eggishorn/sandbox/kurt evans:

Extended content

In considering the status of a Request for Comments on a contentious issue, the closer needs to take into account not only the views expressed by the participants but also whether those views comport with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The exercise is not merely one of counting heads; for this reason we refer to views expressed in such discussions as “!votes” or “not votes.”

This RfC attracted a lot of text but relatively few distinct editors and very few concrete wordings. No alternative wording attracted serious support.

Although wikipedia tries to consider the preference of BLP subjects when possible, that is secondary to providing a comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia with proper weight given to each topic addressed in an article. In the case of this RfC, the obvious most important policy is Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. That policy states any information in such articles: must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR).

Unfortunately, much of the views expressed by participants in this discussion and in the related Administrator's Noticeboard Incident discussion violates one or multiple core content policies. Therefore, such opinions are not included in this evaluation.

The verifiable facts as presented in reliable sources are these: The State of South Dakota sets ballot access requirements that favor the two established major parties (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). Two third parties (the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party chose to challenge those laws in federal court. While this legal challenge was underway, the Constitution Party chose to nominate Kurt Evans as its candidate for United States Senator from South Dakota. Neither the party nor the candidate ever attempted to comply with the terms of the ballot access laws they challenged. The litigation closed with a decision in favor of the defendants and Kurt Evans was not on the ballot.

The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either “not qualified” or “denied.”

As an editorial matter, the simplest and most neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Mr. Evans as "Failed to gain ballot access", “Nominated but not listed on ballot”, or an equivalent formulation. Because of the low participation in the debate, the exact wording to be included should be considered editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.

I recommend a few additions and wording changes:

1. Change:

Two third parties (the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party chose to challenge

to:

Two third parties (the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party) chose to challenge

This adds a missing closing parenthesis.
2. Change:

The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either “not qualified” or “denied.”

to:

The only way to close this RfC in line with both sources and policy, therefore, is not to use either "not qualified” or "denied." There is no consensus for a particular wording. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

No consensus was reached for how to discuss Kurt Evans. Because there is no consensus and this is a "contentious matte[r] related to living people", the "not qualified" or "denied" wording should not be restored.
This makes it clear that because there is no consensus on an exact wording for this contentious BLP matter, the disputed wording should not be retained even if it was "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".
3. Change:

As an editorial matter, the simplest and most neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Mr. Evans as "Failed to gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot”, or an equivalent formulation. Because of the low participation in the debate, the exact wording to be included should be considered editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.

to:

No consensus was reached on an exact wording because of low participation in the debate. Speaking as editors instead of closers, we believe that a simple and neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Evans as "Did not gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot", or an equivalent formulation. We recommend that editors consider our suggestions as a possible basis for further discussion and that editors follow the normal cycle of editing to reach consensus on an exact wording.

This changes "Failed to gain ballot access" to "Did not gain ballot access" to avoid using the word "failed", which has negative connotations. This also makes it more clear that "Did not gain ballot access" and "Nominated but not listed on ballot" are merely our suggestions and not the consensus.

Cunard (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cunard, thank you for the suggestions and the kind words. I have incorporated your suggestions as well as some from Tazerdadog and made one or two of my own. Most notably, I changed: "The litigation closed with a decision in favor of the defendants..." to "... without a decision in favor of the plaintiffs...". Functionally, they mean the same thing but it again removes some connotations. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for coordinating the close. I have countersigned the close. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From the "No good deed goes unpunished" file, you probably want to be aware of this: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "NLT" policies, but it's true that after months and months of dealing with this garbage, I'm now planning to pursue defamation lawsuits against Wikimedia and several regular Wikipedia editors.. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Eggishorn (talk · contribs). Eggishorn and Tazerdadog (talk · contribs), our close says:

Speaking as editors instead of closers, we believe that a simple and neutral way to describe this situation is to list the Constitution Party and Evans as "Did not gain ballot access", "Nominated but not listed on ballot", or an equivalent formulation. We recommend that editors consider our suggestions as a possible basis for further discussion and that editors follow the normal cycle of editing to reach consensus on an exact wording. To make it perfectly clear: this suggestion is editorial, not administrative. The normal cycle of editing can and should attempt to refine it.

Since our suggested wording was contested, should we open a new discussion and in the mean time remove mention of Kurt Evans out of an abundance of caution per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE?

After reviewing Kurt Evans' concerns, maybe we could propose a wording like:

==Constitution Party==
The Constitution Party designated Kurt Evans to be its Senate candidate if the party gained access to the ballot. Federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected the party's request to place a candidate on the ballot.

This puts the focus on the party's failure to get him on the ballot (instead of on Evans' not gaining access to the ballot), which matches the focus of the Dakota Free Press article here (my emphasis):

In an August 31 ruling, Judge Schreier reiterates the logic of her August 15 ruling, in which she said she cannot let the Constitution Party run Evans for U.S. Senate and Schmidt for District 23 House because the litigants are not challenging the specific statutes keeping Evans and Schmidt off the ballot.

Cunard (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that @Dane: already met WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE with the addition of WP:RS. At this point, the article has been protected and a range block issued. That takes care of the disruption, but in regards to WP:BLP, I wonder if any expansion beyond the most basic statement starts running into WP:WEIGHT difficulties. Thanks again for all your input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Kurt Evans' concern is that the current wording (Kurt Evans, nominated but did not gain ballot access.") implies that it is his failing or fault that although he was nominated, he was not placed on the ballot.

His proposed wording was: "Kurt Evans, state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier". His preferred wording says that it is the party's failing or fault that it did not get a candidate onto the Senate ballot.

Kurt Evans' emphasis is supported by the Dakota Free Press article ("[the judge] said she cannot let the Constitution Party run Evans for U.S. Senate").

I think the most accurate wording would place the emphasis on the party's failing to get a candidate on the ballot and would address Kurt Evans' concerns.

Cunard (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Eggishorn, WP:Weight is the problem with expanding the mention of KE beyond what it currently is.Tazerdadog (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not see how two sentences about the Constitution Party situation can be considered undue weight. The section still would be given far less weight than the two major parties' sections. Even assuming it was undue weight, the article originally had the tighter wording, "Kurt Evans, state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier". This is one sentence. It was not discussed in the RfC. Only the subsection heading was discussed in the RfC. This sentence cannot be dismissed with the argument that it is undue weight, and it puts the focus on the state party instead of the candidate, which matches what the source says. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Having thought about it, I think somewhere in-between might be clearest and simplest. What do you think of:

==Constitution Party==The Constitution Party nominated Kurt Evans for Senate depending on the resolution of a ballot-access legal action, however, the party's request to place a candidate on the ballot was not granted.

Slightly shorter, but I think it preserves the essential information and encompasses your point about placing the onus on the party. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is a significant improvement over the article's current wording in putting the emphasis on the state party instead of Kurt Evans. Thank you for proposing it.

Kurt Evans also took issue with the "Candidates" subheader. He said he never was a candidate because the judge rejected the Constitution Party's request to place a candidate on the ballot. Because the "Candidates" subheader does not precisely capture the Constitution Party situation, I think it is better to just remove it, which you did in your proposed wording above. Cunard (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Implemented this wording in the article. I think this is the best we can do while maintaining equal weight and fairness to the situation. -- Dane talk 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Dane (talk · contribs)! I hope these changes to the article resolve this issue. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

## nice job

 The BLP Barnstar Nice job closing this contentious RfC. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DarjeelingTea, and thank you for your hard work at WP:ANRFC writing detailed, thoughtful rationales for your decisions. The care you put into every one of your closes is very appreciated. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)