User talk:Cunard

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

Good articles:




Find sources: "Search" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: "Search" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library · toolserver ·
Find sources: Gnews · Gnewspapers · Gbooks · Gscholar · NYT · Wikipedia Reference Search



Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement[edit]

By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure thank you[edit]

: (

- jc37 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit summary: When I was reviewing the close archives, I looked at the last signature of each section and mistook Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension as a close of Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs)'s because he was the one who noted the close was done. So part of the blame falls on you for being too exhausted after your extensive close rationale at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension to note that you had done the close. ;) Now fixed. Cunard (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
rofl, wow, I had forgotten about that close.
No, I was referring to two recently that I typed "done" at AN. (And as I'm sure you could tell, I was just teasing above : ) - jc37 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I knew you were teasing. :)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Template talk:Notability#RfC and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope#RfC: proposed move were closed at 08:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC) and 08:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC), respectively, while I posted my thank you note at 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC), so you were too late for that note. So maybe you were expecting me to have predicted your two future closes? ;) Cunard (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. A victim of time, once again, I see : )
Shame some heartless admin deleted this... - jc37 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That looks like a good WP:DRV candidate to overrule that admin abuse. I wonder if that heartless admin's been relieved of his superpowers for deleting one of the most important categories on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Not as yet. But who knows? If Star Wars VII is a further sign of that admin's pattern of dislike for fiction-related topics and other such fancruft... - jc37 05:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination) is one of the more egregious abuses of the tool I've seen in recent memory. How is "It's Star Wars" not a sufficient reason to override all Wikipedia policies, including bothersome, inconvenient ones like WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? Cunard (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, it seems someone managed to get the DRV underway. I'm sure that that will show that evil heartless admin to ignore head counts in closing. - jc37 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion in mind, this edit was my laugh out loud moment today : ) - jc37 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 ;) Cunard (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Would you please reconsider the #Civility_case_clarification_request part 1-7 of your questions? More specifically, I'm concerned that it asks the candidates to pre-judge an existing editor in a very probing manner. More generally, it introduces a highly controversial situation on the project into an already tedious area of elections. I'm fairly certain you could achieve the same goal of discovering how candidates feel about vested contributors and civility with less specific questions, such as part 8 of that section. Also, I think the first question in #RfC_closes is inappropriate as spam within the context of asking a question. Specifically the phrase "If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it." Thanks. MBisanz talk 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Less specific questions are unhelpful. The civility case clarification request questions have the candidates take a stand on an issue that has sparked much dissent in the community. Some have had the courage to answer the questions directly. Some have not. Of those who have answered and did not say "recuse", it is remarkable that unlike the current arbitrators not one of the new candidates has supported a ban on Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). If these editors are truthful and are elected to the Arbitration Committee, I am confident that this disappointing incident will not be repeated this year.

One arbitrator who prejudged Malleus and said he was never a Wikipedian should have recused but did not. The same committee that handed down rulings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement judged the clarification request. Because arbitrators can repeatedly judge another editor, your argument that this "pre-judg[ing]" of another editor is untoward falls apart.

All of the answers to my questions, including those to the RfC closes ones, will influence my decision to support or oppose the candidates. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Ok, I attempted to respond to your questions.
But I wonder at how they apply to being an Arbitrator? The ones concerning administrator closes, in particular.
I also think that a bit more neutrality in the questions might have been nice. In my estimation there was more than a bit of cherry picking involved in several questions.
All that aside, some were rather thought provoking, and I thank you for that : ) - jc37 09:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Challenging questions, thanks, I'll answer them one by one. Just a suggestion for the future: It would be nicer and less of a wall of text if you just asked your questions without offering your arguments, or your view on a possible range of answers. The way they are formulated right now might give the impression that you have an axe to grind, and that I want to please you with my answers---a lose-lose situation. --Pgallert (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I might echo Pgallert's view on how to format the questions--having a subpage with your own thoughts might clean up the page a bit. I've taken a first stab at answering the questions you said you wanted to see the most, I'm going to try and work on the rest this weekend. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Jc37: The questions could have been more neutral, I agree.

The first RfC close question gauges whether candidates possess the skill of assessing the consensus in complex discussions. If a candidate's answer indicates that the candidate dislikes reading uninteresting, lengthy discussions, then that candidate would make for a poor arbitrator, someone who is tasked with reading reams of evidence and statements. The question is also an attempt to increase the pool of available RfC closers at the frequently backlogged WP:ANRFC.

The second RfC close question is to determine whether candidates believe that admins have special competence or exclusive power over content decisions. Candidates' beliefs will affect their treatment of admins and non-admins at arbitration.

The third question forces candidates to take a critical look at how there is no process for contesting RfC closes and determine whether this is a problem. Contested RfC closes may be brought to the Arbitration Committee in the future if there is no review process.

I'm glad you found my questions thought-provoking, as that was my intent.

Pgallert and David Fuchs: Thank you for comments about my questions. I understand how the the text of some made answering them more difficult. David Fuch's comment is a good suggestion that I will consider if I ask questions in the next arbitration election.

Thank you, Jc37, Pgallert, David Fuchs, and the rest of the candidates for your answers to my questions. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question on to arbcom candidates[edit]

You had included my name in the "Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia:" section (identified as a result of the comments made by some arbs). Just to clarify, the Malleus case was not the trigger for the note to be placed on my talk page, and I did not threaten to leave because of that (the only place I commented on my frustration regarding the case was at the clarification request, at least as far as I can remember.). My talk page note was placed on 12 July 2012, predating the arbcom case and is a result of over a couple of years of frustration, this case was just one example of the continuing malaise, but not a driver for my thoughts. Just wanted to clarify to you as you have asked a question based (in minor part) on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my error. I mistakenly included you because I misread this comment at the clarification request. Thank you for correcting me. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi Cunard. Just a note that I've answered most of your questions, but not all. Apologies for the slow-ness but the Thanksgiving holiday is a busy time here (lots of kids hanging around making it difficult to think!). If there is any particular unanswered question you'd like me to answer, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Otherwise, I'm done. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions, RegentsPark. You don't need to answer any more, as you answered the ones I found most important. I liked your answers to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark/Questions#Civility case clarification request, particularly your answer to #5. I apologize for mistakenly including you in the list of users who considered leaving Wikipedia because of the clarification request. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, My76Strat, for informing me about the questionnaire. I must decline to answer it, however, owing to lack of time. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those questions to the ArbCom candidates[edit]

As some feedback, I found the responses to the questions you posted to be very helpful in guiding my voting decisions. Thank you for posting them. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad my questions helped you determine who to support and who to oppose. Thank you for letting me know. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas W. Knutson[edit]

I've just completed the AfD nomination for Thomas W. Knutson on behalf of an IP editor. As the editor who declined a CSD nomination on the article, I wanted to leave you a courtesy notice of the nomination. Monty845 17:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Monty. I did a cursory search for sources, which didn't turn up anything useful, so the article will likely be deleted if no else can find anything.

As I don't have the time to do an extensive search for sources and will likely be marginally active for the next month or two, I probably won't be voting at the AfD. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comments[edit]

Hi Cunard. I thought I'd drop you a message regarding your recent comments at my questions page. It didn't seem sensible to coment there, partially because threaded discussion is discouraged and partially because voting has now closed. I'd like to point out what a "nomination" for adminship means to me - it means that I have done a thorough review of the candidate, have discussed adminship with them and that I believe they stand a good chance of being elected. It doesn't mean I am their "friend" or even that I have interacted with them noticeably. Indeed, I've nominated 7 editors for adminship and only Ryan Vesey had I worked with significantly. The rest either came to me through the request a nomination page or I found whilst looking for potential candidates.

For QuiteUnusual, I did indeed find minor close paraphrasing issues, just as I always find sub-optimal factors in every candidate. I do not agree that I should have mentioned them, a nomination is not designed to give a full review of a candidate but instead an explanation of why I feel the candidate would make a good administrator. I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine.

Regarding the "personal vendetta" comment, I have not formed a concrete opinion and would welcome your explanation as to why you took it upon yourself to act in such an excessive manner with regards to Σ. I didn't find any unpleasantness in the past between you, but I also did not find you acting in that manner to any other candidate. The opinion was my own, I have not discussed the matter with the co-nominators, nor any of the editors who !voted in the RfA. (I also forgot the "not" with respect to blocking you. A block would not have been appropriate - have updated)

Regarding my neutrality. I don't see that we're in a dispute, nor do I believe you are a disruptive editor in general. I do not have a problem with the CCI filing and I'm not sure how you can have "innocent" copyright violations, I'll look into changing that essay. I expect the reason that you were singled out was that filing the CCI had longer reaching consequences than Reaper Eternals.

Regarding Malleus Fatuorum's sanction, I will keep it in mind but I cannot guarantee anything. Attempting to change that remedy is likely to open up a can of worms which will take a long time to sort out and so I do not rate doing so as a high priority. I'd rather work on improving transparency within ArbCom, if that's even possible. WormTT(talk) 10:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions#Second round of questions from Cunard #3b, you wrote (my bolding and italics):

QuiteUnusual's RfA did fail due to plagiarism concerns, yet again I feel no regret for nominating him, and would do so again. I did find some minor close paraphrasing issues when I nominated him, but did not feel that they were sufficient to worry about. I discussed the matter with QU, and warned him that even the minor ones I found may well cause his RfA to fail. With hindsight, I would have been more thorough on the investigation and would have worked with him to address these concerns, but given QU's reaction to the issue (he fixed all violations before the end of the RfA and went through his entire contribution history looking for them) I still believe he will make an excellent admin.  WormTT(talk)

You found plagiarism that in your own words might "cause his RfA to fail". This is not a matter of not giving a "a full review of a candidate" in your RfA nomination. It is a matter of giving an honest, open review of the candidate in your RfA nomination. It is a matter of alerting voters to the candidate's flaws that "might cause his RfA to fail" so voters can determine for themselves whether to support or oppose.

One editor has written at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Possible inappropriate action during an RfA, "...Worm who [is] usually dead on with nominations and come to trust [him] to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore." This blind trust in you as an RfA nominator is frequently reflected in RfA votes. These editors might not be swayed to oppose by what's disclosed in the nomination statement but others might. Other editors are impressed with your nominations though also do their own assessments. For example at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual, an editor wrote, "Generally happy with answers to questions. The people nominating also have good reputations, and their trust in this candidate makes me feel more comfortable."

Failing to be open about a candidate's flaws that "may well cause his RfA to fail" is withholding relevant information from voters. In the QuiteUnusual RfA, you could have mentioned that you found minor close paraphrasing issues, that the candidate realized his error and corrected his mistakes, and that given the totality of his contributions, you remain confident that he will be an excellent administrator.

This openness would have allowed RfA voters to gauge the seriousness of the candidate's close paraphrasing issues and then make their own conclusions about whether to support or oppose.

I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine. – you are correct that others like Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) are more qualified to judge close paraphrasing. But you were experienced enough to recognize close paraphrasing. This is an invalid excuse to deflect criticism of your non-disclosure on the basis of your perceived lack of expertise. More experienced editors cannot offer their opinion of the close paraphrasing if they are not alerted to it.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ
The candidate admitted to vandalizing another website because he disagreed with their views. No other candidate has received such a high amount of support despite such deplorable behavior. A red flag like coordinating vandalism invites scrutiny into a candidate's Wikipedia contributions. I will let other users' comments at the RfA demonstrate what I think of this behavior:

Comment 1:

1) it takes a special kind of person to waste time vandalizing a website like Conservapedia (or Liberapedia for that matter) : either someone who is immature, or someone who is a zealot. No one displaying either of these traits should ever be made administrator.

2) we don't need users, nevermind administrators, who are so entrenched in a belief system that they feel it is okay to attack ideological opponents, no matter how idiotic the target is. It brings disrepute to Wikipedia and its contributors, it is provocative and thereby makes us a target in return, and is just a net negative all around.

3) an administrator candidate who refuses to fully acknowledge past shortcomings and instead attempts to circumvent the underlying concerns by dismissing the target and by diminishing his own actions, cannot be taken seriously. Sigma's half-assed answer to Q15 basically says "it wasn't even vandalism because Conservapedia sucks" and is a splendid demonstration of why he should not be given the tools until he addresses the issue in a much more meaningful way.

Comment 2:

Someone who destroys the creative works of others because they don't agree with them has no place as an administrator on this project. Period. Ever.

Comment 3:

The nominator is not the protagonist of Bread and Wine, behaving like a priest during the day, and painting revolutionary slogans on the walls in Fascist Italy. He vandalized a marginal encyclopedia maintained by marginalized persons, who do not need self-proclained "Wikipedians" destroying their work. What he did was bullying, picking on persons who are ridiculed or viewed with contempt by the majority of the population, to impress the other boys on IRC.

Comment 4:

Which marginalised group would be next on his radar if he was "promoted" to admin? Unpopular editors?

Comment 5:

Wikipedia is not an island. Behaviour on other projects is relevant: (a) insofar as it shows problematic behaviour or attitudes that lead one to doubt (for instance) a candidate's maturity and (b) where it demonstrates a real potential to embarrass the project. Admins have a more prominent role than other editors and need to comport themselves accordingly.

Comment 6:

The "appalling" aspect of this whole process is how many people are willing to give the nominee a free pass just because the website he vandalized was "conservative". This is a completely lack of critical thinking, empathy and self awareness. What if it was a website you happened to like? Would you still be whining about "what happens off-wiki doesn't matter"? Or is this just "hey this guy shares my POV so support". The thing is that one can easily imagine a situation where tables are reversed and you'll get a, say pro-creation science nominee who vandalized scientific websites and if the right majority's in place then, THEN you'll be crying about vandalism. Bottom line is that there's a principle here. Forget about whether you like Conservatopedia or not (remember your Voltaire) and !vote on the principle. Which I do think very strongly suggests opposing.

Comment 7:

Personally I think the vandalism of Conservatopedia - especially COORDINATING such vandalisms (what's next, coordinating to get users blocked?) - is a big deal. But actually what really convinced me to vote Oppose (as opposed to just staying out of it) is the lame-ass excuses given by the nominee when asked about it. The whole "it's okay to vandalize Conservatopedia because it is bad (TM)" routine. Even if it is bad (which it probably is) who the fuck gave you the right to mess with other people's websites?!? It's not like it's an attack site, merely a website representing different point of view (one which I very strongly disagree with). That kind of sentiment displays a very high level of immaturity, bad judgement and just simply "not getting it". Honestly, I cannot even trust this person to be neutral in their editing, never mind in administrative work. If could vote Oppose five times, I would. And you don't get to trivialize my, or other opposers' opinion.

The users' names are not included because these are selective quotes. At Leaky caldron's talk page, I wrote:

When I first noticed the candidacy, I was inclined to support based on the reputation of Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). One other nominator I have not encountered before, and another I have seen exercise poor judgment in the past. However, Chaser (talk · contribs)'s question about the Conservapedia vandalism and the comments alluding to it in the "oppose" section were concerning. There was no mention of it in the nomination statements, so I believed the candidate hadn't been rigorously vetted. When I reviewed the candidate's contributions, I found a number of concerning deficiencies, so wrote a detailed oppose since by then the candidate had over 100 supports with 90%+ support.


It is not the candidate's fault that he was propped up as a good administrator candidate when in fact he was not. It is the fault of his nominators who either failed to vet him properly or failed to disclose the concerning issues up front.

The evidence was primarily on-wiki material because I saw the immaturity on Conservapedia reflected in the candidate's interactions on Wikipedia.

I could have just written "Oppose per uncommunicativeness and immaturity concerns". I would have been badgered like the rest of the opposes for diffs and evidence. So I wrote a detailed oppose with the quotes, analysis, and diffs to support my position. I expected criticism from the candidate's friends for opposing, but I did not expect threats of an RfA topic ban from two administrators.

Malleus Fatuorum's topic ban
I'd rather work on improving transparency within ArbCom, if that's even possible. – revising Malleus' Fatuorum's RfA topic ban and improving transparency within the Arbitration Committee are not mutually exclusive. I understand your reluctance at approaching this matter, but the longer you wait, the more likely this remedy will become permanent. It will set a poor precedent that expressing honest criticism at RfA will be met by very restrictive topic bans that stifle discussion.

It is better to have the restrictive topic ban revised when emotions aren't running high because Malleus opposed someone's friend. It is also imperative that the fix come from within the committee. Regular editors will be very reluctant to file another clarification or amendment request, fearing that arbitrators will attempt to site-ban Malleus again. I'd prefer to have the topic ban completely removed, but your suggestion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions#Civility case clarification request is a good start to improving the remedy: Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. Should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. If you wish to fix this remedy, I recommend you do this by the first six–eight weeks of your term. Further delay likely will mean that the remedy will become permanent and an outspoken supporter of promoting only high quality admins will remain muzzled from expressing his honest thus deeply unpopular opinions. Cunard (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
I would have written less, but I did not have the time.

Blaize Pascal, Provincial Letters: Letter XVI
We will have to agree to differ regarding RfA, I recommend and expect everyone does their own full and thorough of the candidate. I put forward the points I feel are pertinant to a candidacy and I did not feel the close paraphrasing (which I reiterate was minor) was pertinant. RfA is a terribly fickle area, where one candidate can pass where another is unsuccessful despite the issues being the same. In a similar manner, I do not generally bring up past blocks, low edit counts or arguments I may have found unless I feel they are relevant. If I nominate a person, I've been thorough, I've weighed up everything I've found and felt that they would make a good administrator. Allow me though to clarify my comment "I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine." - I know that those editors will focus on possible issues with quality of the work, especially with close paraphrasing and plagiarism issues. I know they turn up to every RfA and do a thorough review of the work. I felt that the issues I had found with QU were minor enough that they would not garner opposes from those editors. I was wrong about the level of close paraphrasing, but that's how RfA works.

Regarding Σ, I'm glad to hear that there was no sign of personal vendetta - instead it was verbosity similar to the comments above. However, to those of us who spend time in RfA it was highly unusual - I cannot remember any editor who has left quite such a detailed comment on an editor. You'll note that I did not suggest a topic ban and I would have opposed one if it had been mooted seriously (I have no doubt it would not have passed at AN). I do encourage you to be more succinct at RfA in the future though, linking to quotes rather than copying them and so on. I know this can be difficult, per Pascal, but I have found that brevity is valued on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet.

Finally, regarding Malleus Fatuorum, you are right that encouraging transparency should not stop me from working at that topic ban. However, should I be elected, I am not looking to go into the role with more baggage than I can handle, and I feel that the encouragement of transparency is a very big deal - one that will have much further reaching consequences. Despite disagreeing with the decision of the committee, I do not consider changing the outcome it a priority as it will involve much boat rocking for little improvement. My priorities may change, but that is how they currently stand. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that we disagree on the several issues we have discussed here. But that is fine. Uniform thinking would make this a dull place. Congratulations on your election to the Arbitration Committee. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, some of the editors I have the most respect for on Wikipedia are the ones I've disagreed with. I'm always up for a healthy debate, feel free to message me on my talk page or email if there's anything you ever want to discuss. Thanks for the congratulations, I'm still trying to process it! WormTT(talk) 09:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Thank you, Michael! Happy holidays to you as well. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Cunard, I've lost my taste a bit for closing RfCs for the while, but I want you to know that I appreciate your continued efforts to keep our administrative toes to the fire. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind note, Drmies. But the real work is done by closers such as yourself and the others here. I merely list discussions that are ready for closure.

I understand why closing RfCs has grown less appealing over time. There are usually many words to read and too much time and patience wasted when the closes are reverted. Thank you for closing numerous RfCs this year, but if closing RfCs takes up too much of your time and energy, I recommend directing your attention to article work or less strenuous admin tasks in the upcoming year (like you are doing now). Your skillful ability to read and summarize RfCs will be missed, but your sanity and delightful sense of humor are more important in the long run. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cunard, your name sounds so stern yet your words, and your delightfully red-linked user name, are a balm to my soul. I've closed a few more, including some old ones. I'm looking at an important right now on notability--so please allow me to blow off a bit of steam. GRAMMAR! I'm guessing at what some people mean. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if you could look over my recent closes--I haven't signed my "done"s because I'm trying to overcome some WP issues (some of us grow identities: I'm far from having a red-linked user page), but more importantly, I vaguely remember someone redoing my paperwork (I use 'archive top' and 'archive bottom') cause I did it wrong, and none of the ones I closed had one of those RfC templates on them. Thanks again, as always, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that none of your closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 6 have been reverted. Here are two edits I made so the discussion and close for Talk:Caste are easier to find. I've taken a look at the other closes and they are all fine.

Thank you so much for closing difficult discussions that other users have avoided!

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC on Creative professionals looks like a difficult discussion to close. Good luck on closing that one if that's the one you've been looking at.

Red-linked user pages are my favorite. I recommend shedding the tit, boobies, and ass and getting one for yourself. ;) Cunard (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy too. Birds and donkeys, Cunard, that's all it is. The tufted tit-mouse is one of my favorite birds, by the way; I used to see them all the time from my kitchen window in Tuscaloose. No, the tern is my favorite, hovering over the water of the canal I grew up on. Listen, maybe you feel like closing something? There's consensus on ANI on two threads: "GarnetAndBlack, incivility etc." and "Repeated editing of articles". Wanna try your hand at it? Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Any discussion with "incivility" in its title is something I'm inclined to avoid. I begin my day with ◔◡◔. Then, I ◔o◔ when I happen upon such discussions. But I've listed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing at WP:ANRFC for someone more patient than I to read, analyze, and close. What's my excuse for not closing it? I'm not a powerful, well-paid admin like you. I'm a worthless red-linked user and thus a probable vandal/troll/sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey Cunard, fat cat high-paid admin here again. I have a question for you. I ran into Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christianity922/Survivor: Samoa 2-Heroes vs. Villains Test and was wondering if you still have some zeal left to help clean up user space. This user has a ton of those pages. Do you mind having a look to see if those (all, or some) also qualify for deletion, and whether you think some mass nomination would be a good idea? I don't have much experience with that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, they recreated that page again. This indicates a waste of server space to me. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern[edit]

Long time no see. Have you considered nominating To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey for GA? I think it has a fighting chance of passing as is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, it's great to hear from you again. I hadn't thought of nominating To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey for GA. Although I agree with you that it might be a good candidate, I will be marginally active for the next few months. So I will hold off on considering a GA nomination until I have the time to read the article again and address any concerns raised by the GA reviewer. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at ANI[edit]

Hello. 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. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)[edit]

I'm not ignoring your question/request. Which is not to say I know what I want to do about it either. WilyD 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I found four independent reliable source references about Zonnon so I re-established the article WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Insight Meditation Society[edit]

Dear Cunard,

In your September 29, 2009 edit of the Insight Meditation Society, you added the text "formerly 'Insight Meditation Center'" and cited a publication by Jack Maguire. I have worked at IMS for a little over 7 years now and have a good relationship with its founders. I also have seen some of the original documents of the incorporation. In speaking with them and reviewing the founding documents I have evidence to dispute your edit. I wanted to let you know that the organization was never the Insight Meditation Center. Would you like to find another way to use the cited work in the article while removing the inaccuracy?

Best, Charlie Stevenson IT Manager Insight Meditation Society

Corezion (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charlie. I have replied at Talk:Insight Meditation Society#Disputed former name removed. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure[edit]

Hi Cunard, just a note about posting requests for closure. Closing discussions is a thankless task that can be very time-consuming, much more than it looks. For those reasons we have a shortage of people willing to do it regularly. It therefore makes sense only to post requests where the discussion needs uninvolved closure, and where it's an ongoing issue. The Natalie Tran request, for example, was about a self-published source in a BLP (which is not allowed, per WP:BLPSPS), it had been removed around six weeks ago, there was no consensus to restore it, and the bot had removed the tag, so the initiator of the discussion closed it as no consensus. In a case like that, there's no need to ask anyone else to intervene (that I can see anyway).

It's usually best to let the people involved decide whether they need to ask someone else to close it. Otherwise the board is filled up with requests that don't need closure, and the ones that do may get overlooked. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for your frequent thoughtful closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

I list discussions at ANRFC because I believe a close would improve the encyclopedia by for example deciding an important content or policy issue or by ending or preventing edit wars.

The RfC initiator found an issue important enough to open an RfC, but may be unaware that they can ask for a close at ANRFC or may have forgotten to list the discussion there. I list at ANRFC RfCs that would benefit from a close.

For example, at this close request about Mariah Carey's birth year, I listed several reasons for my posting that request. One reason was:

It is best to formally close this discussion to establish a consensus version has been reached to prevent future edit wars that may occur. A formally closed discussion allows editors to point to the concise close rather than the lengthy discussion to show future editors what the consensus is. A formal close from an uninvolved editor cannot be dismissed as easily as an unclosed, lengthy discussion.

The recent page history of Mariah Carey shows that several editors repeatedly reversed the consensus version implemented by Moxy (example), who was involved in the discussion. The close by Armbrust (talk · contribs) now allows editors who are enforcing the consensus to point to the closing statement by an uninvolved editor if they are accused of edit warring.

The Natalie Tran request—Chris troutman wrote at ANRFC (my bolding):

I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I listed the discussion for closure because of the BLP considerations. VidStatsX is used in several BLPs and article drafts. A close saying that the source should not be used in BLPs per BLPSPS would inform the discussion's participants to avoid using the source in BLPs. The source was also discussed in July 2012 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx, which the RfC initiator wrote "received little input". That RSN thread was caused by the lengthy discussion about the source at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed. Discussion about the appropriateness of using VidStatsX will likely come up again in the future, so a close explaining why using it violates WP:BLPSPS would be helpful in guiding the direction of those discussions.

I've reviewed the Natalie Tran RfC myself so I could experience the process that closers such as yourself go through. Here is my draft closing statement:

The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes (link) and The Washington Post (link), its usage on Wikipedia would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject".

117Avenue (talk · contribs)'s removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld.

I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx about the source. says: "The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!" This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Cunard (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting ‎Chris troutman (talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC.

It is time-consuming to read the discussion and write a precise closing statement, so I am very grateful to closers such as yourself who take the time to do so on a regular basis.

I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board.

Thank you for raising your concerns with me, and feel free to let me know if you have any concerns in the future about my close requests. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, you could always close discussions yourself when you find them. Most discussions don't need admin closure. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin. I prefer to list discussions that would benefit from closure rather than close them myself. RfC closes frequently need clarification, and I would not be able to provide timely responses to them. Prolific closer I JethroBT (talk · contribs) wrote:

I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to spend the time I JethroBT does to write succinct, thoughtful assessments of consensus. A patient, compassionate, and careful, closer, I JethroBt frequently receives requests for clarifications or reviews of his closures.

See the request for clarification at Roundup closure for his close of Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?, the request for reconsideration of his close at Closing Hurricane Sandy debate for his close of Talk:Hurricane Sandy#"Superstorm Sandy" in first sentence as alternate title? (which he later reversed to allow more users to weigh in), and a request for clarification at Rand edit request comment for a followup comment he made after his close of Talk:Ayn Rand#Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Little Red Wagon[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your diligent and valuable work at WP:ANRFC KeithbobTalk 19:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I second this barnstar and I'm sad that we haven't appreciated your work more prior to recent discussions. Whatever you decide to do, let me know, I'm very happy to help out with your projects. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Keithbob (talk · contribs) and ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs), for your supportive comments here and at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Number of discussions being added.

I am grateful for the work you both do in closing discussions. Your contributions to the ANRFC noticeboard are far more invaluable than mine. I will continue to list discussions at WP:ANRFC as long as I receive the support of the community of ANRFC closers. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks You are welcome for the barnstar and [thanks for the] heartfelt comments. It's my humble opinion that all of us on WP are chronically under-appreciated. I try to remember to acknowledge other people's good work often to help reverse that trend and I'm happy to see others are doing this also. I look forward to working together in the new year! Face-wink.svg -- KeithbobTalk 18:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)-- KeithbobTalk 00:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with you about people being chronically under-appreciated and appreciate your effort to counteract that. I look forward to working with you in 2014 as well! :) Cunard (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I third your idea about some people being under appreciated, especially those of us, who are basically paper-pushers. I like to think people like us handle the behind the scenes junk that needs to be handled so that those more qualified than I have the ability to create content. I've quickly learned that whenever you try to do clean-up work, you often find yourself in the middle of conflict as most content creators do not understand what all happens behind the scenes. You guys are truly the backbone, as without your work and maintenance, Wikipedia would surely fall apart. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider you to be just a paper-pusher. Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center is a well-written, well-referenced piece of content. But maybe you consider yourself a paper-pusher because you mainly do cleanup-work now? I feel the same way. :( I enjoy creating content when I have the time (which I haven't had too much lately) and doing behind-the-scenes stuff (which is my only contribution to the encyclopedia when I am too busy to create content). Cunard (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to lodge request for closure. WP:PORNBIO[edit]

Hi Cunard,

Would you be kind enough to list a neutralized request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure regarding an edit to WP:PORNBIO based on a disputed reading of consensus on its talk page. I don't feel confident in being able to present this without bias.

<biased view> All of Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs), Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs), Cavarrone (talk · contribs), & Erpert (talk · contribs) hacve recently reverted due to no consensus, in the face of undeniable case that the guideline needs fixing, and a pretty clear rough consensus on one important edit (mere nominations are not sufficient for a standalone article). Would an uninvolved administrator please consider reading the consensus with respect to WP:PORNBIO? See Wikipedia:Notability (people) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Notability (people)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. In the spirit of the above section, I'd like to thank you for your insightful contributions at MfD. I may not always agree with your opinions there, but they are always well thought out. I completely agree with Drmies (talk · contribs)' comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences about your "eloquent rant" being not too long to read. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
You and I had some challenging debates. I enjoyed them. You forced me to re-evaluate some opinions, and some assumptions, and I remember generally changing my mind to adopt something very close to your view. SPA promoters deserve far less consideration than I was giving them, for example. I decided that you are slightly smarter and slightly more pedantic, and we haven't argued since.
I've been thinking that my most useful contribution at MfD is to keep the place a little more disciplined and predictable, mostly so that many more generally productive editors need not visit it so often. Do I kid myself when I think that the absence of people agreeing with me means that they are trusting me to hold the fort?
Thanks for doing the listing, which I think you did extremely well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, although I am a fan of pornography, I am not biased (if this doesn't prove that, I don't know what to tell you). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, thank you for the kind words and the challenging debates we had. You too forced me to re-evaluate some of my positions. When I occasionally participate at MfD, I'm now inclined to give more leeway to non-SPA editors whose drafts are stale but perhaps useful in improving the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert[edit]

I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth that I did not speak (or write). I did not determine that there was consensus to upgrade to Module:Convert. The only part I played was to answer the edit request.

I am content if you will strike the sentence Trappist the monk determined there was a consensus to "Upgrade to Lua module" from your closure comments. An appropriate edit summary is probably in order.

Thank you.

Trappist the monk (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. I am sorry for my mistake. Cunard (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Request for Closure on Minphie / Drug Free Australia[edit]

I am considering un-listing this; the user has filed an unblock request, multiple admins responded and it was denied. I am not sure that editing the archive to "resolve with a finding" after this much time is helpful. However, I didn't want to just unlist your request.
What is your current opinion on the subject? Do you believe there are still un-resolved issues or points that need addressing?
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. I listed this because of StAnselm's request. I've withdrawn the request for closure since this seems to be resolved. Cunard (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Hey Cunard. I know we haven't crossed paths too much, but I have a question for you. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi TLSuda (talk · contribs). I am honored that you would like to include me in your recall process. Feel free to include me on the list. I am frequently inactive for several weeks at a time, though, so if that is a problem, feel free not to include me on the list.

On an unrelated note: When you close WP:NFCR discussions, the discussions are frequently archived very quickly, making your links to them in edit summaries or deletion logs dead links. Would you consider using Help:Permanent link or Help talk:Diff#Diff wikilinks in those edit summaries so the links are permanent? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help[edit]

Thanks for your help providing facts and context in the review of the deletion of the DigitalOcean article. Niels Olson (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for your work on the article! Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Weird pageview stats[edit]

I was going through pageview stats and noticed that your userpage is showing 52772 hits in one hour. Is that an error or is there some bot hitting it a lot in error? Gigs (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. Thank you for letting me know about my user page's anomalously high pageview stats. User:Cunard is currently listed as #19 on (archiveurl). (archiveurl) shows that the page received 606,084 hits on 2 June 2014. I do not know why my user page is getting so many pageviews. Is it an error in the tool, or is my user page really getting accessed 52,772 times an hour? In comparison, User talk:Cunard had six views on 2 April 2014 according to (archiveurl). Henrik (talk · contribs), do you know why this is happening? Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

May be some kind of view stat causing an anomoly? Matty.007 16:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea, I hoped you (Cunard) would know. We'd probably have to track down a server admin to be sure. If they are real hits there might be some clues in the user agent string or referer. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A thought, I know you are redlinked on purpose, but you might try creating the page temporarily as an experiment to see if the hits go down. Gigs (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not create my user page. That would add an entry to the page's deletion log once it is deleted. The deletion log entry would be visible whenever anyone clicked on my user page, rather than its current clean look.

User:The Philip72 (which is not a registered account) is #39 on (archiveurl) and received 1,706,521 visits in March 2014 according to (archiveurl). The number of page hits dropped to zero hits after nine days without any intervention.

User:Cunard is still receiving a large number of hits according to (archiveurl), but I hope the same drop to a more reasonable number of page hits will happen with my user page. I've asked Henrik about this issue, but if there's anyone else who could be asked, I'd be grateful. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Keyes got back to me. He went through the logs and identified the hits as a botnet, mostly eastern European Windows XP machines that have been compromised. My theory is that the bots are set up to use Wikipedia user pages as a control channel. They weren't very smart to pick your page though, since it's protected. Maybe User:Cunard is the default example in some common bot config and the user is supposed to change it, the bot author might have picked that as a default example because it's protected and blank, so that people would understand they need to change it. So little did you know, you probably have one of the world's larger botnets under your control. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking Ironholds (talk · contribs) about the large number of hits, Gigs! There is further information from Ironholds at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#Wikipedia Article Traffic Stats: Problems, weird counting, and questions (permanent link). Ironholds wrote:

I have been investigating a similar problem reported by User:Gigs and User:PiRSquared17; having gone through the request logs of a page they highlighted, I'm pretty sure it's a bot attack wide disparity in IPs, circular referer chains and a single point of commonality in user agents - that most of them are on Windows XP. We're talking through ways of detecting this in the future.

I wonder why the bot author chose User:Cunard as the default example in the common bot config rather than some other protected and blank user's page. Ironholds, what do you think about Gigs' theory? This seems to be a bot attack on the scale of hundreds of thousands of compromised computers. User:Cunard is still receiving hundreds of thousands of page views per day according to (archiveurl). Because bots are automated, it seems unlikely that a protected and blank user page would be needed to inform people that they should change the bot's default configuration. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just as confused, frankly :/. The weird thing is it's potentially a bug - the requests are looping. It asks for User:Cunard, and from there asks for User:Cunard, and from there.... Ironholds (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Ironholds! According to (archiveurl), there haven't been a large number of page views since 19 June 2014. Whether this was a bug or a bot attack, it looks like it's now resolved. Cunard (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not resolved 28,784 hits in the first hour of today. @Ironholds: @Gigs:. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
Yes, it's still going strong. 9,289,460 hits in June 2014 according to (archiveurl). 1,779,306 hits in the first four days of July 2014 according to (archiveurl). Cunard (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

1.75 million pageviews in the last 90 days. [2] You should post a 100 megabyte image on your userpage. Wikipedia servers could handle the load, but the botnet would nuke itself, lolz. Alsee (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, it's surprising that the page is still getting this many hits after five months (archiveurl of Alsee's link). Ironholds (talk · contribs), do you have any updated information about this? Is this a bug with looping requests, or is this a botnet? Cunard (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a bot(net)? - I can't imagine how it'd occur as a bug. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, look at my contributions, I want to request the removal of items inutilies but I do not know how. Can you help me?--Panam2014 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Panam2014. You have received help from User:Fitzcarmalan regarding your question. Please let me know if you have any further unresolved questions. Cunard (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi Cunard, I really appreciate your effort to keep the article Jacob Barnett providing all possible facts and reasons. Thank you. Cheers! Ashish Lohorung (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Ashish! I am glad that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) was closed as keep based on his having received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Viewfinder (talk · contribs) also did an excellent job arguing for retention. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the credit, but I have not really contributed much of any substance beyond what you contributed. I got involved because I am affected by autism and I was under the impression that attempts were being made to dismiss the case with expletives like FFS. Now that I can be satisfied that the issue is not being decided on a show of hands, I will probably revert to retirement. I note that the "60 minutes" segment had been added to the article but tagged. I will leave it you to handle the tag in whatever manner you consider appropriate. Cheers. Viewfinder (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
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. Cunard (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I know you're not an admin, but the work you do keeping a list of what needs to be closed really helps admins, so I award you the admin barnstar nonetheless. Thanks for your terrific work in that endeavor! Go Phightins! 02:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Go Phightins! (talk · contribs), for your kind words!

The credit to making sure WP:ANRFC runs smoothly belongs largely to Armbrust (talk · contribs) who tirelessly clerks the board and closers like you who take the time to carefully assess the consensus in the discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s behaviour[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s behaviour[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Evergreen Cemetery (Bloomington, Illinois)
added a link pointing to
Maud Gage Baum
added a link pointing to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo! Kids Reverts[edit]

I removed the references that were no longer working, and since I can't find a no source that is working, I put in citation needed. I think that references need to be working in order for them to be included in the article. The ones I removed are no longer working, when I click the page it says "Not found". Saturn 28 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. It was showing "Not found" because the internet was slow that day (that sometimes happens; some pages just won't load if they require Adobe even though I have Adobe). Sorry. Saturn 28 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Saturn 28 (talk · contribs). Thank you for explaining this revert. I use WebCite to archive the sources I use to prevent link rot. According to Talk:WebCite#Service outages (permanent link), WebCite has occasional service outages. That may have happened when you checked the sources. Since the outages are infrequent and no material is lost, I've continued to use the service. See Wikipedia:Using WebCite for more information about using WebCite on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Saturn 28 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Hindi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stun gun and Ordinance. 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, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Hindi[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 12:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Listing RfCs on the closure noticeboard[edit]

I noticed that you listed a large number of RfCs on the closure board, including RfCs for which formal closure was not necessary or for which the dispute had ended. The page already has a serious backlog. What are the criteria that you use to decide whether to request closure for an RfC? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I request closure for RfCs and other discussions to record the consensus through succinct summaries from uninvolved editors.

Close requests are usually fulfilled within a week while more are added every week. Easy discussions are closed quickly because they take little time and reading to close. The difficult, more contentious discussions usually linger much longer than a week.

A two-month closure request analysis of the number of discussions before and after my closure request posts:

My review indicates that most discussions are closed within two weeks of closure requests being posted. Controversial discussions are the discussions that remain after two weeks.

ANRFC appears to be frequently backlogged, but that's because ANRFC has a high churn rate. Closure requests are always being posted and handled. This is mainly an indication that ANRFC is an active, healthy noticeboard where closers do excellent work.

I think this post was prompted by this 21 September 2014 closure request about Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: Is a suitable source for this content?. I have closed the discussion. I hope my comments there are helpful. Thank you for advertising this RfC in numerous relevant locations and providing detailed evidence that Elio García and Linda Antonsson of are established experts on the topic. Your work made the RfC easier to close. I wish you the best of luck in the next phase of the discussion in answering the question about whether the proposed edit improves the article.

By the way, thank you for your recent detailed closes at ANRFC!

Cunard (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The extra mile on Oathkeeper[edit]

While I personally believe that the RfC also showed a consensus that the material merits inclusion, thanks for putting in all that work writing such an involved closing rationale. I feel that it really respects everyone involved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24. Thank you for your kind words. I hope a detailed closing rationale will establish definitively that is reliable per WP:SPS so that that issue does not stand in the way of other questions.

I agree that I could have found a rough consensus that the material merited inclusion since this is a matter of editorial judgment and a numerical majority of the RfC participants believed that the material merited inclusion. But I felt uncomfortable doing so since the RfC was framed to discuss (and was mostly about) the source's reliability. Rather than impose a solution from an RfC discussing a narrower question, I thought a fresh RfC discussing only whether the disputed addition improves the article would be more accepted by participants. Cunard (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Windows Police Pro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering. 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) 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
exceptional work cleaning up open and lingering issues via RfC BlueSalix (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar and kind words, BlueSalix! Cunard (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
de nada BlueSalix (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

New template for WP:ANRFC[edit]

Just to let you know, I've created {{Initiated}} which is documented. What it basically does is colorize the text so that if an RfC has been open less than 30 days, it will be blue; if it is more than 60 days it will be red (and add ANRFC to Admin backlog cat); and if it is in between 30-60 days it will be green. I think this will make it easier for us closers to pick out the red ones that have been waiting longer for a close and pay much less attention to the blue ones that may need a little longer per BOBSLED. I've applied the template to all the existing discussions where you had marked them as (initiated ## Month 2014) and added a few more initiated dates. I'd love some feedback on whether or not you think the template needs any additional modifications. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13. I think {{Initiated}} is an excellent improvement to WP:ANRFC. I cannot think of any modifications to it. Thank you also for your superb work with improving WP:ANRFC archiving through using User:ClueBot III and User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette editor poll[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have asked that the editor poll on electronic cigarette be closed. As the person who started the poll, I have to ask, why? The poll by its parameters cant be used to decide anything. link to poll and we did not get a very good response to it, though I wish more would have. The whole purpose was to give other editors an idea of the point of view of the other editors, not to come to any conclusions. AlbinoFerret 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlbinoFerret. The listing is my mistake. I agree with your and Bellerophon's comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 16#Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14#Editor Poll to archive the closure request without action. Cunard (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier[edit]

Hi Stifle. I think the sources provided by Yankees10 (talk · contribs) and the analysis by Rlendog (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier clearly demonstrate that Zach Collier passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. At the time of redirection, the article contained several paragraphs of encyclopedic information about the subject that was sourced to multiple reliable sources. Would you consider revising your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier from "redirect to List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks" to "no consensus"? Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No. But redirection is a normal user action which can be undone by any editor who feels it is appropriate, in line with WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification, I have restored the article. Cunard (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederic D. Price for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederic D. Price is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vrac (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PurpleSongs logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:PurpleSongs logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin delete File:PurpleSongs logo.png with a note in the deletion log that an updated logo, File:Purple Songs Can Fly Logo 2014.jpg, has been added to the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Cunard, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Frederic D. Price[edit]

Hi, I have userfied this article at User:Cunard/Frederic D. Price. --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Randykitty. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cunard![edit]

Global account[edit]

Hi Cunard! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Martin (boxer)[edit]

Hello Cunard!! any luck heaping me start the WP:DRV discussion for Martin subject would be greatly appreciated. I want to make sure it's done correctly, as I don't have much experience in this area. New Year greetings!!! All the best, C.dunkin (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi C.dunkin. Happy New Year to you too! I have taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer).

The best approach to getting the close overturned is to have a singular focus on how the sources I listed were not discussed by the AfD participants. There was no consensus that the subject failed or passed Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because only three editors discussed the sources.

If an editor says something like "entirely localized or specialised routine coverage", the best response is: "I disagree with this comment. But we cannot discuss that here because the sources were not discussed at the AfD and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review says:

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

This is following the closing admin's sound advice that "just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV".

Otherwise, the DRV result will be "keep deleted"; "Both sides were just doing AfD Round 2 and talking past each other" as the DRV closer at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 2#Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod wrote.

Cunard (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You much!! C.dunkin (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Cunard, Good-Morning, I'm wondering if there was a template I could follow that would allow me to format the sources the way you did on the articles 2n'd nomination page. I've attempted a few different times, but have been unsuccessful. C.dunkin (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi C.dunkin. You can format the sources by using a Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web template. In articles, I use <ref> and </ref> tags so the references appear at the bottom of the article in the {{reflist}} section.

In deletion discussions, I omit the <ref> and </ref> tags. Here is an example:

{{cite news |last=Butcher |first=Lucy |date=2014-02-13 |title=Frigo and Ryan Martin make perfect pair |url= |newspaper=[[SportsPro]] |accessdate=2015-01-13 |archiveurl= |archivedate=2015-01-13 }}

Cunard (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cunard after a long debate. Finally it looks like result was keep. Do you know what the protocol is to have the Notability tag removed? Also, thank you for your participation. I've learned allot here at wikipedia. Im looking forward to my next article... C.dunkin (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is excellent that the closing admin read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination) and determined that editors supporting retention proved the subject was notable. That means that it is correct to remove the notability tag, which you've done. Good luck on your next article! I hope it will go better than this rocky introduction to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 January[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Leelah's Law[edit]

Shouldn't Leelah's Law redirect to Death of Leelah Alcorn instead of to Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching my mistake. I have fixed the redirect. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Computer Economics[edit]

May I ask for your help in reviewing and revising the article about Computer Economics? I am a COI editor and should not edit the page directly, but I have left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Fscavo (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fscavo. I can help revise Computer Economics within the next few weeks but am unable to do it at the moment. Cunard (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you! Fscavo (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin -- request[edit]

Is the {{Do not archive until}} template needed or helpful at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article? The OP (Jytdog) says s/he is walking away from the article. And I see no consensus developing to reverse the closure. Also we have more POV warriors coming in with edits while the review is pending and draft article suggestions are on the talk page. (I've asked for in indefinite PP for the article.) If the AN thread archives by itself I think editors can focus on the article talk page rather than wondering what will transpire on the AN. If you would agree, please remove the template so that the thread can archive in the normal 48 hour cycle. (This assumes no comments pop up.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Srich32977. I'd prefer that an uninvolved admin review and close the discussion, which is why I added the {{Do not archive until}} template to prevent the thread from being prematurely archived. A close would either endorse or overturn the close, so there is no confusion about what the consensus in the discussion was.

Also, the comment by a discussion participant, Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) here indicates that a close would be helpful in providing clarity to the situation: "Discussion on the article talk page cannot go anywhere unless it is determined exactly what is required by the close." A close of the closure review would resolve what the community consensus is about "what is required about the close". Cunard (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC
Thanks to you both. I understand. I'd just prefer that nature (i.e., the 48-hour archive bot) run its course. The result would be the same as "no consensus to change" the closure. We'd then have one less drama board to watch. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we agree there's no consensus to change the closure; there's also no consensus as to the meaning of the closure; that is, exactly where the conspiracies are to be removed. The closer has said it applies to the lead (although his arguments are inconsistent, as they would also apply to the body), and the RfC talked about the first sentence. Perhaps Jytdog (and I) didn't make it clear what we were asking about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is an open thread. I intend to get an answer or get a green light from that board to take it elsewhere (which I ~think~ would be arbcom but I need to read up on this). Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI Arbcom won't get involved. The question is a content matter and outside their purview. I think the best course of action is continued discussion on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC closure review[edit]

Be very, very careful with your semantics. Do not interperet things in your own words that have not been said. It will only backfire on you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script.

The closure review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (permanent link). I believe I have accurately represented the timeline. If you disagree, feel free to point out my errors at the closure review. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) OP sounds like a threat - or maybe a promise! Leaky Caldron 17:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see you around, Leaky Caldron! :) Kudpung ought to know that threats don't intimidate me, so it's probably a promise. Will that promise be kept? Cunard (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung loves passive aggression, it would seem. Although, in my case, his aggression was less than passive, but still misguided IMO. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
He needs to throw his Admin. weight around a bit less, stop describing editors as "riff raff" and generally stop acting like a latter day Wackford Squeers. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC) check-in[edit]

Hello Cunard,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to For more information about how to use clippings, see .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Learning experience[edit]

Thanks for the comments on that close question. Should I have known SilkTork was an admin? AlbinoFerret 23:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've skimmed the discussion at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#RfC: Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it and think your close is fine. SilkTork (talk · contribs) expressed a view about the article's content and later analyzed several sources about the topic. SilkTork is acting as an editor rather than as an admin in the discussion. Therefore, you did not overrule him because you were acting as an uninvolved editor while he was an involved editor participating in the discussion. And it is not necessary to know whether he was an admin or non-admin because he was acting as a regular editor.

He removed the RfC tag with the edit summary "close", but he did not summarize the consensus. He only wrote "This matter appears to be resolved". There was no "close" to be overruled.

It is well established practice and policy that:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. I don't think we can say there is any iron-clad policy or consensus on this issue, but generally there should be a very good reason for anyone to overturn another users close of an RFC.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review, 13 February 2013

The purpose of this policy is to allow non-admins to put great time and care into closing controversial discussions without the fear that anyone can sweep away their hours of work with a revert.

This principle was upheld in the December 2014 RfC closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal.

If your close is challenged and you cannot come to an agreement with the challenging editor, you or the challenging editor can take your close to WP:AN for a closure review. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of past closure reviews.

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I dont normally look through the history and read the edit comments. But had I known it was supposed to be closed, I probably would have just archived it and left an already done on the requests page. I don't want to step on anyones toes, I just want to help where I can. AlbinoFerret 23:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the discussion was closed (no summary of the consensus was provided), so what you did was fine. If you see a close in the future, maybe you could box up the discussion with a link to the other editor's summary. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For your effort in loging a deletion review request for the article on Scott Ambrose. Sorry it's a bit late! Thanks again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Lugnuts (talk · contribs)! Link to the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 2#Scott Ambrose. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Hi Cunard, this is to say thank you again for saving my article People of Nepal (book). I didn't notice it previously. You are my hero. :-) . Cheers Ashish Lohorung (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ashish Lohorung. I'm glad I was able to save an article about an influential academic book about Nepal. Link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People of Nepal (book). Cunard (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

small suggestion[edit]

Browsing back to the first edit of this Talk page, then further, I find my way to [[3]], showing you active in 2008. You've been around. Why suggest to others who don't know you, that you may be a newbie and your views can or should be discounted, by having a redlink user-page? If you don't want to have such a page, one alternative that removes the "hit me"-type sign on your back, is to simply put a redirect there, redirecting to your Talk page. Just a thought. Cheers, --doncram 22:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer not to have a user page. See my comments at User talk:Cunard/Archive 8#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27#Last-minute rescue:

By the way, I posted an April 2005 quote about lacking a userpage from Uncle G (talk · contribs) at User talk:Cunard/Archive 7#Request. Several quotes that particularly resonate with me:

"I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has 'been on for a week' or is 'a vandal with a user name'. I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do many other editors who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty ..."
"I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day."
"My 'identity' to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and can only be my contribution history. I want it to be my contribution history."

I think many established editors are aware that I am not a newbie whose views should be discounted. Those that don't should be able to find out from my comments that I am an experienced editor. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Array Networks[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me with Array Networks, I do not have access to high beam does this pass GNG? Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a list of sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks establishing that Array Networks clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (from E.M.Gregory)[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Nice work sourcing Bill Shanks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs)! Link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Shanks. Cunard (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

DRVs and new drafts[edit]

Your current Array Networks DRV reminded me of WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 June 25#Sir Edward Peel. The moment the DRV closed I flung in my userspace draft (copy-paste because I'd written all of it). The people wanting the article deleting must have been watching like hawks but they didn't spot that the references are all passing mentions except one (or arguably two) of them! A fascinating subject and it spawned off, for me, an even better topic Big-game tunny fishing off Scarborough. No encyclopedia would be complete without an article on that! Thincat (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks.

Big-game tunny fishing off Scarborough is a well-written, fun article. Excellent work!

Edward Peel (big-game fisherman) should be safe from deletion if at least one or two of the sources discuss him nontrivially. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Cunard (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination)[edit]

Page is linked in the topic title above thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this?[edit]

I have this article stuck in my space User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy, there was a long discussion on the talk page of that article regarding the history. Panyd gave a few recommendations here, I was wondering if you could use High Beam and add a few sources from medical journals such as sexology studies? As far as I can tell this article already passes every form of GNG. General WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes hinge on WP:NEO, but that clearly does not apply here. Is there anything you could do? Valoem talk contrib 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like nothing to do with this. From academia it's an interesting subject but the article doesn't appear to address those interesting historical incidences. Good luck and god speed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for all your help Panyd, I was hoping after some changes you recommend were addressed you could participate in a DRV, if not that is fine as well. There is tons of bias against this topic I have some idea why, but it is hard to go alone. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Like Panyd (talk · contribs), I'd rather not work on this. This topic is very contentious with heated editors on both sides. It's more enjoyable for me to edit less controversial articles. I recommend asking the contributors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to provide more sources about "involuntary celibacy". Cunard (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The entries at WP:ANRFC[edit]

Hi Cunard. The entries at WP:ANRFC you added recently all seem to ask for an admin to close, I shy away from those that indicate an admin is needed. AlbinoFerret 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cunard. Thanks for taking the time to update the RfC list at ANRFC. I'd like to point you, however, to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs #4, and quote "It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor". Although I personally think that sometimes admin closure may be requested for a reason, "a February 2013 RFC affirmed equal status for admin and non-admin closures." Non-admins are well-advised to refrain from doing overly contentious closures, but they can not be summarily excluded from closing RfCs. I suggest you amend your requests accordingly. Kraxler (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the notes, AlbinoFerret and Kraxler. This is my mistake. I meant "experienced editor" instead of "admin" and have fixed my posts at WP:ANRFC. Thank you both for your excellent work at ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks /* Kodjo Adabra */[edit]

Thank you for your !vote and comments on AfDKodjo Adabra. This was my first article, and I thought that if the Travel to West Africa paragraph wasn't enough ( my argument is that it is) the two student newspapers would be, meeting criteria under WP:PEOPLE. Consensus was not convinced :/ ... yet!

Me either really actually, y'alls argument seems rather... strong... in any case I sincerely appreciate all of your comments.

This is the first time I've had an article deleted... what can I do about getting it archived or better would an available draft... Nolanpowers (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article was moved by the closing admin to Draft:Kodjo Adabra. I recommend finding and adding to the draft significant coverage in reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject (such as newspaper and magazine articles from publications unaffiliated with Kodjo Adabra's educational institutions). Good luck and let me know when you have a revised draft available! Cunard (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

thanks for chiming in on Waywords and Meansigns page! too bad it was deleted, but we did all we could

Psychoanalymass (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Psychoanalymass (talk · contribs), it's too bad that Waywords and Meansigns was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waywords and Meansigns even though it has received the "significant coverage" in reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Two of the articles about Waywords and Meansigns were published after the AfD had started, which indicates that there may be more coverage in the near future. Once there is more coverage, the article can be recreated without violating {{db-repost}}. You can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for the article to be undeleted and moved to the draft namespace or userfied. I am happy to help recreate the article once there has been more coverage. Cunard (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Would appreciate if you could cease from attacking the messenger and using such pejorative terms. As you can see I believe all of my maintenance calls, so debating the article not the editor would be appreciated. Thanks, Widefox; talk 12:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not attacking the messenger. I am attacking the multiple tags you placed on LearningRx. See the quote on User:Hobit: If you made an effort to fix those issues or made specific actionable comments about what steps could be taken to remedy the alleged issues (thus allowing the removal of the tags), then I would not have strongly opposed the tags' addition. But currently it's unclear what specific changes need to be made to get the tags removed. Cunard (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that in the same breath... "I am not attacking the messenger" vs "If you made an effort" and "alleged".
My opinion is as good as any other random person on the page (I've got no connection with any org in that field, and I'm not even in the US). I do sometimes work on COI, and I've got the Username violation SPA / COI account blocked and may have come to the article from that POV, I can't remember.
There's multiple issues, specific, actionable. I've edited the article addressing them and inline tagged a specific issue it's all specific and justified on the talk.
So you don't like the tags. Repeating that doesn't add anything, and is getting offtopic and disruptive in itself. The right place to take up discussion on either my use of tags, or tags per say is elsewhere. Widefox; talk 09:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Attacking an action (or an inaction) is different from attacking the messenger. The {{notability}} tag was removed by Boleyn (talk · contribs), who wrote: "removed notability tag; no consensus to delete at 2 AfDs. If anyone still has concerns, they could try AfD again." Cunard (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add my two-pennies worth seeing as I was pinged. Thank you both for taking the tine to volunteer on this encyclopaedia - we're all doing it out of the goodness of our hearts. I have to say, I hate Hobit's quote; just because someone raises a concern, doesn't mean they have to solve all the problems associated with it, or even if they have the time or expertise. Widefox is not the 1st editor to doubt the notability of the article in question. Thank you both for your different, but both valid, contributions to the article. We're never all going to agree on every edit. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with the WP:BOLD reasoning behind Hobit's quote, the tone and sentiment of it deriding volunteers effort is not conducive to WP:COLLAB. It may only be good for humour, rather than practical advice due to the theory that it may be better for WP for other WPians to fix it instead of the tagging editor due to division of labour / comparative advantage.
My sentiment is A bug report is useful, a patch is better, fixing is best.
Take {{linkrot}}... I'm curious to know if Derek R Bullamore likes filling-out the refs, as I enjoy seeing them so rapidly fixed. I'd be happy to fix any dab for him or anyone (and easy for me to offer as there's no Twinkle tag for it!)
I actually agree with Boleyn's removal. (although in this instance I'd still rather use a tag to express my level of doubt than taking to AfD a third time in close succession). Widefox; talk 09:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
With no opinion on the underlying discussion, what pisses me off is when people place tags and either A) it is extremely unclear what the issue is or B) it's pretty clearly a "I didn't get my way, I'm sticking a tag on" as a reaction. Neither helps the encyclopedia and it's darn reasonable to ask the tagger what they actually expect the tag will help with. If they just think there aren't enough sources and are aware there don't seem to be any more (which is what this _sounds_ like) that's a problem as it isn't helpful (or I'd guess even meant to be helpful). If they have specific sources they'd like added or feel there are other problems that are solvable (other than getting their way in the discussion/AfD) tags can be very useful. If not, it is actively hurtful to the article and project and is therefor inappropriate. 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting here, Hobit (talk · contribs). As a side note, I've found your comments at DRV and AN regarding RfC closure reviews always thoughtful and dead-on.

The tag on your user page contains sage commentary about how tags are frequently misused on Wikipedia. The discussion at Talk:LearningRx#Notability can be both or either A) and B). Look at the 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC) and 08:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC) comments in the discussion about removing the {{notability}} tag. I wrote:

{{notability}} says, "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." What actionable comments do you have about "adding reliable secondary sources about the topic" so the tag can be removed? The article already includes the Entrepreneur, The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, KTEN, Associated Press, and The New York Times, so it's very unclear why you think the article's deficient in that respect.

I also emphasized earlier in the discussion that the subject was covered in nearly six pages of a book from the reputable publisher Penguin Books. The response to these sources was:

"trivial coverage" sources don't help. i.e. that's specific actionable - adding non-trivial sources. It is OK to challenge it, and per WP:BURDEN it is not up to me to find specific sources (or justify AfDs that I didn't initiate).

[Other commentary not about the sources.]


This response (and none of the responses Widefox made in the discussion) indicated what was deficient about the existing sources in the article, two of which are very high quality (the book and The New York Times article). It is incredibly difficult to assume good faith when very specific arguments about the sources are countered by vague responses that the sources are "trivial coverage".

Boleyn (talk · contribs), thank you for commenting here. I like how you withdrew your AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolmen Press and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialism with a Northern Accent after I provided sources that established notability. I've observed too many AfD nominators and participants who either don't return to the discussion or make vague arguments that the sources are insufficient.

When I was an early Wikipedian, I tagged numerous articles with maintenance templates in similar circumstances to Hobit's A) it is extremely unclear what the issue is. As long as your tags are made in good faith and clearly justified in an edit summary or on the talk page, then I think they should be fine. In fact, you helped fix a mistake I made six years ago. On 31 May 2008, I tagged Magali Lunel with the {{notability}} tag even though it is obvious from the article content that she was notable at the time. The tag stayed on the article until 23 May 2015 when you removed it and posted a comment at Talk:Magali Lunel#Notability tag. I appreciate your correcting my mistake and letting me know about the tag's removal in case I wanted to take the article to AfD.

Cunard (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hobit there has to be some latitude for other editors in a collaborative environment. I can understand frustration, but tags are somewhat subjective and in this case there was disagreement over notability (which is probably addressed now). Your comments about other articles/editors may be justified (I do not know). What I do know is that blanket statements about tagging, and a mantra embodied in your userpage hosted tag about overuse comes up against WP:AGF suggest channeling that frustration solely in a humorous way (e.g. into a humorous essay). Here it was weaponised, and trotted out as if an essay / guideline / policy when the three or four of the most important (including potentially legal, and MEDRS issues) were highlighted and addressed, even after when each justified on the talk. As a humorous essay yes, if used as an AGF accusation (which then trumps any tag overuse issue) so the burden shifts from the tagger to justify, to the AGF accuser. The result here was disruption while both sides have to justify. It fails WP:COLLAB.
It's somewhat naval gazing to have the focus distracted onto tags per se when we have a new article with serious issues. Hobit, check the talk again - I've even put a source there, and the notability isn't the biggest issue now.
Cunard as this hasn't been WP:DROPTHESTICK yet, there's an irony worth reflecting on here too - cutting to the chase - an editor with less edits telling an editor with more that they should edit more. Widefox; talk 09:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not bring up Hobit's tag until I believed that you were not arguing in good faith about the {{notability}} tag. To respond to a list of reputable sources already in the article including The New York Times and a Penguin Books–published book with:

"trivial coverage" sources don't help. i.e. that's specific actionable - adding non-trivial sources

is unproductive and a waste of my time. It does not tell me why the sources are insufficient. Is The New York Times unreliable? Is the book unreliable? Is The New York Times article not in-depth enough? Are six pages in a book not in-depth enough?

I repeatedly asked for clarification on why the sources were insufficient at Talk:LearningRx#Notability, and I never got specific answers. Hobit's satiric tag perfectly captured this situation.

an editor with less edits telling an editor with more that they should edit more – it's unclear what this is responding to, but to clarify, I prefer quality over quantity. If more edits improve the quality of an article by clarifying a maintenance tag, then it is inarguable that more edits should be made.

Please do not edit my comments to change the <p> tags to <p/> tags, which you did here. These edits mess up my comments' formatting.


First paragraph.

Second paragraph


First paragraph.Second paragraph

The first uses a <p> tag, while the latter uses a <p/> tag. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Regarding your stated concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 7 with specific admin actions, may I suggest that the discussion be kept specific to the article? Any concerns about patterns of administrator behavior are better addressed per WP:ADMINABUSE. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for moving the deleted article back to draft space. Cunard (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz comments[edit]

Just wondering, have you had previous bad experience with User:Spartaz? I don't particularly like the tone of these comments:

"Enough with the walls of text. You already had your say. Why not leave some space for other opinions." ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Asking the question was fine but why did he ping me unless he was hoping to get a reaction? Sorry but this editor looks like he is intentionally stirring the pot here and that is far from helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Not being an apologist for EDDY, but I didn't originally notice that you got pinged until you mentioned it and I saw the wikilink. Vive AGF. Honestly, I see lots of discussions that people link a user name out of habit, some of which I'm doubtful a ping was intended. At any rate, EDDY can speak for themselves. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
What was that you were saying about AGF ??? Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
AGF: I made no assumption on how you landed on this page, but it was because you were pinged. Nothing more.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment was directed towards someone who said, "As usual, there is no problem with someone recreating the article if they can do it better". When Editorofthewiki followed this advice by recreating the article after he did it better by adding a new claim of notability and three new sources, that editor then tagged the article for speedy deletion and reverted an uninvolved admin's speedy decline. Editorofthewiki wrote in the edit summary when he removed the speedy deletion tag: "Remove, don't be a jerk". I can understand and sympathize with his non-AGF reaction. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When did I ping you? Do you mean when I asked for your input at the DRV? I posted on your talk page because Bagumba had asked that you clarify your reasoning, which you did. However, I am not a fan of snide remarks, especially when I thought Cunard had a point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:PING is triggered whenever someone is mentioned with a link to their account, e.g. [[User:Example]], as was the case in your opening comment in this thread. I'm sure you are not the only person unaware of this.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pinging Spartaz. Had you not pinged him, we could have been accused of talking about him with letting him know that he was being talked about. But when you pinged him, you were accused of "intentionally stirring the pot". Neither action is safe from accusations it seems. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Editorofthewiki, thank you for your question. I don't like the tone of the comments either. Yes, I've had a previous bad experience with Spartaz. After Spartaz temporarily undeleted Seth Goldman (businessman) for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15#Seth Goldman (businessman), I rewrote the article while it was at DRV. I used none of the content that Spartaz had temporarily undeleted. (The deleted article had zero sources; my new draft had nine sources.) But Spartaz blanked my rewrite with the edit summary "restore temp delete. Article hadn't been restored has it?"

    I disagreed with his action, and I asked the community for input at at WT:CSD. Spartaz then called me "obsessive" and said, "You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that." Vejvančický (talk · contribs) also found Spartaz's response untoward and wrote:

    @Spartaz: You told to Cunard "you are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way" which is a bit tactless. It was Cunard who actually did the encyclopedic work with exemplary competence (s/he has found the sources and rewritten the article in accordance with the Wikipedia's standards). The improvements were reverted and Cunard asks why, which is his/her right, and it is also quite logical.

    I challenged Spartaz's blanking of my rewrite, and he made personal comments about me. Your words at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 7#Dairese Gary about your experience with Spartaz capture my situation with him perfectly: "Spartaz's actions speak of someone attempting to flex his muscles toward me."

    When I reviewed the "Dairese Gary" DRV, I noticed that he had deleted your work despite two admins (including the AfD closing admin) saying you could recreate the article once you had improved it. You improved the article by adding a new claim of notability and three new sources, and your work was speedy deleted by Spartaz despite another admin declining the speedy deletion.

    Spartaz then said to you, "You sir have less manners then my 10 year old." All you said to him were "WP:DICK move" and "stupid move", which are very tame comments about his speedy deletion and full protection, which had no support in CSD G4. Spartaz, on the other hand, made a personal comment about your manners.

    Taking all of the above into consideration, I am unsurprised with Spartaz's response to me yesterday, which you've noted—and I agree—are "snide remarks".

    Spartaz and I have been active participants at DRV for years. I haven't observed this behavior from Spartaz in the past and have admired his insightful, sound closes at WP:DRV. I have had only positive experiences with him until last month. Until last month, I've never seen him deleting/blanking editors' good faith rewrites and making personal comments to them when they contest his actions.

    If his actions are policy-compliant because the recreations violated {{db-repost}}, then I would have no objections. But when his admin actions are not policy-compliant, his behavior is demoralizing because it discourages editors from improving articles at WP:DRV. Though this has happened twice in the last two months, I hope it will not happen again.

    Cunard (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Another diff from DRV: link. Cunard (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for NewsDiffs[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cunard. Thanks for your very comprehensive comments about White Southerners at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 11. Many of the delete comments in the AfD felt quite WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, with little engagement with the sources. Perhaps I should have been more insistent that they engage with the sources during the AfD, but I appreciate that you at least have. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the "delete" editors grounded their arguments in their personal opinions and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This frequently happens in AfDs. Although insisting that editors engage with the sources is a sound action, they too often are incapable of or unwilling to put in the effort to do so (example). The only recourse is to hope that the closing admin notices the lack of engagement and if the closing admin fails to notice to take to WP:DRV.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 11 editors don't seem to be willing to engage with the sources either, instead making generic comments that can be copy-and-pasted to any DRV. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cunard. I notice that you've been requesting a lot of RFC closes. Of course, I have no problem with that, but I am curious how you pick out those particular RFC's for your close requests. And, have you been doing that for a long time? Are you involved in all of those RFC's, and if not why not close them on your own? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I select expired RfCs from Wikipedia:Requests for comment where I think a close might be helpful. I've been doing this for several years. I am not involved in the RfCs. I do close the occasional RfC, but I am not a regular RfC closer for reasons mentioned here. By the way, thank you for your recent detailed RfC closes! Cunard (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, I hope to do lots more. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cunard - just as a thought, have you considered only posting a week or two of the backlog at a time? The individual entries might last a bit longer since we wouldn’t have the backlog length as a motivating factor, but there might be fewer objections if the size of the list is more consistent over time. Sunrise (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a possibility if I have the time to do the ANRFC posts every two weeks. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the work itself doesn't need to be something you do regularly. I was thinking that after each time you prepare the new list of entries, you could split them into two or three groups to be posted a week or two apart. So once closers have done some work on the first entries, then you could just copy and paste the next ones. Sunrise (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've considered your comments. I'd prefer that the page is as up to date as possible so that the discussions' close is not further delayed. This allows potential closers to be able to review the full set of discussions eligible for closure, maximizing the opportunity for them to find a few they are comfortable with closing.

But to keep the list's size more stable, I'll split up closure requests into two or three batches if I have not updated the list in four or more weeks. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Technology Education and Literacy in Schools[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Technology Education and Literacy in Schools 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! Yoninah (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quint Studer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (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) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Technology Education and Literacy in Schools[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Thanks for your help and opinion on the Lo Mein (book) AfD, there is also an open MfD (straight from drafts)here, if you care to look at it. I am so dumbfound by the nominator and his friend's abandonment of the policies and guidelines that I've started an RfC, proposing the guidelines be changed to fit their interpretation. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)#Criteria_for_Notability_does_not_reflect_current_consensus Please feel free to inform me of interesting deletion discussions you may encounter. -- 009o9 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussions help?[edit]

Hi there, not sure if you remember the above article I created, but I do definitely recall your help in keeping it, which was greatly appreciated given 2 experienced users' attempt to impose their wrong will (for a refresh, here is the relevant page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsa Specialised Vehicles.

Something similar is kind of happening now, and I apologise if this is of no interest to you and cannot assist again with an unbiased mindset. I initially added F1 "safety car" models to each F1 season article. People complained and it was removed. So I then added the model names in Safety Car and people complained. SO I THEN created List of Formula One safety cars and the usual "F1 project/portal" again (or at least 2 main ones, to be honest) are again complaining and wanting the list deleted also - see DELETION PAGE.

I have tried to show notoriety with external links, argued their WP intepretations are biased and, in addition, none of the opponents have yet explained to me what's the difference between the List I created and something like List of Pontiac vehicles.

If you have time or interest, would value your view too. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo Life[edit]

I am looking for sources for this website User:Valoem/Nintendo Life, however it appears most sources are quotes and the primary source itself. What is your method of finding secondary sources? Is High Beam better than Google for this? Valoem talk contrib 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Through Googling, I found two sources about Nintendo Life:
  1. Cullen, Johnny (2011-09-09). "Eurogamer partners with Nintendo Life in ad deal". VG247. Archived from the original on 2015-08-23. Retrieved 2015-08-23. 

    The article notes:

    Nintendo Life, the biggest independent Nintendo games website in the world, was founded in 2006 by Anthony Dickens as part of the US launch of Wii, and has since gone on to integrate two other Nintendo sites – Virtual Console Reviews and WiiWare World – into the current existing NL site today with Darren Calvert and Damien McFerran.

    According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Checklist, VG247 is a reliable source.
  2. Pearson, Dan (2011-09-09). "Eurogamer partners with Nintendo Life in ad deal". Archived from the original on 2015-08-23. Retrieved 2015-08-23. 

    The article notes:

    Founded in 2006 by Anthony Dickens, Nintendo Life is the world's largest independent Nintendo site, growing with the addition of Darren Calvert and Damien McFerran's Virtual Console Reviews and WiiWare World to the original enterprise in 2009. is a sister site of Eurogamer (both are owned by Gamer Network).

    According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Checklist, is a reliable source.

These two sources might or might not be enough for Nintendo Life to pass an AfD. I was unable to find significant coverage about Nintendo Life through HighBeam (link 1 and link 2) or (link 1 and link 2), two places for sources that I check.

Cunard (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WorldCat counts in AFD discussions.[edit]

Thought this might interest you, apparently OCLC (WorldCat) allows vendors to update the catalog. Details at this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Racket (book). I have nothing to do with the article, I start my day now by reading a shortcut named Wikipedia:AFD/Today The really poor AfD nominations always seem to have the same usernames connected. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

Hi Cunard... I hope you are well. You had some prophetic words regarding File:Anne Aghion- Photo.jpg five years ago. As a result of an inquiry I made on the OTRS noticeboard, the file is now listed for deletion. Just a courtesy notice in case you would like to voice an opinion. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy notice. It looks like the image should be deleted because of improper licensing. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Catchword Branding[edit]

Hey Cunard,

Thanks for weighing in on the AfD debate for Catchword Branding. When the article was deleted, I was making some major edits to the page. It wasn't clear whether the edits were related to the speedy deletion of the page, but it seems unlikely as the reason was A5 - lacking notability. I'd like to finish making the rest of the edits, such as a list of notable names they've created, services they provide, and other projects they have. Do you think that it makes sense to make all of these edits now, right after their page has been undeleted? I have sources, but I don't want to give someone else a reason to delete our page again. Any advice you could give me would be much appreciated, as I'm new to Wikipedia.

Jrendleman (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catchword Branding.

Hi Jrendleman. Feel free to improve the article, but make sure to use only reliable sources, maintain a neutral point of view, and to not do original research. Catchword Branding has been established as notable, so it should not be in danger of deletion. But it may be renominated for deletion in the future if people think the article is too promotional. Good luck, and thank you for your work on the article! Cunard (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cunard,

I've been making some more edits to Catchword Branding and I was wondering if it would be possible to change the displayed title of the page to make it more precise. Technically the name of the business is just Catchword and they are a branding company. Thus, I thought it would make sense for the displayed title to be Catchword (Branding Company). I looked at this page and tried using the DISPLAYTITLE:Catchword (Branding Company) magic words (with the brackets, of course) but it wouldn't change the title. Do you know if it's possible to change the displayed title a different way? Thanks! Jrendleman (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jrendleman (talk · contribs). I've moved the article to Catchword (company) using the move button at the top (next to the "history" link). I have disambiguated the name using "(company)" Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies):

When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)).

Cunard (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Greenhouse Software[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Greenhouse Software, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. . Shlok talk . 06:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of RFC's[edit]

Hi Cunard, It looks like all the RFC's you have added have been removed. I did some yesterday and was going to do a few more today. But since they are gone, Im not sure if I should do them. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the close requests and opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#I have restored close requests removed without consensus. There is no consensus to remove them. Thank you for your continued excellent work closing discussions at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That disnt last long, they were removed again. I was closing one [4] and when I came back to mark it Done, it was gone along with the rest you added.AlbinoFerret 18:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that editor's edit warring without discussion on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#I have restored close requests removed without consensus is disappointing. Even though they were removed, I recommend not letting that get in the way of your closing the RfCs if you still plan to do a few more today. I've asked Drmies to take a look. Cunard (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cunard, I will close them and move them back as they are done so they can be archived. IMHO its more WP:POINTY to remove them as it stops others from closing them and defeats the purpose of the noticeboard. AlbinoFerret 18:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the best solution for now to be able to continue closing the RfCs and not get into an editor war with him. You've made an excellent point about how though he's said my listing ANRFC requests his pointy, his behavior itself is WP:POINTY and gets in the way of work getting done. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snapvine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Widget (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) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika (singer)[edit]

There was a clear consensus to keep. There was no consensus for "TNT delete". Both of the editors at the ANI discussion supported retention. Please reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manika (singer). Cunard (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted, we had support for the concept that the current contents were absolute rubbish, and most of the keeps focused on the concept that the article's subject was notable. These two concepts are not incompatible. You're free, and indeed encouraged, to write a new article about the same subject; the point is that we need to start over. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
In reply to your comment here, there was no consensus that "we need to start over". Otherwise, the participants would have voted "WP:TNT delete", which they did not. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear: this is the solution closest to where the discussion was going. We count concepts and arguments, not votes. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 9#Manika (singer). Cunard (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another AfD[edit]

This was a pretty rough article, I found a lot of decent cites for it, you might be interested in my latest response. The nominator keeps asking for a single-bullet feature article that really is not required for notability in a Bio. Bronson Webb -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronson Webb 009o9 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. MichaelQSchmidt is the expert in film-related articles, so I've asked him to take a look before I weigh in. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


I'm listing them not primarily on the basis of notability, but of verified promotionalism. We can delete for any good reason, and at this time it's promotionalism which is the hazard, and there's only one way to discourage it. Our volunteers fixing the articles for the paid editors is counterproductive. I'm no longer doing it even in my key subject field of university faculty. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are far too many COI editors writing promotional articles such that it is unlikely that deleting promotional articles will stem the flow of promotional articles being written. I choose to rescue promotional articles on notable topics because I think they ought to be covered in the encyclopedia.

It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decide whether articles should be kept by following Wikipedia:Notability, which says:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

If a topic meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and is not excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I believe it should be kept.

Cunard (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's competing forces here. We want good content, we want less mopping. The only problem with BOGOF paid editing is it increases supply/value. I have no easy answers but admire Cunard's work. Widefox; talk 02:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think deleting these articles will lessen their incoming flow. I've observed that persistent COI editors are unlikely to get discouraged by deletion. So I decided to make the best of the situation by supporting deletion of non-notable topics and improving notable topics like The Next Internet Millionaire. Thank you for your kind words about my work. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The real problem is we currently set up paid editors and clients for short-term success but long-term failure. You're providing an alternative that they can hire anyone and get a BOGOF good article. I'm not happy asking volunteers to subsidise the market. I'm guessing we can't delete before they get paid currently. Raising the bar somehow seems urgent e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_(company). Widefox; talk 03:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm about --><--- this close to suspending my editing in protest unless this BOGOF behavior can be curbed (great name for it by the way Widefox). Tired of having sleazy PR / SEO hacks make hay from my volunteer work. Hey, come to think of it, maybe a blackout day is a good idea. However, apologies to DGG, I'm not going to fight the AfDs one at a time, it just isn't worth the angst to me. Maybe I'll go away for a couple of months and see what has happened in the meantime. — Brianhe (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Briane, unfortunately they do have to be dealt with one at a time. Even for the orangemoody case i was not really in favor of the mass deletion, but almost all of those working on it felt otherwise-and in that particular case there was real reason for making an impact, so I did finally agree with the majority. The individual circumstances do have to be considered. For example, I just found good reason to agree with Cunard in his evaluation of a afd on an article of this nature. (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Late-Deafened Adults. No one person has to deal with them all, but the only way to maintain standards is to for all experienced people here to look at a reasonable number. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Rewriting the spammers' biographies for them hours after they are nominated for deletion is counterproductive. I don't want to have anything to do with the nomination or the rewrite, if this is what happens. Brianhe (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In the orangemoody case a lot of the articles were known copyright violations, and the others were probably from the same source. They were taken from declined AfC articles. In that case it was a requirement that they be deleted. Chillum 04:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Intra-WP copying only needs to be attributed. (there is of course a technical problem when the version has been deleted, butthe material is stil lavailable on good-faith request) Deleting articles on that basis is in my opinion a misuse of our copyright policy, and opposed to the general principle that we fix such problems when the way to do so is obvious.


And @DGG:, In my reading of the rules at WP:CANVASS, this is a glib interpretation of the rule and is selective canvassing because it is known that the pinged editors are supporters of a 'keep' verdict. Such users should be left to find out about the AfD themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why @ me, it should be @ the person doing the pinging. I do not consider it wrong. Quite the contrary. People active in a previous afd ought to be notified, and I wish this were done automatically in either case. I think it ought in fairness to apply to the person accepting an AfC also, or placing or declining an earlier speedy or prod. And I have always said that we ought to be notifying every regular editor who has made major contributions to an article, though doing this is not a matter of straightforward automation. Notifying everyone involved in something is always fair, even if it does not always give the result I might prefer.
I do not want our panic at the suddenly greater recognition of a problem which has after all been here for years cause us to adopt measure that bypass procedure, or prevent careful consideration of individual instances. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I pinged you, DGG, just to invite your opinion. Thank you for your comment - I've actually learned something important: that I can now ping people to an AfD without fear of reprisal. I should have realised this years ago, but I guess I am too timid sometimes with my interpretation of the rules. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As you know very well it depends who you ping. Had various people commented , and you pinged only the ones who agreed with your position, it would be a different matter. But in this case the ed. pinged everyone, not just those who said keep. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Just passing by, but I hate to see the worst-policy-ever (CANVASSING) being mentioned. The more eyes, the better; we just need to ensure the pings average to non-partisan audience. Of course, how to achieve that... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


All good. Can you restore my comment (from what looks like an ec edit merge error) [5]. Regards Widefox; talk 02:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the edit conflict. Thank you for letting me know! Cunard (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Con-this and that[edit]

Please see WP:NCOMPANY for some proposals I've written (and see the background Signpost articles I linked, too), all inspired heavily by your deprods. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about your proposals. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Done. Let the chips fall where they may. Hope I didn't make too many mistakes. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies (talk · contribs), thank you for taking on this difficult discussion. As I said before, you're the only person with the gravitas to take this on, and I was right. :)

I think your close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification was eloquent, sensitive, and nuanced. That was an excellent close of a complex, contentious discussion. It wisely wasn't a sweeping close since the discussion focused primarily on Caitlyn Jenner, but it paved the way for having further discussions on whether MOS:IDENTITY should be modified. I've left three notifications at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close, and Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close to inform editors of your close.

Thank you again for your quality work!

Cunard (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I did agonize over it some, but it wasn't as difficult as it could have been. Once I realized that the supporters and the opposers for proposal 1 were on very different tracks I knew where to go. Thanks Cunard, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The result looks obvious now after reading your analysis, but it didn't look like that way before your close. For closing a difficult debate, that's the mark of a well-thought-through assessment and explanation. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion has started on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, for instance. Two editors are tweaking MOS:IDENTITY. If the discussion hadn't been about Jenner specifically it would have been a very different case. At any rate, I hope for more discussion, and I'm interested in you weighing in as well. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. I'll observe the discussion with interest. But I'll stay out of the discussion since I prefer to avoid hot-button topics. It's more enjoyable for me to participate in as few controversial discussions as possible. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cunard,

I'd like to request that you stop routinely dragging threads back from the archive to get a "closure" for them; it is rarely necessary or appropriate. When discussion on a subject wanes it is usually because there is no consensus for any action or the correct action has already been taken.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe closure reviews should be kept on WP:AN until they are closed. Without a close, there is no resolution to the appeal. For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Closure Review would have been archived with no result instead of being closed as "overturn to merge" one month after it was opened.

Just like all XfDs, DRVs, and MRVs eventually are closed, so should all closure reviews eventually be closed. Thank you for closing both of the closure reviews on WP:AN. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with this. To leave problems unresolved because there has been no action on them for a few days is not reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power[edit]


I see you responded to my comment at the AfD. By the time I saw it, the AfD was closed, but you deserve a reply. I think you misunderstood my point. As with any communication resource with no direct incremental cost to the sender (email spam being a classic example), people are sure to recognize its value and abuse it for their own commercial interests. This is not a new phenomenon, nor should it be surprising to anyone. What is new, however, is the degree to which the abusers have become organized and sophisticated in how they try to evade our policies. We are long past the stage of people not realizing they were doing something inappropriate; these are people who are fully aware of what they are doing and are going to great lengths to evade detection so they can make money. See, for example, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody). This is a serious threat to Wikipedia's reputation.

You are certainly free to invest your time where you see fit. I do hope, however, that you will consider the long-term damage done to the encyclopedia by aiding and abetting the efforts of those who would take advantage of us for their own gain. If somebody were coming into your neighborhood and vandalizing houses with spray-painted grafitti, would you be out there correcting their grammar? Or would you be helping to eradicate the problem?

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I "deserve a reply" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination) but not here on your talk page regarding Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 9#Manika (singer). In the first discussion, you're acting as an editor so are not bound by Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability to reply. In the second discussion, you were acting as an administrator and ignored both me and Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.

Graffiti is useless to homeowners no matter how much it is touched up. A non-neutral, poorly sourced article with COI origins becomes valuable to readers when it is rewritten into a neutral, reliably sourced article. There is no comparison.

The Joel Comm article was created in 2009. The paid editor(s) who worked on that set of articles then were paid six years ago and are long gone. They are unlikely to be affected by the deletion or retention of the article. So my work did not subsidize them. My work helped improve content for readers, which is the core reason for my editing Wikipedia. That you supported deletion of my hard work on a notable topic clearly shows that you do not believe I am "certainly free to invest your time where you see fit".

Cunard (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Cunard: However noble your attempts are to redress the COI/promotion in paid-for articles, the extent of this phenomenon, as evidenced by the Orangemoody affair, is so great that your efforts are unfortunately a drop in the ocean. What we are trying to illustrate is that there will be collateral damage - some articles worth keeping will be deleted, but it is for the greater good and the integrity of our encyclopedia and for the morale of our unpaid volunteers. IMHO, you would be doing a far greater service if you were to focus your efforts on identifying such articles and their creators and joining the campaign to get rid of them. Just my 2p, because at the end of the day you are indeed "certainly free to invest your time where you see fit". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Greenhouse Software[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A stagnating request for edit[edit]

Hi Cunard, you might remember me from the Ruse (book) article discussion you participated (and saved the day) in. I have a Template:Request_edit in for an existing article, Anthony Marinelli, on the talk page. A composer and all around great guy, the article had some incorrect information, he's refrained from editing his own article for a couple of years and I was brought in through the PR firm to document his pretty fascinating history. We've been working on his update for a while now, would you mind having a look? Details here: Talk:Anthony_Marinelli Thanks! 009o9 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Good work! I've copyedited the article draft and asked Drmies to take a look. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Greatly appreciated! -- 009o9 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Temp TBan[edit]

Thanks for asking, but it was very belatedly lifted [6]. Ironically, I'm too busy with off-WP work to even take advantage of the fact, and probably won't be able to return to either MOS or the affected article until after the TBan would have expired anyway. [sigh] It should have been lifted a couple of days after I filed the request and no one opposed it, instead of it being left so long, but so it goes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that the topic ban has been lifted finally. There was a consensus to lift it for several weeks but no admin stepped forward to close it. It's too bad you won't be able to take advantage of the overturned topic ban.

Thank you for closing the discussion, Aervanath (talk · contribs)! Regarding your comment at the closure request: "I don't think continuing unsupported sanctions is unjust no matter how little time remains." I think you meant:

I think continuing unsupported sanctions is unjust no matter how little time remains.

which I strongly agree with. :) Cunard (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert Article[edit]

Hi Cunard, I noticed you helped with your opinion on the deletion review for this article. How ever there was no decision in the end for the article. How does this article not pass general notability? I plan to work and develop this article more until it manages to get to the mainspace. Thanks for your comments and help with saving the article I have been working on for awhile. Is it written wrong? I don't understand Draft:Alex Gilbert --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRV says:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

I recommend asking Sandstein (talk · contribs) to exercise his discretion as DRV closer to treat the finding of "no consensus to allow recreation" as equivalent to a relist. I think there are strong arguments for a relist:
  1. {{db-repost}} does not apply because of improvements to the article such as the addition of new sources.
  2. New sources published since the AfD have surfaced. In fact, one source was published during the AfD. That disproves the AfD participants' contention that the coverage of the subject would be transitory. And Russian-language sources were provided.
Perhaps a relist would result in deletion. But perhaps it might result in retention. There is no way to know without a new AfD discussion. When new sources have surfaced and several good faith editors think they might establish notability (while others disagree), there should be a low barrier to a relist. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

With some of the editors they didn't even look at anything from the sources and said it is no different from the last time. It has changed a lot with more and more reliable sources. It is just getting silly I think personally. I just hope something gets resolved. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One Voice Children's Choir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Harmony (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) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Laura Branigan - Gloria.png[edit]

I invite you to FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD page real estate[edit]


Just a quick comment for you to do with what you will. I noticed that when you contribute to AfD discussions, you often helpfully include sources and quotes, but in doing so seem to use up as much space on the page as possible (or perhaps it's better to say "more than necessary" or "more than others do"). Although I typically value the substance, I also can't help but feel like it railroads the discussion through visual domination. To some extent when I see a wall of text I assume there's some overcompensation going on, or otherwise an attempt to overwhelm discussion. And, case in point, this certainly overwhelms the discussion (visually). I want to reiterate that I do think these contributions are positive and would rather have big blocks of text than nothing at all, but wonder if you would consider trying to condense the presentation? Putting more on single lines, minimizing line breaks, or maybe even using {{cot}}/{{cob}} to collapse the full citations and/or quotes? I understand this is a potentially touchy point/request, so understand if you'd rather just ignore/remove this message :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for the note, and I appreciate the kind words about how you view my contributions as positive. I'd prefer to keep commenting the way I've been doing. Putting more on single lines and minimizing line breaks would make the information less readable. Collapsing would make my research less visible and could cause the contents to be overlooked by AfD participants. I think the lengthy lists of sources and quotes should be acceptable because they reflect the significant amount of time I spend researching for sources. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, though I linked to WP:WALLOFTEXT, I wasn't making an assertion that your style of contribution is not or should not be allowed (I think any attempt to codify a rule like that beyond "try not to use more space than you need" would be more destructive than helpful). Like I said, do with it what you will, though your response does kind of support the idea that you're trying to draw a disproportionate amount of attention to your !vote (after all, there are many of us that often spent a good amount of time finding -- or failing to find -- sources, and that we don't take up as much space shouldn't give the impression that you're the only one who did so -- and indeed for those like me who can't help but think a wall of text is overcompensating, it may have the opposite effect -- though it's only speculation that anyone else feels the same way). Personally I think collapsing might be the best compromise, including all the detail you want without dominating the page, but I understand that isn't something you want to do. I'll leave it at that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In any event, thanks for your efforts at AfD. I certainly don't always agree with you, but I always appreciate !votes that demonstrably took time/effort. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
your response does kind of support the idea that you're trying to draw a disproportionate amount of attention to your !vote – I make lengthy votes that lay out the evidence for why a subject is notable or not notable so editors know precisely why I am voting the way I do. Using less space would make the reasoning behind my vote less clear. That it draws a disproportionate amount of attention to my vote is a side effect of my thorough vote.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branch FM, I listed three sources that a previous "keep" participant had added to the article. The "keep" editor did not explain why the sources established notability in the AfD, so the AfD nominator was unconvinced. I listed those sources and explained why they established notability and convinced the AfD nominator. Had I not explained my vote in detail, I doubt the AfD nominator would have seen why the sources establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks for taking the time to explain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! from Davey2010[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I just wanted to say a big big thank you for moving the Creative FM article and writing new info on the company,

To be honest I wasn't sure where to even begin with it so you stepping in and helping was a big help and it's extremely appreciated so thank you :)
(On an unrelated note please don't ever give up on your explaining AFD !votes - Had you not explained it in great detail the AFD would still be up so you providing the sources, quoting and explaining it did make change my mind so don't ever give up on that! :) )
Anyway thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 20:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! This is very kind of you. I appreciate your open-mindedness in reconsidering your position after I listed and explained the sources and your encouragement to me to keep explaining my rationales at AfDs in great detail. Thanks again! Cunard (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries you're more than welcome :), I've witnessed it plenty of times where you've explained your !vote in great detail and still the nominator persists on it being deleted despite the quotes and sources being there right infront of them! ... Some people on this site really do test your patience! Face-grin.svg, Anyway keep up the great work and thanks again for your help & for changing my mind :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that has indeed happened a multiple times and can be annoying. It reminds me of the proverb "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."  ;) Cunard (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Hey, I was looking for some Highbeam help again. I have the article drafted here, I was able to find these books sources here: [7], [8], [9], and [10], I am still concerned however that these may not be reliable. What is your opinion and can you find better sources. I am just look from solid confirmation that NORAD or NASA did have the classification. Valoem talk contrib 20:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)