User talk:Cunard

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



Good articles:

List of articles
I have created/rewritten:

Notes[edit]

AfD[edit]

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

Copyvio[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Question about a close[edit]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and helpful RfC close at Talk:The Harvard Crimson. I noticed that in the implementation part of your close you described the RfC as "the wrong forum". I'm concerned that when you put it as absolutely as that, you risk invalidating the RfC result, particularly because the issue was previously discussed at WP:CFD, but with no consensus, and the stated purpose of the RfC was to get input from more editors. There is no policy that forbids discussing categorization on article talk pages, or that requires that all such discussions take place at CFD – it's just that CFD defaults as the centralized place for such discussions. Would you consider changing "is the wrong forum" to something along the lines of "may be the wrong forum"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've updated the close to use the "may be the wrong forum" wording since I agree with you that no policy that forbids discussing categorization on article talk pages. Cunard (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that as well. I suspect that it saved me a bit of aggravation in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Putting RFCs on Wikipedia:Requests for closure[edit]

Hi Cunard. Thanks for doing this unappreciated task. When you add close requests would you be able to add them in date order (oldest initiated date at the top). It makes it easier to see which ones ideally need to be closed first. Thanks, Fish+Karate 12:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. And thank you for your hard work closing WP:RFCs and helping clear the backlog. Your work is very appreciated. Yes, the next time I post the close requests I will add them in date order to help you identify which ones are higher priorities. Feel free to remind me here if I forget to do that. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! Fish+Karate 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for helping me find sources the article Farberware is mainspaced. Valoem talk contrib 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I also finished Meade Esposito, is there anything you could add or correct? Valoem talk contrib 20:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made some copyedits to the articles. Just a reminder, when you quote or closely paraphrase from a source, make sure to use quotation marks as I've added here to comply with the Wikipedia:Plagiarism guideline and the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing supplement. Nice work on the articles! Cunard (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa[edit]

Can you find reliable non-PR sources for this? Only need 5 to 8 good sources. Valoem talk contrib 10:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). Here are some sources about Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa:

  1. Tropiano, Dolores (2008-02-08). "Massages, spa treatments can help you de-stress". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15 – via Newspapers.com.  Free to read

    The article notes:

    The spas offer many options to de-stress, including Swedish massage, couples massage, foot massage and facials.

    The signature massage is the 50-minute hot stone massage, which features hot river stones applied to the body. The stones allow for deeper massages, which traditionally require more pressure.

    ...

    Hand & Stone Spas feature relaxing stone waterfalls, contemporary furnishings, subdued lighting, candles and soft music.

    The spas were founded by John Marco, a physical therapist who saw a need in the marketplace for high-quality, convenient and affordable massage spas services under one roof.

  2. Parmley, Suzette (2016-01-19). "How Hand & Stone massage chain snared Carli Lloyd to rep the brand". Philadelphia Media Network. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    [Carli Lloyd] signed a two-year deal with Hand & Stone in November to be the firm's first national spokeswoman. Print and online ads began Jan. 1, and Lloyd is set to shoot TV commercials in Los Angeles on Sunday that will air in March.

    ...

    After her World Cup performance, sports agents and marketing experts predicted that Lloyd had to capitalize on her fame quickly with her vast social media following. She has more than 500,000 followers on Facebook.

    ...

    Launched in 2004 by physical therapist John Marco, and now led by Leff, the company has 255 operating spas in 28 states and Canada. This year, it plans to open 70 more spas around the country.

    ...

    The company had more than $185 million in sales last year.

  3. Fry, Meg (2014-10-27). "Realizing his dream: Marco builds Hand & Stone into industry force". NJBIZ. BridgeTower Media. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    It all started back in 2004.

    After 25 years of working as a physical therapist for someone else, [John] Marco opened the first Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa in Toms River.

    ...

    Today, there are 170 Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa locations throughout the U.S. and Canada, with nationwide annual sales reaching about $140 million, capturing a nice chunk of one of the fastest-growing sectors in the retail service industry.

  4. Michaels, Laura (2017-10-20). "Hand & Stone Massage CEO Links Skincare to Sales Growth". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    Though it’s smaller in unit count by nearly 900 than the industry giant that is Massage Envy, Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa leads the segment in sales growth percentage for 2016.

    Hand & Stone’s 23.4 percent sales increase to $250 million moves the Trevose, Pennsylvania-based concept up to No. 223 on the Franchise Times Top 200+ ranking, a jump of 22 spots for the brand with 307 locations. Like many CEOs we interview for the annual Top 200+, Todd Leff doesn’t attribute that growth to any single thing Hand & Stone did in 2016 but rather a combination of things in the works in recent years.

  5. Bergman, Becky (2007-11-01). "The beauty of it all". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    Launched in 2004, Hand & Stone Massage Spas boasts its high-end luxury services, including hot stone treatments, at affordable rates. So far, the franchisor has three units, 14 under development and more than 100 planned openings for 2008.

    ...

    Each franchise unit, which costs between $187,000 and $389,000 to launch, employs a combination of customer service staff and experienced massage therapists.

    ...

    Stein says Hand & Stone relies on its signature hot stone massage and repeat business for its significant revenue stream. The company also offers membership packages that start at $60 per month. Massage therapy can run from $39 on up for 50 minutes or more with a membership.

  6. Abdur-Rahman, Sulaiman (2010-07-08). "Hand & Stone Massage opening location, and headquarters, in Hamilton". The Trentonian. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    Hand & Stone is a privately held corporation that was founded in 2005 by experienced physical therapist John Marco. The corporation comprises a chain of 30-plus massage and facial spas across the country and Canada. The corporation's newest facility opened June 6 in the Hamilton Marketplace.

    ...

    Company CEO Todd Leff said, "The concept is you walk in and it's a real spa, and you look out and Walmart is 1,000 feet away."

    Hand & Stone's name is a reflection of normal massages by hand and the company's delivery of "hot stone" massages in which heated rocks are used to facilitate the massage process, which Leff said "feels really awesome."

  7. DeGrassa, Peg (2017-01-11). "Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa to open in Brookhaven". Delco News Network. Digital First Media. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    Hand & Stone offers a variety of massage styles, including Swedish, Sports, Deep Tissue, Pre-natal, Trigger Point and Hot Stone. Hand and Stone Facial treatments are performed by licensed estheticians and tailored to each individual’s needs or skin concerns. The spa carries full lines of Dermalogica products, as well as the ClarityRx Clinical Skin Care line. Hand & Stone also offers exfoliations, including dermabrasions and peels, as well as professional hair removal, aromatherapy, scalp massage, hot towel foot exfoliation, cold stone face massage and hand therapy.

    ...

    Hand & Stone’s mission is to bring affordable massage and facial services to the masses. Launched in 2004 by physical therapist, John Marco and now led by franchise veteran Todd Leff, Hand & Stone offers preferred pricing for members, with $49.95 hour-long massages and facials. Membership is month-to-month with no contract. Membership, recommended but not required of customers, offers points in a nationwide Member’s Rewards program. All memberships are honored nationwide at any Hand & Stone location.

  8. Wexler, Ellyn (2014-09-04). "New Spa Offers Peace of Mind and Body". The Town Courier. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15. 

    The article notes:

    Seeking to make therapeutic massage and facial services accessible and affordable, physical therapist John Marco founded the first Hand & Stone in 2004, then franchised it two years later. The company’s business model specifies a monthly membership fee that entitles the client to a one-hour massage or facial (including time for dressing and consultation) as well as additional services at reduced rates.

    By year end, Hand & Stone will have nearly 200 locations in the U.S. and Canada, with 50 set to launch in 2014 and another 50 planned for 2015. The Kentlands spa will be the second in Montgomery County; an Olney location opened in February.

  9. Willis, David P. (2008-01-18). "Massage spa owner saw solid opportunity". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2018-04-15. Retrieved 2018-04-15 – via Newspapers.com.  Free to read

    Clip of the second part of the article: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19269270/asbury_park_press/ (archiveurl).

    The article notes:

    When physical therapist John Marco started the Hand & Stone Massage Spa in 2004, he foresaw a chain of massage spas across the country.

    ...

    Based in Toms River, Hand & Stone Massage Spa has gone national — with franchise locations open in New Jersey, Arizona and Tennessee, and plans to open spas in at least four more states this year.

    ...

    The staff at Hand & Stone performs traditional Swedish massage and hot stone massage. Therapists use smooth river stones, heated to about 125 degrees, in their hands to perform the massage.

    Before starting Hand & Stone, Marco was a private-practice physical therapist. He worked in that field until 1981 but studied the massage-therapy industry over the years.

    ..

    His family helped him come up with the business' name. Marco had found that many other potential spa names (and their Web sites) were already taken.

    ...

    Hand & Stone opened its first company-owned location in November 2004 in Toms River, followed by a spa in Spring Lake Heights a year later. The Spring Lake Heights location was sold in October 2006 to Maria Cermatori, who became the first franchisee.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Complaint of user SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) for page Ambarish Srivastava[edit]

Respected Sir,

Look like SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) had some issues with me or article named Ambarish Srivastava from the very beginning since the article was created, he also had previously deleted the major part of the article intentionally after this page was approved and uploaded in main space by deletion review.

Since the Third Opinion received in 2011, there has been no editing in the form of a poet in this Wikipedia page and neither there was any spamming as a poet. Even then, on December 23, 2017, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs)has made it a stub by removing about ninety seven percent of this article without any genuine reasons. Not only this, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) has even tagged the transaction of dollars symbol on this page without any concrete proof, it appears that he has some issues with me or this article. So please restore this deleted part and direct the SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) to stay away from this Wikipedia page. Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the transaction of dollars symbol on this page and restore that deleted part and direct the SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) to stay away from this Wikipedia page.Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I need your help to save the article Ambarish Srivastava at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ambarish_Srivastava_(2nd_nomination). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spjayswal67 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

XNXX[edit]

I currently have this draft. I am not sure if it is possible to find some good sources do you know what source are good for this type of website? Valoem talk contrib 12:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Valoem (talk · contribs). Here are some sources about XNXX:

  1. Mazières, Antoine; Trachman, Mathieu; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Coulmont, Baptiste; Prieur, Christophe (2014-03-21). "Deep tags: toward a quantitative analysis of online pornography". Porn Studies. Routledge. 1 (1–2): 80–95. doi:10.1080/23268743.2014.888214. 

    There is a preprint of the article available at http://sexualitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PORNSTUDIES_preprint.pdfWebCite. The published article is under a paywall at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23268743.2014.888214.

    The article notes:

    According to several website popularity rankings, we identified the two most popular pornographic video hosting platforms – XNXX and XHamster. We created a dedicated computer program to carry out the navigation and data collection tasks required to gather the metadata for all available videos on both websites without downloading any videos.

    ...

    The XNXX and Xvideos domains are the oldest among the most popular porn platforms, dating from 1997. In July 2013 the websites claimed to host more than 3.5 million videos. We gathered information for 1,166,278 videos that were uploaded before March 2013. XNXX releases very little data about the videos it hosts.

    ...

    By allowing uploaders to index their videos with numerous keywords, XNXX possesses a corpus of over 70,000 tags. Among the most common pornographic platforms, XNXX is the only one to have such a corpus of descriptive keywords.

    ...

    As two of the most important pornographic platforms, XNXX and XHamster offer a representative sample for studying online pornography.

    ...

    XNXX has a bottom-up approach, letting uploaders choose their own words to index their videos, resulting in a list of more than 70,000 so-called ‘tags’. This system offers greater semantic variety to the viewers, facilitating the emergence of keywords and their combinations.

  2. Sullivan, Rebecca; McKee, Alan (2015). Pornography: Structures, Agency and Performance. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0745694845. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The book notes:

    Mazières et al. analysed metadata for almost two million pornographic vidoes hosted on the aggreating sites XNXX and XHamster. They found that the rule of the 'long tail' applies to pornography as it does to other forms of content on the Internet.

    ...

    The top ten tags on XHamster are …; on XNXX they are blowjob, hardcore, amateur, teen, cumshot, anal, brunette, blonde, pussy, and sex (Mazières et al. 2014, 87).

  3. Bond, John-Michael (2017-10-20). "The best free porn sites when you're on the go". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    If for some reason you don’t want to use a private browser option or any of the sites listed above, XNXX provides a tremendous mobile porn experience with a decidedly subtle name. This Flash-based site has free porn videos that load quickly, with easy search tags and sections in addition to all the options in its drop-down menu. XNXX: For when you want to watch porn on your mobile device, need a safe site, refuse to use a second browser or an incognito mode, and want a site with a name that doesn’t sound like porn when it autofills your address bar. That’s not a great slogan, but it works for us.

  4. "The 20 best free porn sites on the internet". The Daily Dot. 2017-02-22. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    3) XNXX If you are more into literature and prose, this porn site has an entire section dedicated to real-life sex stories. XNXX also has a wide range of categories and pornographic images if you just want to take a quick peek.

  5. Stecklow, Steve (2010-09-17). "On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    The Journal found that many popular children's sites are run by small companies or mom-and-pops, and privacy practices vary widely. Among the sites studied, the Journal identified one, y8.com—featuring kids' games with names like "Crush the Castle 2" and "Dreamy Nails Makeover"—that has had ties to a pornography site, xnxx.com, according to Internet registration records. Y8 installed 69 tracking files on the Journal's test computer. It also asks users to provide an email address to register.

    ...

    Internet registration records from December 2006 show that y8.com and a hard-core sex site, xnxx.com, shared the same mailing address in France, plus the same email address. Later, the sites changed their contact information and no longer share the same addresses. On the website games.xnxx.com, which bills itself as offering "fun sex games," there is a prominent link at the top and bottom of the page to "non-adult" games on y8.com.

    The y8.com employee, Olivier G., didn't respond to questions about who owns the site or its apparent relationship with xnxx.com. He wrote in an email that y8.com is "strongly against the collection and use of personal information." He also said "we don't do anything" with email addresses provided by users.

  6. Grauer, Yael (2017-01-01). "Porn Sites Should Be Using This Basic Security Feature". Vice. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    A huge swath of internet users like to look at porn in the privacy of their own home, but many probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about potential consequences of doing so over an insecure connection (that is, HTTP rather than HTTPS). Many adult sites are not only unencrypted by default, but don't even offer the option. In fact, only three of the top 10 adult sites—based on Alexa rankings—use SSL. Those three sites are LiveJasmin, Chaturbate, and Adult Friend Finder. YouPorn (#3), XNXX (#4), Flirt4free (#5), NudeVista (#6), Cam4 (#7), Liveleak (#8), and G-e-hentai (#9) still have a ways to go.

  7. Spitznagel, Eric (2014-08-14). "Who Actually Pays for Porn Anymore? An Investigation". Men's Health. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    And if you go looking for it, you'll find an abundance of pro-bono smut on sites like Pornhub, Redtube, YouPorn, ApeTube, Spankwire, XNXX, KeezMovies, Xtube, et al.

  8. Strausbaugh, John (Summer 2004). "R.U.R. or R.U. Ain't My Baby". Cabinet Magazine (14). Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    Because of the sheer volume of content, and some admirably conscientious efforts on the part of providers to cater to the widest possible array of user fetishes and tastes, the universe of Internet porn is strictly organized into a system of discrete subsets with a regimentation any Cartesian would admire. This site is for those who want to see only teens, that one for those who have a taste for older women (MILF, or “Moms I’d Like to Fuck”), and so on. It’s all been tagged and taxonomied for ease of referral. (See xnxx.com for an example.)

  9. Jones, Maggie (2018-02-07). "What Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04. 

    The article notes:

    Imagine that you are a 14-year-old today. A friend might show you a short porn clip on his phone during the bus ride to school or after soccer practice. A pornographic GIF appears on Snapchat. Or you mistype the word “fishing” and end up with a bunch of links to “fisting” videos. Like most 14-year-olds, you haven’t had sex, but you’re curious, so maybe you start searching and land on one of the many porn sites that work much like YouTube — XVideos.com, Xnxx.com, BongaCams.com, all of them among the 100 most-frequented websites in the world, according to Alexa Top Sites.

Cunard (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:MacroGeo[edit]

Hello, Cunard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "MacroGeo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 18:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your RfC close[edit]

Your closing statement here is improper. One does not count votes, but reads the discussion and takes into account the merits of arguments & sources, especially with a contentious discussion. The votes there openly based on an utter unfamiliarity with reliable sources' writing on the subject and purely based on dismissing the writings of plethora reliable sources (which are cited in article and more were linked on RfC), against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and favoring personal opinion over reliable sources. Closing the RfC by counting votes, not regard for the merit & sources presented that directly contradict the anti-sourced-content agenda pushed by the OP's RfC, is inappropriate; see the template above the RfC - "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." WP:CON: "does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote... consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". WP:NHC: "Please also note that closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."
You should redact your closing and take a look at the vast source-based evidence presented that contradicts the personal opinions given there on the subject, or if you prefer let another do that. Please see: WP:ACD: "Formal closures are a component of dispute resolution that help to resolve disputes by summarizing the results of discussions. They usually include stating the consensus (or lack thereof) for the issues under discussion, along with a few sentences explaining why this is the case. ... Being a closer is a position of responsibility and trust, and should be approached both seriously and cautiously. Each close should be neutral and well-written, and should only be performed after careful analysis of the discussion in question. A poor close may be disruptive and can cause more problems than it solves. For especially contentious subjects, it can result in days or weeks of unnecessary debate before finally being overturned." WP:CLOSE: "Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. Here, adding the unresolved template may be a better option or informing all parties about the possibility of requesting mediation." May I ask did you become aware of the expired RfC at the formal closing request page? Lapadite (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a closing rationale that explains my assessment of the consensus in the RfC, which I found after Legobot (talk · contribs) removed it as an expired RfC. Here is a quote in the RfC from Snow Rise that in my opinion accurately describes the situation:

But given the fact that the !vote currently stands at 8:1, you might at least consider the possibility that your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is the one which is out of sync with community consensus and policy, not ours. Beyond that, even if you are certain that yours is the "correct"/more enlightened/appropriate editorial view here (and you can't be convinced otherwise), the pragmatic reality is that you still have a choice between A) having all of the content you want to add blocked as a consequence of the clear outcome of consensus, or B) moderating your approach and expectations just a little and maybe getting something. To be honest with you, because you are so far behind on this one (partly as a consequence of having very different views from the consensus and partly because of the way you have approached discussion here), I honestly didn't think you had much hope of moving the needle towards a compromise solution at this point, but (again, because I thought you were at least partially right on the underlying content issue), I was trying to give you a fighting chance to accomplish that. But if you would rather run your entire ship aground than accept anything less than 100% of your preferred version of the article, hey, that's your call...

I recommend following Snow Rise's advice. My closing rationale notes that there is no prejudice against opening a new discussion or RfC to discuss Snow Rise's compromise proposal so I suggest that as your next step. If you disagree with this approach and would like to contest the RfC close, please open a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as outlined at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures so that the community can review the close.

Cunard (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on the statement as requested per WP guidelines, although I must note it is giving bias to invalid comments/votes, and I'll explain in the following. The issue is exactly personal opinion vs sticking to the aggregate of reliable sources - which do you think should be upheld? Do you think votes/comments giving personal opinion and based on the RfC's originator's opinion overrides WP PAG/WP:RS's contradicting said personal opinion? Do see a quoting of sources on comment "21:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" right below SPECIFICO's; sources literally stating e.g., "Keys holds forth on the tasks she's well-known for: singer, songwriter, producer, AIDS advocate, charity czar...her roles as composer and pianist” ; "emerged as a singer-songwriter-instrumentalist-producer” ; “This embrace of humanitarian issues in her songwriting was expected. Her philanthropic work is an integral part of her personality and a core part of her routine.”. As I alluded to earlier, quoting WP's PAG, votes/comments based on personal opinion as opposed to/disregarding reliable sources - what WP is based upon - are essentially useless in WP:PAG-based consensus seeking discussions; while arriving at some consensus (not unanimity) is "gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". As I also quoted, [emphasis mine] "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Again, look at the source-based evidence presented on the RfC (and also cited in the article) that contradicts the personal opinions of the RfC originator (removing reliably sourced info based on nothing but personal opinion) and comments/votes there based on the RfC originator's personal intention and phrasing of the issue on the legitimacy of the subject's integral roles; commentary there even includes speculation on subject's motivation to get involved in this or that (e.g., regarding philanthropy/activism/humanitarian work). Personal opinions, WP:original research, are not valid arguments; trying to disregard WP:RS and support personal opinion on subject with WP:WEIGHT to justify not wanting the other roles to be noted, is not valid; WP:RS themselves (as shown) regard those specific roles as integral to subject and her notability; the writing of WP:RS themselves more than support the due WP:WEIGHT of the integral roles. One can not consider valid comments/votes based on personal opinion of the subject, personal opinion that is directly contradicted by a plethora of WP:RS (which is what WP content is based on), as shown on the RfC and ignored. As you can see, the RfC created is on specific integral roles the subject is notable for (per WP:RS) that are cited in the article and which dozens more reliable sources support, as presented in the RfC discussion. Personal opinion votes there dislike including the other integral roles, despite WP:RS explicitly noting they are integral to the subject - WP:RS themselves attributing WP:DUE WEIGHT to the roles. The level of unfamiliarity with the subject/writings on the subject and utter disregard of reliable sources is further exemplified by the fact that even the subject being a pianist/instrumentalist/musician (take your pick) was (aside from Snow's hesitant comment) utterly disregarded as well, when the subject is widely regarded to have started out as, emerged and become (critically and publicly) known for being a classically-trained pianist and piano being intergral to her music, studio and live.
As a closer of a RfC on reliably-sourced content, you/anyone can't simply ignore all the reliable sources provided (so many that it dismissed by one there as "a wall of text") that strictly contradict the personal opinion remarked/voted in ignorance of subject and/or disregard of WP:RS. WP:V: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." It does not matter how many !votes vs for this or that when votes/comments are based on personal regard/WP:OR of subject and in disregard of WP PAG/WP:RS explicitly stating the roles in question are integral to subject's notability; personal opinion implicitly claiming WP:RS's are wrong and to be disregarded over preference for one's opinion. That is the issue anyone sticking to WP:RS and WP PAG would have: personal opinion on the subject being upheld over WP:RS's/WP:PAG. Surely, it's not hard to understand that, and not hard to cease trying to, bizarrely, twist following WP:RS's/WP PAG into some ego fight. Might I also note that - and I think this was mentioned in the RfC - it also does a disservice to readers to mislead them by omitting notable roles integral to the subject, which they can clearly see throughout the article, including the lead, that they are integral and WP:RS consider them as such (e.g, see #Artistry section); and it is also an odd read to (need to) have prose to the effect of: "...is a singer-songwriter. A classically-trained pianist, Keys was composing" and further down the lead (which naturally will be tweaked and expand over time as article improves & more info is added) more information on it and her notability as a producer (of her work & other artists) and humanitarian/activist/philanthropist, per WP:RS. Moreover, it is also odd when readers who look up other equally- more- and less-prominent artists (including those with GA and FA articles) can see most of them have their several notable roles noted in the lead opening, as per WP:RS. And this prominent subject, known (as cited throughout article) for those fundamental, interwoven roles per WP:RS, strangely does not. The focus by OP's RfC on removing them and in turn detracting inherent notability of the subject, against WP:RS's in favor personal opinion is stilly at best. And that is the issue. Lapadite (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The RfC discussed whether to include in the lead sentence five roles: singer-songwriter, pianist, music producer, philanthropist, and actress. Everyone agreed that singer-songwriter should be included and actress should be excluded. The disagreement was about three roles: pianist, music producer, and philanthropist.

Everyone but you determined that philanthropist should be excluded. Snow Rise wrote:

There are of course exceptions; some artists are known almost as much for their charity work as for their music, but I gotta tell you: your list above notwithstanding, I'm not sold that this is the case here, and that's mostly because of the "philanthropy" section I see in the article right now, which is highly suggestive of some non-neutral editing at work. There are nine paragraphs (nine!) in that section, much of it patched together from various random reference to a gala she once sang a song at, or a social campaign that she donated her image to. Most of the references do not really touch upon "philanthropy" as it is usually understood (donation of resources to charitable causes to keep them funded and operating) but rather on activism (speaking up publicly for issues she feels passionately about). And I don't want to oversell my position here; I very much do believe that Keys is engaged in social activism even to a degree that is substantially beyond that of your average musical icon. But is it, as a matter of weight, one of her primary claims to notability, such that it doesn't just have to appear in the lead, but the lead sentence? I just don't think see it in the sources I've reviewed generally, and I don't think your list makes as much of a splash as you feel it does, when you zoom out and look at the corpus of sources at large.

Snow Rise reviewed your sources and found them insufficient to establish that philanthropy is "one of her primary claims to notability, such that it doesn't just have to appear in the lead, but the lead sentence". Another RfC participant, Spintendo, agreed with Snow Rise's view and noted that "philanthropy is not what Ms. Keys is most known for". These RfC participants determined that the sources are insufficient to establish that philanthropy is an activity integral to Alicia Keys' notability. The only way that I as closer can override this determination is if their arguments are clearly non-policy compliant. My view is that this is not the case because evaluating sources is a subjective undertaking and reasonable editors can disagree about whether these sources are sufficient to establish that philanthropy is an activity integral to Alicia Keys' notability.

The remaining two roles are pianist and music producer. My close explicitly notes that there was no consensus in this RfC to include them in the lead sentence. The close further notes that Snow Rise's compromise proposal to include them received some support but had insufficient discussion, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss including them.

I recommend opening a new RfC to discuss adding pianist and music producer to the lead sentence. These roles were barely discussed in the RfC because option A included them with the roles actress and philanthropist which editors overwhelmingly determined were not integral to the subject's notability while option B excluded them completely. A new RfC will provide the opportunity to discuss only the pianist and music producer roles without the distraction of the philanthropist and actress roles.

If you would like to challenge this close, please open a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as outlined at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures.

Cunard (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Syria closure[edit]

I'm not sure how to raise this, but am asking you for advice as you requested closure on the RFC noticeboard of an RfC at Flag of Syria. This was closed by an anonymous IP who started editing six months ago. They seem to have miscounted votes and misrepresented consensus. Is it standard for IPs to close RFCs? Where should I raise this? Thank you in advance for your help! BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to the RfC. Hi Bobfrombrockley. I have not seen IPs close RfCs before. I am not aware of any existing discussions that have determined whether it is permissible for IPs to close RfCs. To raise whether IPs can close RfCs, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. To contest the close, you can file a close challenge at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as described at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures.

Cunard (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ENCPress 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Afd Hunting[edit]

Barnstar of Recovery Hires.png The Barnstar of Recovery
For repeated high-level source hunting and analysis Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nosebagbear (talk · contribs). Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for reconsidering your position after I posted sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestone Diamonds and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FuelCell Energy (2nd nomination).

Cunard (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zpizza logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zpizza logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Bedat & Co[edit]

Thank you for your hard work on making Bedat & Co a respectable article. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Edwardx (talk · contribs). I had removed a lot of the promotional material from Bedat & Co for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 18#Bedat & Co but even more promotional information was added later. I will keep an eye on the article to prevent that from happening again. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
On my watchlist now too. So much promotional editing going on; it is easy to miss things. Edwardx (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for adding it to your watchlist. Yes, lot of promotional editing is happening. I had to revert some promotional edits earlier this week at Talk:Medopad#Promotional changes reverted in September 2018. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
good list of research tools Tacticomed (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Tacticomed. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC close on Mohammad bin Salman[edit]

Hi Cunard, thanks for looking at the RfCs on this talk page. Point 1) of your closing statement on this one isn’t accurate however – you’ve said the consensus is that “names and sentences of individual activists should be retained in this article”, but the RfC was about the Human rights subsection, not the whole article. Would you mind rephrasing it to “retained in this subsection”? Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I based the "this article" part of my closing statement on the RfC initiator's question "Do the names and sentences of individual activists belong in this article or in Human rights in Saudi Arabia?" The RfC's title is about the "Human rights subsection" and I agree with you that is more precise so I have clarified the close per your request. Thank you for pointing this out. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)